Most of the left considered the election of an African-American president to be an historic moment back in 2008. Since that time, most probably have felt various senses of frustration and disappointment in the lackluster and largely cautious and centrist presidency of Barack Obama.
However, this week President Obama undoubtedly reminded many on the left of the still unfulfilled promise of his presidency, which is why many will undoubtedly hold their nose, given no other real choice, and vote to reelect the man.
In a very real sense, one of the few areas of true progress under President Obama has been in the area of gay rights, whether it was the refusal to defend the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, pushing for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the support of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
Still, I think for those on the left, the moment when President Obama told Robin Robert, “I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” it was one of those few electric moments in our lifetime.
The New York Times called it “a wrenching personal transformation on the issue.”
Perhaps it was. It certainly marks an interesting swing in the issue, just a day after North Carolina voted to ban same sex marriage, because previously even so-called liberal national Democratic figures had been reluctant to embrace the issue of same-sex marriage, even if many personally supported it.
According to the New York Times, “Advisers say now that Mr. Obama had intended since early this year to define his position sometime before Democrats nominate him for re-election in September.”
On the other hand, “Yet many of the president’s allies believed he would not do so, trusting instead in his strong support from gay voters for having ended a ban on openly gay people in the military and disavowing a federal law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.”
Some believe it was Vice President Joe Biden that “all but forced the president’s hand by embracing the idea of same-sex unions in a Sunday talk show interview.”
“I had hesitated on gay marriage in part because I thought that civil unions would be sufficient,” Mr. Obama said. “I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people, the word marriage was something that invokes very powerful traditions and religious beliefs.”
“The thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the golden rule – you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated,” he said. “And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids, and that’s what motivates me as president.”
“It grew directly out of this difference in visions,” President Obama said. “Are we a country that includes everybody and gives everybody a shot and treats everybody fairly, and is that going to make us stronger? Are we welcoming to immigrants? Are we welcoming to people who aren’t like us? Does that make us stronger? I believe it does. So that’s what’s at stake.”
The historic significance of this move cannot be understated.
I have often remarked on the momentum on this issue, noting the strong youth support of it. However, the public as a whole is still mixed, as exhibited by the polling that was done pre-announcement. In an election year, you would have thought that the President would be cautious, fearful of disrupting what appeared to be momentum in swing states toward his reelection.
The fact that he did this before his election and not after is significant.
The administration is quick to note this is a symbolic move – it is not that they are seeking to pass legislation. Others note that the “election still is all but certain to turn on the economy.”
However, the New York Times notes, “Public support for same-sex marriage is growing at a pace that surprises even pollsters as older generations of voters who tend to be strongly opposed are supplanted by younger ones who are just as strongly in favor.”
Still, as the Times points out: “Yet opponents include white working-class voters, among whom Mr. Obama has long had weak support, and many African-Americans, led by influential ministers in their churches, whose support is critical to Mr. Obama in swing states like Virginia and North Carolina.”
That the President would embrace this issue now shows perhaps a move away from strict political calculations by the President and, more importantly, ends the cautious dance that Democratic leaders have taken on this issue. President Obama paves the way for the national Democratic Party to embrace this issue which will likely force older liberal voters – currently somewhat reluctant – to embrace this issue.
The polling here is interesting. A USA Today/Gallup Poll shows that the public is split almost down the middle with 51% approving and 45% disapproving.
60% of the public indicates that this shift will have no bearing on their vote, but for the 40% that do think it will impact their vote, the poll shows by a 2-1 margin (26-13) voters say it will make them less likely to vote.
However, drilling down further, “More supporters of likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney feel more strongly about this issue than do base supporters of Obama.”
President Obama’s advisors have argued that this was not a political decision; usually when an advisor says that, you can bet it is precisely a political decision. In this case, we tend to believe him because we do not see a clear advantage. As we noted previously, the President probably had done enough for the LGBT community that he did not have to embrace their signature issue.
That makes this moment all the more historic. Generational demographics suggest this is an idea whose time will come. The President’s move simply hastens that moment.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
actually, within the last week, the news reported that gay rights supporters had publicly threatened to withold their campaign $ if Obama did not come out in full support.
This president continues to demonstrate his record-setting divisiveness with the American people. Never before has the county been as polarized and this flip-flop on his “opinion” on marriage is just another of many race, class, gender and sexual identity bombs he routinely throws based on his shifting political strategy.
My sense is that his handlers decided that he has lost the religious left vote (except for the black religious left that has proven it will vote for the black Democrat no matter how bad he is for them), and is better served trying to stregthen his white liberal and gay base going into the primary election. This shift also indicates the Obama camp is having to dig deep over worry about Romney winning the election. First Arnie Duncan and then Joe Biden announce their support for gay marriage, and then Obama conveniently does his bit on a TV interview. They played it like a well-scripted political movie. The Washington Post then jumped in to help by running a large multi-page front page article on some hazing incident that Romeny was involved in at age 17. Even though the alleged sources of this story deney it ever occured.
The shame here is that Obama didn’t initially come out in support of gay marriage because this should have been his principled position. Instead, he and his handlers played it on political strategy rather than principle. It is amother bit of proof that Obama is first a standard issue American politician lacking true personal convictions and leadership qualities. He is just another American pop idol, but has never been qualified to lead the most powerful and successful country in the history of man kind.
I am so done with this guy in the White House. He is cool, and he makes Americans stuck in a emotional loop feel a tad bit better about their country for some reason. I see it as a Jim Jones syndrome… voters seem to lack the ability for any rational evaluation of his real make up and performance. They have been drinking the Kool Aid. I think enough are figuring it out… finally.
[quote]I see it as a Jim Jones syndrome… [/quote]That is such a “cheap shot” that I am surprised you have ‘gone there’, Mr Boone… why not evoke Hitler, Svengali, Rasputin, Judas? Unless you lived in Bay Area during the rise and crash of Jim Jones and those of his followers who were mesmerized by him, knew some of the ‘victims’ whose families agonized over the fact that they could not dissuade their loved ones from following him into the jungle, with all his rampant paranoia, you should be seriously ashamed of that comparison.
While I did not hear or read the Obama’s statement that “personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” I have been struck by the following quotes and TV pieces that I have seen where Obama does not again say the “marriage” with regard to same-sex couples but rather speaks only of being treated fairly and equally. He repeated his previous choice for Civil Unions with full equal rights but does not explain why he abandoned this idea. It appears that Biden has again demonstrated his proclivity to “go over the front of his skis”, as Obama first opined. Obama’s professorial style is to separate his own thoughts(remember that he refused to press for single-payment health care while publicly stating that it was his personal choice)from his pragmatic political decisions. It is noteworthy that his public “conversion” has been made public just after a successful campaign fund-raising visit to Southern California. Obama has no executive power other than picking someone(with Senate confirmation) that would change the make-up of the Supreme Court and this is not likely in the foreseeable future. Obama’s rhetoric here may have been able to raise more campaign contributions but changes little else. I suspect that he will lose individual votes rather than gain but changes in State electoral calculations were considered and felt to not be significant.
It’s simple, Jeff. Obama is right, and I would rather vote for someone right than someone consistent. Not that Romney is much of either one. The only thing consistent about Mitt Romney is that he pays taxes at a lower rate than I do, and he wants to push that disparity even further. That’s not a reason for me to vote for him.
The Obama campaign probably feels that changing the voters’ subject from the economy to the issue of same-sex marriage works for them as the Euro again comes under serious threat with the potential of Greek State bankruptcy and its ripple effect through the stock market and US economy.
[quote]The fact that he did this before his election and not after is significant.[/quote]
Yes, very significant – a purely political move… as 91 Octane notes: “the news reported that gay rights supporters had publicly threatened to withold their campaign $ if Obama did not come out in full support.”
[quote]The Washington Post then jumped in to help by running a large multi-page front page article on some hazing incident that Romeny was involved in at age 17. Even though the alleged sources of this story deney it ever occured. [/quote]
Turns out the victim in question is deceased – how convenient…
[i]Me: “I see it as a Jim Jones syndrome…”
hpierce: “That is such a “cheap shot” that I am surprised you have ‘gone there’, Mr Boone… why not evoke Hitler, Svengali, Rasputin, Judas? Unless you lived in Bay Area during the rise and crash of Jim Jones and those of his followers who were mesmerized by him, knew some of the ‘victims’ whose families agonized over the fact that they could not dissuade their loved ones from following him into the jungle, with all his rampant paranoia, you should be seriously ashamed of that comparison.”[/i]
I think it is a valid point if stripped from the tragedy of all the immediate death. People are following and supporting this silver-tongued politician to their eventual demise also. Note your words: ‘followers who were mesmerized by him”. I am agonizing over the fact that I cannot dissuade others from following Obama down the destructuve path of a more socialist system.
Greg: So I guess then you would admit that Obama was wrong before he was right. Might he also change his miond on something you think he is right about to something you see as wrong? There is a huge list of things he has changed his mind on… more than any recent president. However, his followers and the media just make excuses for him… sort of like Jim Jone’s followers did. Do you like the Patriot Act? Do you like the fact that Obama was against the wars said he would pull out the troops and now has extended their stay? Do you like his cozy relationship with Wall Street? Do you like Guantanimo? This guy has you anbd others snowed. He says what he needs to get elected and ya’ll (I’m in SC right now) drink it like Kool Aid. Sorry.
Jeff – I don’t make excuses for Obama, I’m just going to vote for him. It’s not that he’s all that fantastic, it’s that he’s better than the other guy.
Greg, it has been said that left voters fall in love with their politicians. I think you might want to consider filing for divorce from this relationship… it is definitely not good for you… nor America. Identity politics won’t cut it any longer. Time act like a stockholder voting like you are hiring your chairman of the board… not selecting the next American Idol of Politics candidate.
Jeff – You’re not getting it. I’m not married to Obama, I’m not in love with him. All I’m doing is voting for him. Because he’s better than the other guy. Obama cut my taxes. Romney wants to cut his taxes. It’s that simple.
Jeff,
[i]“(except for the black religious left that has proven it will vote for the black Democrat no matter how bad he is for them), and is better served trying to strengthen his white liberal and gay base going into the primary election.”[/i]
For what it’s worth, with respect to same sex marriage, I believe black voters overwhelmingly voted in favor of CA’s Prop 8. I’m curious, in what ways would Romney be a better choice for black Americans?
As for the political calculations, is it clear that his sentiments regarding same sex marriage will benefit him politically this election? Are there figures suggesting Obama’s sentiments will help him in key swing states?
The Obama administration has made some serious steps in the direction of complete equality for the LGBT community. His presidency has been hands down the most “pro-gay” in history. Obama and other cabinet members vocalizing their belief that same-sex couples should have the same rights as opposite sex couples is fairly consistent with the policy decisions they’ve made in the president’s first term.
[i]“The shame here is that Obama didn’t initially come out in support of gay marriage because this should have been his principled position”[/i]
If he has held this belief the entire time and neglected to make if public, well that bothers me personally. However, if you’re assertion is correct…WOW, a politician has compromised his principles or held out on something for the sake of gaining a second term?!
Frankly, that could be representative of an unprincipled leader…or perhaps a pragmatic one? In the “bigger picture,” what’s better for LGBT rights…Obama reluctantly not shouting from the roof tops that he’s in support of same sex marriage earlier (when should he have, by the way), which may lead to a second term…which would permit him more time to work on LGBT equality. OR, coming right out in support of same sex marriage at a time when his sentiments could jeopardize his election/reelection and thus possibly lead to a presidency of another who will vow to not advance LGBT rights and take us in the opposite direction?
If Obama calculus regarding the timing of his same sex marriage comments means he gets reelected and can therefore further advance LGBT equality in America…that seems like a wise decision regardless of whether you find that principled.
Jeff wrote, [i]it has been said that left voters fall in love with their politicians. [/i]
By whom? For sure, the support of Obama has nothing to do with his record in office, policy making and wanting more of the same in the next four years…it’s all about the “love.”
Jeff Boone
“destructive path of a more socialist system. “
As always, this depends upon your belief that a more socialist system is destructive. The issue is destructive for whom? Certainly, if you believe that the most important criteria for judging success is economic excess, then a socialist state is “destructive”. If you believe that being, for example,number one in medical care expenditures while ranking 35 in over all public health measures behind virtually every comparable modernized state with their more
“socialistic” models is destructive of our future, then perhaps a little “socialism” would be a welcome change.
SFMan… with all due respect, I think your logic embodies much of what is wrong with our country today. It is one thing to change one’s mind due to new information. But Obama did not cite new information. He changed his moral view. Which says he is not really a person with strong moral convictions. if there is one thing I can pooint to as being wrong with our country it is the lack of moral compass. So we have a president that will change his moral view for political outcomes. That is reprehensible. Yet, you defend it.
It says t me that it does not matter how you get what you want as long as you get what you want. How has that mindset worked for us lately?
Leadership requires steadfact moral convictions with a mind open to hard facts.
Jeff: I support Obama because I agree with his policies, largely share his values, and couldn’t vote for any of the Republicans who were running.
[i]”There is a huge list of things he has changed his mind on…”
[/i]Yep, that is absolutely true. Oh, wait, I thought you were talking about Mitt Romney.
Your Jim Jones comparison is despicable.
The entire country is making the same change that President Obama has made: a greater acceptance of gay people and recognizing that they deserve full rights. Once you get to know gay people, work with them, have them in your family, you realize there is no reasonable moral basis for withholding rights from gay couples. I think Dick Cheney came to the same position because his daughter is gay. What Obama cited in that interview was, in fact, new understanding. That there are gays in the military, gays on his staff; that his daughters have come to know gay people. And that he cannot continue to see any reasonable basis for treating them differently.
The inability to change a position after reflection and interaction with those who are affected by a policy would indicate a total lack of empathy. If you feel morality should be divorced from empathy, then you are valuing dogma over humanity.
Don, the entire country is more accepting of equal rights for gays, but not for changing the definition of marriage. See the state votes including CA. Obama’s change came after NC voters approved a constitutional amendment to keep marriage man-woman.
You can wish what you say is true, but the facts don’t support you.
Jeff,
[i]with all due respect, I think your logic embodies much of what is wrong with our country today[/i]
I didn’t say I agree with what is, essentially, the nature of politics. Assuming you’re correct and his opinion of same sex marriage was made publicly solely for political reasons…that’s not something unique to this president or the Democrats. One of the reasons I dislike politics is because everything is so calculated and politicians, minus those in locked districts and elections, say and often do what will get them elected and not what is “right.”
In this case, Obama is doing what I believe is the right thing. If his opinion all along has been in support of same sex marriage and he held out for political reasons…how is this illuminating…that’s how most politicians operate regardless of party…election and reelection are often the top priority, which is reflected in their public stances. If his holding out on making his all along same sex marriage views means he can get reelected and advance LGBT rights in a second term, that doesn’t seem to suggest he’s unprincipled to me…but a pragmatic man who wants to ensure all Americans are treated equal.
Do you honestly believe Romney has not changed his stance on issues for political reasons…moral or whatever they may be.
[i]It is one thing to change one’s mind due to new information. But Obama did not cite new information. He changed his moral view.[/i]
Changing his view? I thought he held this view all along and is only now stating as much for political reasons? Anyway, I believe Obama sited conversations with friends and coworkers as one example of his shift on same sex marriage.
[i]if there is one thing I can pooint to as being wrong with our country it is the lack of moral compass.[/i]
One can argue that Obama’s stance on gay marriage, however he came to it, is indicative of a man with a strong moral compass.
[i]It says t me that it does not matter how you get what you want as long as you get what you want. How has that mindset worked for us lately? [/i]
Again, I won’t argue that this mentality is not prevalent among the Obama administration and Democrats, but do you honestly believe Romney and Republicans are not doing the same thing?
Do you think Romney is a principled man?
JB.
[i]the entire country is more accepting of equal rights for gays, but not for changing the definition of marriage.[/i]
Which is morally acceptable? How can one be for equal rights while simultaneously supporting a law prohibiting same sex couples the right afforded opposite sex couples? Is that how equality is defined?
JB,
[i]See the state votes including CA. Obama’s change came after NC voters approved a constitutional amendment to keep marriage man-woman….You can wish what you say is true, but the facts don’t support you. [/i]
Individual states’ legislation and propositions are not always indicative of the nation’s stance. Does the polling suggest most American oppose same sex marriage? It seems pretty close according to what I’ve read.
Remember when states outlawed interracial marriage? I wonder what the polling suggested and certain states thought at the time the Loving decision came down?
SFMan, sameness is not a requirement for equal rights. I am not the same as a black woman, but I want equal rights for both.
“actually, within the last week, the news reported that gay rights supporters had publicly threatened to withold their campaign $ if Obama did not come out in full support.”
Can you post a link to your source of this info, I found nothing on google?
Jeff: the polling trend is obvious. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Polls_in_2012[/url]
I have never seen as rapid a change in public attitudes about a social issue as this.
Jeff,
[i]sameness is not a requirement for equal rights. I am not the same as a black woman, but I want equal rights for both.[/i]
Having the same rights is not required for equal rights?
I’m confused…you are not gay, but do want equal rights for same sex and opposite sex couples, then?
Jeff Boone
“It says to me that it does not matter how you get what you want as long as you get what you want. How has that mindset worked for us lately? “
I am not sure how you are attributing this mindset to Obama. But what is interesting to me is that you, who are
a staunch advocate of the philosophy of Ayn Rand, which is the model of ” the strong are entitled to everything they can take” should feel that this mindset does not work well.
It seems to me that one’s view of Obama’s statement in a positive vs negative light depends on how one frame’s the issue in one’s own mind. If you see the issue of gay marriage as one of basic equality and civil rights as I do, then one is going to appreciate Obama’s current stand. If one sees gay marriage as an attack on their religious beliefs or the institution of marriage, then they are not going to favor it. Having been raised a Methodist, and having not continued in that belief system due to what I see as apparent discrepancies between this belief system and the world as I now understand it, I am open to the ability of the individual to change one’s beliefs based on new information and new experiences. Perhaps I am wrong, but I feel that you are probably much more accepting of
Dick Cheney’s change in views based on his daughter’s orientation than you are Obama’s change. Or, do you see
both as equally duplicitous ?
Don, how many states have passed initiatives or legislation keeping marriage man-woman. Signs are that the trend for acceptance is reversing. Polls don’t tell the story because people will say the pc-correct thing in public and then vote their real conscience in private.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/same-sex-marriage-debate-many-of-obamas-top-fundraisers-are-gay/2012/05/09/gIQASJYSDU_story.html
You really believe that public opinion is not moving in favor of gay marriage? I see NO signs that trend is reversing. None.
How do you feel about it? You’re a conservative Republican. What was your view on gay marriage ten years ago? What is it now?
JB,
[i]how many states have passed initiatives or legislation keeping marriage man-woman. Signs are that the trend for acceptance is reversing.[/i]
Which you believe is morally acceptable? How many states outlawed interracial marriage at the time of Loving?
[i]Polls don’t tell the story because people will say the pc-correct thing in public and then vote their real conscience in private. [/i]
So the American public is hesitant to vocalize their opposition to same sex marriage to others for concern as to how they will be perceived?
[i]”Jeff: the polling trend is obvious.”[/i]
I agree that [u]the trend[/u] is obvious. A majority of younger people support gay marriage and every year a portion of the older folks who don’t are dying off.
That said, I think the polls on this question are perpetually overstating the support for gay marriage. It’s not just that every time regular voters have had the chance to vote on this question and every time they have opposed gay marriage. It’s that the polls prior to the votes suggested the outcomes would be closer and that far fewer people would vote against gay marriage. This was wildly the case this week in North Carolina, where pollsters said the vote would be close and it was not. It was also true with Prop 8 in California, where the anti-gay marriage vote was much higher than the polls had said they would be.
I think there are three likely explanations for this:
1) The polls are confusing public sentiment with voter sentiment. Maybe most people under 40 strongly support the rights for gays to civilly marry. But those people under 40 don’t care all that much, not enough to show up and vote. At the same time, older and more conservative people seem to care a lot more and they turn out at the polls. They vote;
2) I suspect political correctness is affecting the polls. I think a lot of people who are asked their view by pollsters fear telling them they oppose gay marriage. They don’t want to be seen as prejudiced. My guess is that this might account for a good 5-10% of the flaw in the polling; and
3) I think the pollsters are sampling badly. They are using traditional samples and that has caused them to underestimate the number of serious churchgoers and rural voters who will show up to vote against gay marriage. Many of these voters don’t normally vote. But on an issue like this they will. And the pollsters are treating them as if they are not dependable voters, which may be true in a gubernatorial contest, but less so in a “morals” contest.
Rich – Legalization of gay marriage is a lot like abolition of the death penalty. It’s almost always only after the laws are changed, that a majority of voters eventually favors the reform.
Which is what leadership in a constitutional, representative democracy is all about. This is a major reason that representative democracy, and constitutional review, can work better than simple direct democracy.
[i]”Rich – Legalization of gay marriage is a lot like abolition of the death penalty.”[/i]
I see your point and it makes sense.
But that does not mean that current voter opinion is being measured accurately.
I think this same kind of underestimation of the conservative viewpoint probably occurs with abortion. Most polls I have seen say public opinion on abortion in most states is strongly pro-choice. And I have no reason to doubt that. But when voters weigh in, I think the right will turn up in greater numbers and will probably be undercounted in advance of a referendum.
There isn’t any one definition of public opinion anyway. Every separate ballot measure and every separate survey measures something at least slightly different, in some cases very different. Many American citizens aren’t even eligible to vote. Many others are eligible but not registered. Yet others are registered but don’t vote. Others may or may not vote but are too busy for surveys. All of these discrepancies have systematic biases. A ballot measure has no particular scientific virtue over any other measure of what enfranchised citizens really think; the only difference is that, by design, it has the force of law.
It’s more-or-less clear from surveys that most Americans were against gay marriage in the 1990s and 2000s, but that opinion is so strongly generational that one state after another is going to flip in the next decade. So it is particularly dubious to ban gay marriage now with a constitutional amendment — it will come to be graveyard democracy.
[url]http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/11/05/support-for-same-sex-marriage-by-age-and-state/[/url]
[i]So it is particularly dubious to ban gay marriage now with a constitutional amendment[/i]
And yet, that is what Mitt Romney advocates and the Republican party supports.
Don – You were saying the other day that you would love it if Mitt Romney (or maybe someone else like him) succeeded Yudof as president of UC. I want to respond to that with two points. First, Yudof’s salary is 30 milliRomneys. Second, the wages at UC that are in any real sense above market are those of its lower-paid people, e.g., the janitors. Most UC faculty are not unionized and are only paid about the same as faculty at other public research universities. They are also recruited from the entire country and the entire world, not from California; UC clearly competes with other universities in hiring. Demanding big wage concessions from faculty is an escape from the market worthy of DACHA, and even a Mitt Romney as UC president wouldn’t do that.
[i]”So the American public is hesitant to vocalize their opposition to same sex marriage to others for concern as to how they will be perceived?”[/i]
Absolutely. The gay-rights activists are the most hostile and intolerant of folks that disagree with them. They have proven that they will destroy lives and careers of anyone that stands in their way.
I separate this issue between heart and head:
Heart (Pro-Gay Marriage):
-Two people that love each other should be treated with common decency and respect by all.
-People deserve happiness no matter what their sexual orientation.
-It feels good to see the joy experienced when a gay couple marries.
-Gays can make wonderful parents. There are a lot of children that need loving households and gays can provide it.
Heart (Anti-Gay Marriage):
-Christianity, Judaism, and Islam… none support gay marriage. Devout and loving religious people that do not support harm of or material inequality of gays (those that do are not good Christians, Jews or Muslims and do not deserve any respect of opinion), also desire to protect the religious definition of marriage as being between and man and a woman. We should be considerate of and accepting of the views of these folks.
Head (Pro-Gay Marriage):
-It does not really materially harm anyone else, so why not allow it?
Head (Anti-Gay Marriage):
-Marriage as a social construct (and religious construct) is largely about growing families. Only because of medical technology can gays participate in procreation of offspring and growing families. This is a fundamental biological difference and warrants social and legal acceptance of a gay partnership being different. Hence it is rational and reasonable to allow that “marriage” be reserved for partnerships that provide natural procreation/reproduction benefits to society.
-A civil union that provides all legal rights and protections similar as marriage should be an acceptable solution. Gay marriage will never be the same as a traditional loving man-woman marriage. For example: The child will have two mommies or two daddies. Couples introducing themselves will say: “Hello, I would like to introduce my partner” instead of “Hello I would like to introduce my husband… or wife”. Nuanced or not, difference is difference but does not need to be more or less. Pushing for more than civil unions with equal protections and rights is a sign that there is a hidden agenda in the gay marriage movement to engineer society to a more secular-progressive worldview of anything-goes sexuality. It also takes another step toward continued marginalization of religious views about American life in a time of severe moral decline.
-Children need traditional mother/father role models to untangle the confusing web of human sexuality in their childhood development. Lesbian mothers cannot relate to what a straight son will go through, and neither can gay dads provide a woman’s introspective to help his daughter deal with her evolving straight self. Having to rely on outside role models is another difference.
-Next step (already happening) forcing private religious organizations to accept gays and gay marriage or suffer increasing legal and social consequences from the secular-progressive armies bent on reshaping America away from its moral traditions.
– There is no material harm with equal civil unions. The only harm with a seperate but equal definition of gay partnerships is emotional and it is very dangerous ground to start legislating to reengineer society based on emotions.
[i]”Children need traditional mother/father role models to untangle the confusing web of human sexuality in their childhood development. Lesbian mothers cannot relate to what a straight son will go through”[/i]
After re-reading this I would remove the word “straight”… although it is safe to assume that any gay parent might be able to related to a gay son or daughter better than would a straight parent on the topic of the child’s sexuality.
Jeff – You are making this way, way too complicated. It has been years since I’ve even met a gay rights “activist”. Besides, I’ve never been afraid of activists of any kind. For me the gay marriage issue is as simple as that my own sister has one. And not just any marriage, a great marriage. They are the best two aunts that our children could have hoped for. There is no “dangerous ground” in what they are doing at all. The only real danger comes from those who feel threatened by people like my sister and my sister-in-law, just because they don’t know them.
“Rich – Legalization of gay marriage is a lot like abolition of the death penalty.”
I agree that they are a lot alike but not necessarily in the way you describe. Both are feel-good positions which for most do not impact one directly, especially the death penalty since only a few people are subjected to the anguish of having a loved one executed. The death penalty abolition caught on early but has been stalled or reversed in many areas of the country(California being one). Defining same-sex unions as a “marriage” can follow the same trajectory as the death penalty.
Jeff,
[i]Christianity, Judaism, and Islam… none support gay marriage.[/i]
I believe there are followers and prominent leaders of at least the first two that support same sex marriage. Most likely there are followers and leaders of Islam who do as well, but none that come to mind right now.
[i]Devout and loving religious people that do not support harm of or material inequality of gays [/i]
Assumes first that equal right to marry is immaterial. For whatever reason, SCOTUS found that it was necessary to change the definition of marriage to protect the rights of interracial marriage and prohibit states from making law the prohibition of interracial marriage. Probably some interracial couples who would argue the right to marry is material equality.
[i]also desire to protect the religious definition of marriage as being between and man and a woman. [/i]
Marriage is a legal contract, which is issued by the state. Religious definitions should not matter in applying equal rights to all Americans when the definitions prohibit one group from attaining equality. Have you looked into the origins of marriage? It has changed a bit over time, FWIW.
Do you think there were religious sects pre-Loving who advocated against interracial marriage or would only wed whites in the name of their faith?
[i]We should be considerate of and accepting of the views of these folks.[/i]
I won’t accept a policy or law that discriminates against LGBT Americans regardless of the reasons. Individuals may hold their beliefs, but our laws should not discriminate based on one’s sexuality.
[i]The only harm with a seperate but equal definition of gay partnerships is emotional and it is very dangerous ground to start legislating to reengineer society based on emotions. [/i]
However, same sex couples are not guaranteed the right to civil unions under the Constitution and are not allowed civil unions in many states.
I don’t see this as an emotional issue, but an equal rights issue. Denying same sex couples this right perpetuates the notion that they are “different” from opposite sex couples and thus should not be afforded the same protected rights. When one’s government discriminates against gays through various laws, it reinforces the notion that LGBT Americans are second class citizens…different from the rest and not deserving the same rights as us “normal” Americans.
The only harm with a seperate but equal definition of gay partnerships is emotional and it is very dangerous ground to start legislating to reengineer society based on emotions.
However, same sex couples are not guaranteed the right to civil unions under the Constitution and are not allowed civil unions in many states.
As I have suggested before, the denial of substantive civil rights to same-sex couples is,IMO, a slam-dunk victory in the courts(certainly the Federal Courts). The gay political movement, for their own reasons, have chosen not to take this, IMO, certain path to Civil Union rights equality. U.S.women DID NOT achieve equal rights with men by demanding that the distinguishing term, “woman” be abolished so that they could assume an identical descriptive term to their male counterparts.
davisite,
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.
But women did demand the right to vote, and not some separate-but-equal right to civil surveys.
Jeff Boone
“The gay-rights activists are the most hostile and intolerant of folks that disagree with them. They have proven that they will destroy lives and careers of anyone that stands in their way. “
So you don’t count the lives and careers of gay military personel who were not allowed to serve their country because of their sexual orientation. Or how about the trauma to those not allowed to be at their dying partner’s bedside because they were not accepted as “family”. Or how about the children taken from a loving mother because her partner, their biological mother has died. Do you not consider these actions hostile and intolerant ? I would say the opponents of same sex marriage have wrought far more actual destruction on the lives of others than any
theoretical assault on the tradition of male/ female marriage.
[i]”But women did demand the right to vote, and not some separate-but-equal right to civil surveys.”[/i]
Greg: Last I checked they were still named differently and satisfied being separate but equal.
[i]Me: ”Christianity, Judaism, and Islam… none support gay marriage.
SFMan: I believe there are followers and prominent leaders of at least the first two that support same sex marriage. Most likely there are followers and leaders of Islam who do as well, but none that come to mind right now.“[/i]
I agree, but I was talking about the doctrine of the institutions… namely scripture and church position.
Note that I have differentiated bi-racial marriage and gay marriage in the simple biological function of procreation and also the sexual development of offspring to adults. Bi-racial couples are not constrained in either. Gay couples are in both.
[i]” I won’t accept a policy or law that discriminates against LGBT Americans regardless of the reasons. Individuals may hold their beliefs, but our laws should not discriminate based on one’s sexuality.”[/i]
One fundamental test of moral principles is harm. Scientists are trying like hell to come up secular theories to explain why a child almost instantly knows fundamental good and bad in terms of harm caused others; but until they do I prefer to see it as having a religious explanation. It is one basis of natural law. If there is no harm done to others, then it can pass a moral test. Civil unions with equal protection are not harmful. The arguments of harm are purely emotional-based (e.g., makes some people feel bad, or prevents them from feeling something they desire). However, there IS material harm going the other way (even though there are benefits too as I previously mentioned)… harm to children, harm to society with a natural biological family foundation, and harm to religious folk whose beliefs would be discarded and trampled on. We are better off as a people keeping gay partnership as labeled separate no different than we are better off continuing to keep men and women labeled separate. The challenges and opportunities are different and will continue to be different no matter how hard gay-rights activists try to force everyone to accept them as 100% same.
“Last I checked they were still named differently and satisfied being separate but equal.”
Gays are named separately too, this is a STUPID argument.
[i]”Christianity, Judaism, and Islam … none support gay marriage.”[/i]
Take Islam out of the equation for the moment. There certainly are liberal Christian ministers (not to mention millions of Christian parishoners) who support gay marriage. The same thing is true in Judaism: There are plenty of Reform Jewish rabbis and millions of individual Jews who support gay marriage. So your statement with regard to Christianity and Judaism, while true among the fundamentalists, is otherwise false.
As to Islam, I plead ignorance. Insofar as much of Islamic culture (seperate from the Muslim faith) is hundreds of years behind Western culture (which had to go through painful periods of reformation and enlightenment), it would not surprise me that there are no sects or no imams who are cool with gay marriage. At that same time, if the culture in Islamic countries ever liberalizes the way it has in the Western, modern world, then I would expect sects within Islam will also change their views about this topic.
Jeff,
[i]I agree, but I was talking about the doctrine of the institutions… namely scripture and church position. [/i]
Specifically, what do the teachings of Christ state regarding same sex marriage? Again, there are past religious doctrines that were discriminatory and are no longer law for that reason. Are there not? I don’t see why this is a solid argument against same sex marriage, which is a state contract. Legally, the state’s acknowledgement of the marriage is what is up for debate. Religions can refuse to wed or accept same sex couples if the wish, but the state should not prohibit it.
[i]Note that I have differentiated bi-racial marriage and gay marriage in the simple biological function of procreation and also the sexual development of offspring to adults [/i]
I didn’t see that in your previous post. Marriage isn’t a legal requirement to procreate nor is procreation required to validate a marriage. Certain religions and people may not like that, but it’s completely irrelevant regarding state marriage.
My point, about interracial marriage pertains to your comment that same sex unions granting the exact same rights as opposite sex marriage causes no material harm. I think it can and I believe interracial couples would agree.
In terms of family, if a marriage is important and valued when raising children, does prohibiting same sex couples with children from marrying adversely affect their children?
Also, it appears that six US states allow same sex marriage and eight offer civil unions that offer [b]some [/b]of the same rights as marriage. Looks like sixteen states constitutionally ban same sex marriage [b]and [/b] forms of same sex unions. While just six states constitutionally ban same sex marriage only, but still don’t offer same sex unions. Fives states have statues that ban same sex marriage and do not offer civil unions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg
[i]but until they do I prefer to see it as having a religious explanation. It is one basis of natural law. If there is no harm done to others, then it can pass a moral test. [/i]
You mean no physical harm? That consideration is a convenient means by which matters of equal rights are hashed out.
One reason why I think having same sex marriage instead of some civil union equivalent is necessary…discrimination and the notion that these people are different and should be treated as such. I believe much of the hatred, which physically harms and kills people, toward LGBT Americans is rooted in ignorance. This ignorance, which fuels the notion that LGBT Americans are weird, different, unwelcome, hated and so forth can, does, has and will continue to cause physical harm to LGBT Americans.
Passing laws that say “yes, same sex couples get this too for they are no different from you and I”…changes the narrative and mindset, which will slowly better the lives of LGBT Americans.
Allowing for state and federal discrimination of the LGBT community only reaffirms the ignorant views, which again are what have caused physical, psychological and emotional harm to LGBT Americans, that many harbor.
So, that’s why I think abolishing laws that perpetuate the ill-conceived notion that LGBT Americans are different from us because…”hey, our laws and policies tell us they are” will reduce the physical violence and terror LGBT Americans…our neighbors, community leaders, friends, sons, mothers, grandparents, etc. must endure too often.
[i]”Christianity, Judaism, and Islam … none support gay marriage.”
[/i]
As Rich has mentioned, lots of members of at least two of those religions are perfectly accepting of gay marriage. Plus 15% of Americans are secular, and that proportion is growing.
David, you lose the moral argument given there is no moral separation with a three person marriage and two person marriage if you are not willing to accept gay couples as different than straight couples… Unless you also support three person marriage.
Jeff,
Why do you keep gravitating further from the issues and points made instead of addressing them? We’re talking about same sex [b]couples [/b]having the same rights as opposite sex [b]couples[/b].
Rich – It is probably true that if you argue by percentages, that there are vanishingly few Islamic gay marriages compared to Jewish or Christian gay marriages. However, it has happened at least once:
[url]http://www.france24.com/en/20120402-islam-homosexuality-muslim-gay-marry-france-ludovic-mohamed-zahed[/url]
The interesting thing about this case is that gay marriage is not legal in France. Not because France is particularly homophobic, but because both France and the Catholic church are excessively bureaucratic. Sunni Islam, by contrast, has the same decentralized structure as Judaism. In other words, a Sunni imam can’t be fired from on high in the same way as a Catholic priest.
It’s true that many gay Muslims or imams who marry gay Muslims have to worry about threats. I would have liked to call that hundreds of years behind the times, but the assassination of Harvey Milk was not in fact hundreds of years ago.
Jeff:
There are lots of debates about the morality of polygamy. My feeling is that if polygamy should ever take a form other than the traditional abusive format, and if there should ever be a groundswell of people seeking state recognition for polyamorous relationships, then we will have that discussion. But it isn’t relevant to this topic.
Here’s one site that addresses the debate: [url]http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=2240[/url]
this is a matter of equal rights.
Major religions’ views on same sex marriage:
-The Catholic Church staunchly opposes it.
-The current view of Orthodox Judaism is that homosexuality is categorically forbidden by the Torah.
-Homosexuality is not only a sin, but a crime under Islamic law.
There are many Christians and Jews that support same-sex marriage despite this. My point was that the religions themselves are still fundamentally opposed.
SFMan: [i]” You mean no physical harm?”[/i]
Of course not. I mean material harm. Measurable harm. Let’s try this… you explain the measure of harm caused by gays with separate but equal civil unions, and I will then explain harm caused religious folk and children (I already have, but I will repeat it).
On your point about supporting gay marriage to combat discrimination… that is troubling to me and makes my original point about a hidden agenda. The two are separate. It is another case of social engineering… forcing people to bend to a secular progressive woldview despite the lack of harm holding the traditional view. I have absolutely zero tolerance for discrimination. However, I can separate emotional arguments from rational arguments… at least give both sides equal billing. Gays are no more worthy of this emotional argument than are religious families. I suspect you might not value the views of religious folk as much as you do secular progressive ideas. However, if I value them equally, and I do, I have a big problem with the religious family sitting down to dinner having to explain to their kids why gays can marry if it is forbidden. I like the idea of the parents explaining that gay civil unions are not the same kind of marriage but is given the exact same protection under the law.
Note… David opened up the polygamy point. You can’t have it both ways. If gay relationships are the same, then it opens up the box for defining other relationships as the same.
[i]”and I will then explain harm caused religious folk and children (I already have, but I will repeat it).”[/i]
I meant I will explain the harm caused to religious folk and children by gay marriage.
[i] I have a big problem with the religious family sitting down to dinner having to explain to their kids why gays can marry if it is forbidden. [/i]
The same way they will explain why some people eat food that is forbidden. Or marry outside their religions. Or work on Sunday or Saturday. They will say: “some people believe differently than we do.”
Your notion that some of your arguments are rational, while those of others are emotional, is not borne out by your own responses.
Don, the family argument is still emotional IMO. That was my point, there are conflicting emotional arguments. However, there are other rational arguments against gay marriage assuming we focus on creating a civil union mechanism that is equal in rights. That would be equal rights under the law with respect to the religious meaning of marriage to religious folk.
Getting back to Obama… he flops like a fish depending on the way his political winds are blowing. I don’t trust the man as far as I can throw him.
Also, we are the same age and I bet I could take him in a game of one-on-one hoops after I smoked a cigar. But I suspect Obama would take Romney.
How is that for a lame attempt at trying to change the subject…?
One more last point before I retire tonight (I am on the east coast)… the gay marriage movement is being pushed by a minority. I have gay friends and most of them don’t really care as long as they get equal rights under the law. A lot of people I talk to about this are bothered by it but feel they cannot say anything. I don’t have a problem speaking out about it because I am comfortable that I love and respect all God’s creatures no matter what they do in their private lived as long as they do not cause material harm to other of God’s creatures.
I think it is a shame that we don’t encourage more open discussion about the topic. It is polarized by the people pushing it. That is why they are often suprised about the voting results. I don’t doubt it will happen eventually, but the debate is critical so we sufficiently vet it. My expectation is that we will experience future challenges and I would rather we be thinking about them now, rather than denying them and then fighting again about them.
Change is difficult and nobody likes change rammed down their throat. It makes long-term enemies out of people that would otherwise be collaborative partners.
Jeff Boone
So since you changed the subject back to Obama and how far you could throw him because of trust on this issue,
how far did you estimate you could throw Cheney based on the same issue ?
Jeff
“That would be equal rights under the law with respect to the religious meaning of marriage to religious folk.”
Then what happens to ” congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.” ?
Religious people have a lot of seeming contradictions to explain around the dinner table. I must have frustrated my mom to no end demanding why it was ok to eat shellfish if the Bible said we couldn’t and why we were at war in Viet Nam if Jesus said we were to “turn the other cheek”. I fail to see how difficult dinner table conversations can be used as a justification for denying someone else’s equal rights. And whether or not you are arguing for that directly, that is the basis for the religious argument that this is a defense of traditional religious views.
Jeff,
I was wondering what the actual religious text states regarding same sex marriage.
[i]I mean material harm. Measurable harm. Let’s try this… you explain the measure of harm caused by gays with separate but equal civil unions[/i]
I believe I’ve stated the ways in which outlawing same sex marriage and other state and federal discriminatory laws reinforce the ignorant views of some towards LGBT Americans. These views are the reasons why LGBT Americans are subject to violence, as well as emotional and psychological abuse. Like I said, LGBT Americans have been murdered because of the hatred towards them. I think laws that provide discriminatory class distinctions based on sexuality perpetuate and reinforce the ignorant hatred of LGBT Americans.
Also, you can use “material harm” as a basis for whom is allowed equal rights protection under the law, but we all don’t have to. I do think there is harm done by not affording same sax couples the same rights on a number of levels as noted above, for example.
[i]On your point about supporting gay marriage to combat discrimination… that is troubling to me and makes my original point about a hidden agenda.[/i]
A hidden agenda to lessen and rid the nation of violence and hatred towards LGBT Americans…that’s troubling? First, I think same sex marriage should be a constitutionally protected right because it’s the right thing to do. Second, I do think that ridding our state and federal laws and constitutions of “LGBTs are different, so they don’t get the same rights as everyone else” will do a lot to “combat discrimination.”
What’s troubling about that?
[i]forcing people to bend to a secular progressive woldview despite the lack of harm holding the traditional view. I have absolutely zero tolerance for discrimination[/i]
To be clear, you don’t think banning same sex marriage is discriminatory? Assuming that’s the case, you also do or do not believe laws giving separate/no rights to same sex couples perpetuates the notion that they are odd, strange, weird, ungodly and the like?
No one is forcing anyone to marry someone of the same sex or change their religious views. No one will force them to attend same sex marriage ceremonies.
However, like interracial marriage, same sex marriage will become a constitutionally protected right and those who opposed it will likely be looked upon historically much like anti-interracial marriage proponents are today, IMHO. The younger generation, by and large, sees no distinction between discriminatory laws against Americans based on whom they wish to marry (LGBT issues), gender or race.
[i]I suspect you might not value the views of religious folk as much as you do secular progressive ideas[/i]
That’s quite an assumption, but not accurate. I don’t respect views and laws that discriminate and make people feel unwelcomed, condemned and like second class citizens. Honestly, I also find it hard to believe that anybody’s God would wish that we treat one of his/her children differently based on who they love.
[i]I have a big problem with the religious family sitting down to dinner having to explain to their kids why gays can marry if it is forbidden. I like the idea of the parents explaining that gay civil unions are not the same kind of marriage but is given the exact same protection under the law. [/i]
Conversely, I have a big problem with loving same sex couples having to explain to their children that they are not permitted to marry because other peoples’ religious/worldviews don’t accept their commitment as being equal and deserving of the right to marry. That’s probably a much easier conversation to have with one’s child(ren).
When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite ([url]http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html[/url])
“But women did demand the right to vote, and not some separate-but-equal right to civil surveys.”
Greg… I’m not understanding your reference to “civil surveys”. My point is very succinctly stated by Jeff Boone in that “sameness is not a requirement for equal civil rights”. Women’s civil rights as well as Black American civil right struggles sought to win equal rights while never demanding that society change hallowed society word definitions but rather proudly sought to win full substantive civil rights as “Women” or “Black Americans’, clearly distinguishable from white and male America. There has always been a mainstream media blackout(I heard them present their position on a Democracy Now program some time ago) to the voice of gays who believe and are proud of the fact that their relationships are not the same as a marriage between a man and a woman and are not seeking to have their unions called a “marriage”. What they want is equal substantive civil rights with marriage but not the term.
davisite.
[i]”sameness is not a requirement for equal civil rights”….Black American civil right struggles sought to win equal rights while never demanding that society change hallowed society word definitions[/i]
And for this reason interracial marriage is simply referred to as “marriage” why, then? The “definition,” as so many believed it was meant to be, was changed with Loving.
[i]What they want is equal substantive civil rights with marriage but not the term. [/i]
Where can this official stance be found. I have not heard of this.
“Where can this official stance be found. I have not heard of this.”
What exactly is an “official stance”. The group that spoke on the Democracy Now program were political gay activists who are not part of the mainstream, extremely well-funded political group that claims to speak for all gays. You can probably track down the program in the Democracy Now archives although I cannot help with the date of the program.
“And for this reason interracial marriage is simply referred to as “marriage” why, then? The “definition,” as so many believed it was meant to be, was changed with Loving.
I am unaware that the definition of marriage was changed by Loving. Certainly the substantive civil right issues that were denied to interracial couples were found to be unconstitutional. The term “interracial marriage” , while perhaps not PC to some, is a term that accurately describes the interracial character of a marriage and does not speak in any way to now-protected equal substantive civil rights.
Jeff: I largely agree with Don’s point. Plus if it is an equal rights issue, no one has the right currently to marry more than one individual. Furthermore, there is also the issue of consent which Don alluded to. As such, I still think the argument you were trying to make was illogical and I don’t think you hang me on polygamy.
davisite,
My fault, it seemed you were suggesting that was the consensus.
Regarding the Loving ruling…state law in Virginia banned any white from marrying a non-white. Legally, the definition of marriage was changed in that state and all others with similar miscegenation laws upon the Loving ruling. Many individuals’ world and religious views, I believe, were also changed with respect to marriage…such as who people should be allowed to marry.
When the Loving’s pled guilty for violating this law, the trial judge stated the following:
[quote]Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.[/quote]
Jeff: [i]“Getting back to Obama… he flops like a fish depending on the way his political winds are blowing. I don’t trust the man as far as I can throw him.”[/i]
I can’t think of any positions that Obama has changed anywhere near as dramatic as the complete reversals, pandering, and inconsistencies that have characterized the career of Mitt Romney.
[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/14-bald-faced-mitt-romney-flip-flops-that-were-dug-up-by-john-mccain-2012-1?op=1[/url]
It is interesting to see that the two opponents of gay marriage on this blog (Jeff and davisite) appear to support civil unions, with full rights of marriage, as an alternative. Mitt Romney specifically reiterated his opposition to civil unions three days ago. Here is the Republican party platform position on gay marriage and civil unions: “We call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it.”
Opponents of gay marriage don’t offer civil unions as an alternative. They only present extreme actions such as amending the constitution at the state and federal levels to prevent one specific group of Americans from having the rights of others.
medwoman: [i]”how far did you estimate you could throw Cheney based on the same issue”[/i]
I was saying that I do not trust Obama on a whole range of issues he has flipped and flopped on. Cheney has remained largely consistent in his views and principles. I agree that Romney has a lousy record on consistency too. However, we are talking about a politician that did his about-face on hundreds of issues and promises AFTER he became President. That is unprecedented. It is also unprecedented how the mainstream media gives him a pass on this.
[i]”Religious people have a lot of seeming contradictions to explain around the dinner table. I must have frustrated my mom to no end demanding why it was ok to eat shellfish if the Bible said we couldn’t and why we were at war in Viet Nam if Jesus said we were to “turn the other cheek”. I fail to see how difficult dinner table conversations can be used as a justification for denying someone else’s equal rights. And whether or not you are arguing for that directly, that is the basis for the religious argument that this is a defense of traditional religious views.” [/i]
These are valid points. Religion is not a rational beast.
Of course there is evidence that parts of all major religions’ scripture exceeds the word of God by incorporating rules to live by… many that unorthodox followers consider silly by today’s standards. For example, what we can and cannot eat. Decades ago eating pork and shellfish was much more dangerous.
However, marriage is a fundamental human social construct that permeates our lives from the day we are born. Children deserve two loving parents, preferably a father and a mother. It really is as simple as that.
Jeff
“However, marriage is a fundamental human social construct that permeates our lives from the day we are born. Children deserve two loving parents, preferably a father and a mother. It really is as simple as that.”
Agreed that marriage is a fundamental human construct that permeates our lives. But marriage is not, as the religious right would have us believe, universally defined as one man and one woman. There are many cultures that include within their definition, one man and a number of women, a few that include one woman and several men ( usually brothers ), some that include temporary provisions for marriage for the purpose of procreation but with no lasting standing for the man within the community ( some of the matriarchal / matrilineal native American groups) for example. Also within our culture, marriage is not exclusively for the purpose of procreation. I do not know of any religion that will not allow a man and woman to marry if they are beyond the reproductive age range, if one is sterile say because of cancer treatment, or even if they just don’t want to raise children. Why aren’t those dinner table conversations just as awkward if ability to have biological children is the real reason for opposing gay marriage ?
I could see the threat to “traditional marriage” if gays were arguing against the marriage of heterosexuals. But this could not be further from the truth. The gays who wish to marry obviously are in support of the institution of marriage. All they are requesting is that it apply to them equally under the law. Not within your home, but under the law. You have stated that you perceive this as a threat to you. Your arguments to date are not convincing.
Me:[i]”On your point about supporting gay marriage to combat discrimination… that is troubling to me and makes my original point about a hidden agenda.”[/i]
SFMan:[i]”A hidden agenda to lessen and rid the nation of violence and hatred towards LGBT Americans…that’s troubling? First, I think same sex marriage should be a constitutionally protected right because it’s the right thing to do. Second, I do think that ridding our state and federal laws and constitutions of “LGBTs are different, so they don’t get the same rights as everyone else” will do a lot to “combat discrimination.”
What’s troubling about that?”[/i]
One way to look at this, you are supporting gay marriage as a sort of correction for all the past and potential future hatred toward LGBT Americans. I’m sorry, but I find that a bit reprehensible.
I’m sure I am as disgusted as you are about true acts of hatred against any human for any uncontrollable or harmless difference. I don’t hate many people… I have empathy for the copious human imperfections brought on by our raging emotions. However, I am prone to strong rejection of human behaviors that materially harm others. But I prefer to deal with those acts specifically and not use it as an excuse for something as profound as changing the definition of marriage.
Your approach has been taken before: Affirmative Action. My perspective is that for all the good it did, it caused more harm. It established a top-down, forced, artificial integration of racial minorities into upper economic classes as a correction for past and potential future hatred/discrimination. All it really did was cause a new kind of “difference”… one where minorities were given preference over non-minorities. It caused a long-standing entitlement expectation for minorities, and also caused resentment for non-minorities lacking similar consideration. My view is that this set back race relations in our country.
In my opinion, acceptance of gays in our society has been steadily progressing. I think legalizing gay marriage will not do anything to advance it, and may in fact set it back due to resentment of others having unwanted change forced down their throats. The first report out that children of gay parents are struggling in some way (and it will come), and a new culture war will erupt over the issue. I say we accept gay parents as different and provide civil unions the same legal rights and protections.
Part of what I see is group-think for artificially resolving the insecurities of others based on their perception of outside group acceptance. Forced acceptance does not change internal insecurities no matter how much you wish it to be so. Playground rules to force kids to pick the less capable kick-ball player will not result in greater acceptance… but it will cause entitlement expectations, and serve to dissuade real skills development while pushing resentment of others under the surface. A better solution is to identify and recognize the special capabilities of each entity and match it to the situation.
“Of course there is evidence that parts of all major religions’ scripture exceeds the word of God by incorporating rules to live by… many that unorthodox followers consider silly by today’s standards. For example, what we can and cannot eat. Decades ago eating pork and shellfish was much more dangerous.
Precisely. And perhaps hundreds of years ago, procreating was much more important to the sustainability of the community, tribe, nation and even species than it is today. At the time it was written, I am sure that the edict to “be fruitful and multiply” was a social necessity. That is no longer true today. In your own writing, you have stated that “scripture exceeds the word of God by incorporating rules to live by”. I could not agree more. And now, we are arriving at a point in time where the species will clearly survive without every couple needing to produce offspring.
We have arrived at a point in time where it is completely rationale to allow those who want to marry and have children to do so, and completely rationale to allow those who wish to marry and not produce children to do so also. From my point of view, it was not at all difficult to talk to my daughter about her friend with two mom’s and a dad any more that it was difficult to talk about my deliberately childless, married sister.
Since procreation is no longer a universally necessary “rule to live by” it is time, in my opinion, to change this rule in favor of civil liberty and equality under the law.
Thanks Jeff and everyone . I found this weekend particularly depressing until I started reading this thread . Though I am not particularly religious, in the common use of that word, I cannot help but hope that in some other dimension Margaret Mead is reading this and laughing as much as I have . Happy Mothers’ Day, Momma .
“Opponents of gay marriage don’t offer civil unions as an alternative. They only present extreme actions such as amending the constitution at the state and federal levels to prevent one specific group of Americans from having the rights of others.”
Don… respectfully, I say that the above is baloney and perhaps reflects
a failure to conjure up a strong counterargument. Yes, there are extreme opponents of equal substantive civil rights for same-sex couples but the overwhelming majority of voters(including Obama) would support the concept of civil unions with full and equal rights if the gay political movement chose to pursue that path. IMO, the path to full and equal substantive civil rights for civil unions is a slam-dunk victory in the Fed Court system. Amending the CA constitution to say that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman does not prohibit in any way full and equal substantive civil rights for same-sex couples. The recent draconian North Carolina prohibitions against equal rights for same-sex couples will,IMO, undoubtedly be found unconstitutional when challenged in the Federal Courts.
davesite2
E do not see Don’s statement as “baloney” in light of Romney, probable Republican candidate for President, not the North Carolina legislature comes out opposed not only to gay marriage, but also to civil unions in his own words fool lowing President Obama’s statement in favor of gay marriage.
“
Updated 6:02 p.m. ET
Mitt Romney restated his opposition to same-sex marriage today, following President Obama’s endorsement of such unions.
“When these issues were raised in my state of Massachusetts I indicated my view, which is I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender and I don’t favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name,” Romney said in an interview with KDVR-TV in Denver.
[i]Precisely. And perhaps hundreds of years ago, procreating was much more important to the sustainability of the community, tribe[/i]
Medwoman, I think we may have hit on a root difference in opinion here. In terms of the history of cultural longevity, demographics matter. The Western world is shrinking and our lack of support of famliies and children is going to strangle us. Also, you don’t bring up the childhood development issue. I’m not ready to given up on gender/sexual differences especially as it relates to procreation and childhood sexual development. Maybe because as a male the latter (as proven by science and explained by biologocal functions) occupies more of my thought processes. 😉
Jeff,
[i]you are supporting gay marriage as a sort of correction for all the past and potential future hatred toward LGBT Americans. I’m sorry, but I find that a bit reprehensible. [/i]
Actually, I support same sex marriage because it’s the right thing to do and I don’t support discriminatory laws. I also believe having laws which treat LGBT Americans different from straight Americans perpetuates ignorance. Thus, getting rid of those laws will help reduce hatred and violence towards LGBT Americans over time. I believe it’s similar to African Americans and women. Once the discriminatory laws were found to violate the Constitution, the states could no longer reinforce the notion that they are second class citizens. Improvement has been made with the treatment towards women and African Americans as a result.
I think it’s odd that you find it reprehensible that someone would want equal rights for same sex couples so they will experience less hatred and violence.
[i]Your approach has been taken before: Affirmative Action[/i]
I’m sorry, but how in the world did you make this connection. It’s a right, same sex couples should be allowed to marry.
[i]Forced acceptance does not change internal insecurities no matter how much you wish it to be so. [/i]
Answer me this: Since the states could no longer discriminate based on race and were [b]forced[/b] to change who they allow to marry, integrating blacks and whites at schools, sharing restrooms, etc….Do you think that had any effect on race relations, treatment of black Americans in this country, or where we are today?
SFMan, I don’t see gay marriage as being anywhere close to racial discrimination. That is my point about harm. Gays are not materially harmed with civil unions. Marriage is a cultural, religious, social and legal partnership. The first two warrant protection of traditions. The third is debate able. The last can be taken care of under the label of civil unions.
Last point… Gays have their gay pride parades and separate culture. They already embrace their uniUqueness as do I. So they should stop whining about their inability to be recognized in gay partnership as the same as traditional man-woman partnership. There is a difference. Accept it.
Jeff:[i] “Gays have their gay pride parades and separate culture.”[/i]
Ever been to Mardi Gras? Seriously. Gay pride parades do not define mainstream American gays.
davisite: [i]”if the gay political movement chose to pursue that path…”[/i]
Who keeps putting proposals on the ballot? The opponents of gay marriage are the ones controlling the political discourse.
biddlin: Happy to give you some enjoyment today. I assume you miss your late mother like I miss mine. Mead would certainly get a chuckle too. If she were alive today I think she would be even more active in the defense of unusual and unconstrained sexuality.
Common Don… seriously? Comparing Mardi Gras to S.F. Gay Pride Day? You are really reaching friend.
So, what are “mainstream American gays”? Do you discriminate against some types of gays and not others? Are you saying that those types that attend the Gay Pride parade should not be allowed to marry, but the others should be allowed?
Frankly I am sick of identity politics. Gay, black, hispanic, Christians, etc… I really don’t care and I REALLY wish everyone would stop demanding a separate cultural identity while also digging chunks out of traditional American culture so they can feel more accepted. If you want to feel more part of American culture, then just practice being more American and be happy to be American. It should not matter what skin tone, what religion, what sexual orientation. Just be happy to be part of the greatest country ever on God’s green earth. Stop looking for government and society to fix others’ damn personal problems. Stop making others give up long-standing traditions and ideas just so a small minority can FEEL better about themselves… when feeling better about themselves is there personaly responsibility.
More and more people are chosing to NOT marry but maintain a loving partnership. The argument is that marriage is just a piece of paper. That being the case, a civil union with equal legal protection will suffice.
Here is another idea I can get behind. How about we come up with two classes of marriage: standard and special. Gays want to be treated special, so there you have it.
[i]Common Don… seriously? Comparing Mardi Gras to S.F. Gay Pride Day? You are really reaching friend.
[/i]
In what possible sense am I reaching? Your suggestion that S.F. Gay Pride Day parade [i]in any way[/i] exemplifies the lifestyles, attitudes, values, aspirations, or attitudes of America’s gays is utterly absurd. Utterly absurd. It is a caricature, just as Mardi Gras is a caricature of libertine heterosexual behavior.
How on earth is gay marriage “identity politics”? You’re right: it should not matter. Gay couples should be able to do exactly what straight couples do: get married if they so choose, or not.
[i]So, what are “mainstream American gays”?[/i]
Your neighbors, friends, co-workers, employees, business associates. You know: people just like you. Except they happen to be gay.
[i]Do you discriminate against some types of gays and not others? Are you saying that those types that attend the Gay Pride parade should not be allowed to marry, but the others should be allowed? [/i]
No. I don’t think we should discriminate against people. People who happen to be gay should be able to get married just like people who happen to be straight.
Jeff,
[i]SFMan, I don’t see gay marriage as being anywhere close to racial discrimination.[/i]
You stated that it’s reprehensible for one to argue for marriage equality with the intent being to lessen the hatred and discrimination endured by many LGBT Americans.
My point in bringing race up is…do you think constitutionally banning discriminatory laws has changed the attitudes of America regarding how they view black Americans? In other words, had states been permitted to continue discriminating against blacks, would perceptions and opinions have evolved such that they have post-Civil Rights Movement?
[i]The first two warrant protection of traditions.[/i]
In my opinion, equal rights under the law, not separate rights (which do not exist anyway), supersedes cultural or religious views when those views are discriminatory and treat a group of Americans as second class citizens. One may hold their discriminatory views, but the law should not discriminate against same sex couples.
[i]Gays have their gay pride parades and separate culture. They already embrace their uniUqueness as do I[/i]
There are parades, festivals, events and the like which celebrate the various differences that make us America. Celebrating a difference, such as Scottish heritage, being disabled, a women, black, or gay, should not preclude a group of people for being afforded equal rights.
Jeff,
[i]Here is another idea I can get behind. How about we come up with two classes of marriage: standard and special. [/i]
That’s not surprising as this is no different than what you’ve advocated for previously, really. You are in favor of yet another legal distinction separating same sex and opposite sex couples.
[i]Gays want to be treated special, so there you have it.[/i]
Surely, the argument that those who seek equal rights under the law are wanting “special” treatment has not been used by…
That’s an unfortunate way of approaching this issue. Same sex couples want to be treated exactly the same as opposite sex couples. That’s a demand for equal treatment not “special” treatment.
Jeff, same sex marriage will likely become a Constitutionally protected right in your life time. History will not look upon kindly those who oppose it, IMO. Just like how we look back pre-Loving and wonder what people were thinking back then…
[quote]Bloomberg: NC marriage vote sets back civil rights ([url]http://news.yahoo.com/bloomberg-nc-marriage-vote-sets-back-civil-rights-183645834.html[/url])
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has told University of North Carolina graduates that last week’s gay marriage vote shows there is still a lot of work to be done for civil rights in this country.
Bloomberg spoke Sunday to thousands of graduates at Kenan Memorial Stadium.
Bloomberg told them Americans have slowly understood since this country was founded that if the government can deny freedom to one person, it can deny freedom to everyone. [/quote]
Bloomberg says it. All the more reason to consider it a flawed view… or one that is based on political popularity and not reason.
Bloomberg has absolutelty nothing in common with average American families. Why would his opinion be of value in this debate?
Jeff
“Stop making others give up long-standing traditions and ideas just so a small minority can FEEL better about themselves… when feeling better about themselves is there personaly responsibility. “
Please tell me specifically what long standing tradition or belief any one is being asked to give up in order to provide equal marital rights under the law. No one is telling you what to believe. No one is telling you what to teach your children. No one is asking you to change anything within your life. All that is being asked is that they not be excluded from the same rights that you have always had. If you are truly sick of identity politics as you say, then why would you choose to separate out a group for differential treatment under the law?
JB: [i]Bloomberg has absolutelty nothing in common with average American families. Why would his opinion be of value in this debate?[/i]
Would that also apply to Mitt Romney?
Would you be saying something more positive about Bloomberg’s point of view if he came out in favor of N.C.’s recent passage of the constitutional ammendment?
Here is my prediction…
Gay marriage will happen because the energy behind making it happen is stronger than the energy that would prefer it not happen. Basically, there is a growing number of apathetic and culturally-illiterate young people that will tilt the vote.
However, gays who marry will never be considered the same as traditional man-woman married couples. They will always be considered different. Not less, not more… just different. Their marriages will require different family and social norms. Their kids will require a different approach to childhood development. Their reproduction will require medical science. They will compete with other traditional married couples for adopting young children, but ties will always go to the traditional man-woman married couple.
Gay activists’ euphoria over winning this battle will be short-lived as they realize that it didn’t really change a thing in trying to force others to see them as exactly the same. They are not, they never will be. And that should be fine.
When you dig deep to think about this issue, there is nothing really to gain. People will not change their minds on how they see gay couples versus straight couples. Gays will be no more or less accepted because of a forced acceptance of a change in the definition of marriage (although I suspect some will resent the forced change enough to develop new resentments of gays in general). All we get is some symbolic win for gays. In fact, this is most of what the left is for these days… all the class, gender, race and sex wars they perpetrate. Everything at this point is mostly manufactured and symbolic. Racism, sexism, classism… these things no longer exists at levels that warrant so much ideological attention. However, the left is stuck on it.
Which brings me to another reason we should reject gay marriage… It is that the left is stuck in a perpetual dysfunctional victimology mode. They constantly look for a new victim to save… a new manufactured tragedy. It is all relative to the times, so it never stops. Their mislabeled “progressive” stamp means constant change to satiate their never ending bleeding heart need to locate the next travesty. So, after gays can marry, then private churches will then be in their crosshairs. Adoption services that prefer straight couples over gay couples will be in their cross hairs. It will never stop unless it is stopped each time.
Jeff Boone
“Racism, sexism, classism… these things no longer exists at levels that warrant so much ideological attention.”
Unless of course you happen to be one of the individual’s who that particular “ism” applies to. “Don’t ask, don’t tell is not ancient history and definitely destroyed many careers. Hospital visitation rights and adoption of a partner’s children are not universal givens in our society. These are examples of discrimination, not of the left manufacturing victims. Just because you want to pretend there is no discrimination in this country does not make it true.
JB
“Gay activists’ euphoria over winning this battle will be short-lived as they realize that it didn’t really change a thing in trying to force others to see them as exactly the same. They are not, they never will be. And that should be fine.”
This is a complete misstatement of intent. Interracial couples who wanted the right to marry we’re not asking others to pretend they were of the same race. The difference was obvious. What they were asking for was equall treatment under the law. Likewise, gays are not asking for anyone to pretend that they are the same as a heterosexual couple. What they are seeking is equal treatment under the law.
Jeff,
[i]Basically, there is a growing number of apathetic and culturally-illiterate young people that will tilt the vote. [/i]
Culturally illiterate? There have always been LGBT Americans. Over time, as society, or at least some in our society, has become more accepting more have lived their lives openly. In turn, peoples’ exposure to LGBT Americans has increased and so has the realization that they are no different from the rest of us. Consequently, more people feel that their friends, coworkers, neighbors and family members are deserving of the same rights as everyone else. The view among younger generations is that laws discriminating against LGBT Americans are just wrong.
[i]They will always be considered different. Not less, not more… just different.[/i]
But many Americans’ definition of “different” is quite hostile and violent as it relates to LGBT Americans.
I feel like, on some level or with some people, the opposition to efforts that advance the rights of LGBT Americans do so for fear that granting them equal rights “normalizes” them. If the law makes no distinction, eventually society will no longer make the distinction and I wonder if that’s at the root of the opposition. In other words, one’s religion, culture and upbringing states LGBT is wrong, strange, gross, etc. and to permit them equal rights under the law flies in the face of their ignorant views.
[i]It is that the left is stuck in a perpetual dysfunctional victimology mode. They constantly look for a new victim to save… a new manufactured tragedy[/i]
Perhaps “the left” values equality and this is one area where strong advocacy is needed? Seems like your “reason” is a political one and not one based on to whom we should grant equal rights.
Jeff,
[i]Gay activists’ euphoria over winning this battle will be short-lived as they realize that it didn’t really change a thing in trying to force others to see them as exactly the same. They are not, they never will be. [/i]
Surely a similar sentiment was expressed by those whom we now know were totally in the wrong when women and black Americans sought equal rights way back when.
medwoman,
[i]This is a complete misstatement of intent. Interracial couples who wanted the right to marry we’re not asking others to pretend they were of the same race. The difference was obvious. What they were asking for was equall treatment under the law. Likewise, gays are not asking for anyone to pretend that they are the same as a heterosexual couple. What they are seeking is equal treatment under the law. [/i]
Well said.
[url=http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2012/05/14/no-talking-points-words-that-haunt.cnn]No Talking Points: Words That Haunt[url]
Jeff-For once, we’re in total agreement . Safe travels .
SFMan, what mean by “culturally illiterate” is the lack of knowledge about American principles and ideas. For example,the value of tradition, piety work ethic and strong families. Young people today are more likely to want to hook up rather than marry. Their views of marriage as a cultural foundation are skewed and hence they are more apt to not care about it’s definition changing.
One could make the argument that youth has a better handle on things than the old foggies. But then that would be similar to what we said about baby boomers and look how that turned out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/us/politics/poll-sees-obama-gay-marriage-support-motivated-by-politics.html
Violence Against Women Act Shouldn’t Cover Same-Sex Couples, GOP Congresswoman Says ([url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/violence-against-women-act-same-sex-couples_n_1516281.html[/url])
“those are side issues.”
I wouldn’t have used the “in your face” language, but good point.
[img]http://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/141-Imagine-how-stupid-you-are-going-to-look-in-40-years.jpg[/img]
Cognitive dissonance:
[img]http://data.whicdn.com/images/29228308/tumblr_m4glsgJg7V1qdmsaho1_500_thumb.jpg[/img]
“The fact that you can’t sell your daughter for the goats and a cow means that we have already redefined marriage.”
No spell/grammar checker: “The fact that you can’t sell your daughter for three goats and a cow means that we have already redefined marriage.”
I’m trying to understand how this could be Christian behavior.
Protests Planned Against Pastor Charles Worley Who Preached Putting Gays And Lesbians In Electrified Pen To Kill Them Off ([url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/24/protests-planned-after-mi_n_1544005.html[/url])
Intro comment:
[img]http://www.flickr.com/photos/jesusinlove/4813469550/[/img]
Try again:
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_3I6eIowAe7I/TD4p8ijT2kI/AAAAAAAAAxs/frIqlpLkCZM/s1600/Quit+Squirming+Cartoon.jpg[/img]
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA):
Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional ([url]http://news.yahoo.com/court-heart-gay-marriage-law-unconstitutional-144211083.html[/url])
[quote]Griffin Daily News: My Two Cents–May 25, 2012 ([url]http://griffindailynews.com/view/full_story/18718296/article-My-Two-Cents-May-25–2012[/url])
— The gay agenda has to stop, particularly in the schools. My grandson came home from school and said they were talking about homo sapiens in science class. We need to put a stop to this right now.[/quote]