The debate over Gay Marriage has come front and center in political debates lately, and with all of the electrons that have been spilled writing about it there is one detail that should not get lost in the shuffle. I am of course, referring to the bigotry, intolerance, and hatred of… the left.
For starters, in its most basic form the debate is over how people on one side feel that marriage is between one man and one woman, while the other side feels that marriage between two adults should be recognized regardless of gender. This is one issue where I think that both sides’ arguments have merit, although one is doing everything in its power to show its viscous, ugly side. Most leftists assume that this would describe conservatives, and sadly do not realize that it is actually themselves.
Civil Unions
Gay marriage was a subject I had never really had an opinion about until around twelve years ago when I read Jesse Ventura’s first book, “Do I Stand Alone?” Mind you, back in 2000 Jesse was still a new governor in Minnesota and a breath of fresh air in the system, not the full time conspiracy theorist he’s become today. On the issue of gay marriage he looked at both sides, and his assertion was that it was wrong to discriminate against two consenting adults from legal benefits from a system that they have paid taxes into based on their gender preference. On the other side, the term “Marriage” has an important spiritual meaning in religions practiced by many Americans, and their views should be respected as well. His solution was civil unions – granting legal rights for gay couples while still respecting the people whose religious views would be offended.
This seems like a reasonable compromise for both sides, and one that I supported then and still continue to do so. In fact, contrary to the leftist notion that conservatives are opposed to “gay rights” polls show that the majority of Conservatives as well as Republicans support civil unions. So why do I oppose gay marriage and support civil unions?
The Argument Against
I am in full agreement on the legal aspects of the concept, and while I feel that respect for religious views is important that is not my main reason for opposing gay marriage. The problem is that leftists never stop once they go down a road. Just as the civil rights movement has evolved from gaining equal rights for black Americans to maintaining a permanent underclass voting block and the feminist movement has evolved from voting rights and equal pay to whining that someone else won’t subsidize their efforts to contract Herpes or AIDS, gay marriage is not an end goal, but merely a milestone objective.
When we’re worrying about the quality of education in this country I don’t think that laws that lead to pushing schools to teach our kids about gay marriage is a good idea – personally I feel that subjects like math, science, and American history are more important. I also don’t like the idea of church-affiliated adoption agencies being pushed out of the business because they won’t place children with gay couples. I would have a problem with Catholic agencies not placing children with gay couples if there weren’t also other agencies that do, but they are not the only show in town. Personally, I think that fewer children looking for families to live with is a good thing.
I also mentioned that leftist dogma has no end point, just a continuation. When the concept of civil unions came about we were assured that it was an end point and of course all leftists respected marriage itself. Now that gay marriage is the new accepted norm (among leftists), we are assured that it will stop here, and not lead to polygamy or anything crazy like someone marrying their dog. Going back and forth with a lefty buddy of mine on FaceBook I told him to remember the conversation we just had in five years when polygamy will be seen as the newest right. I assumed that it would evolve from leftist love for acquiescence to Islamic culture, but I was wrong. The subject has already come up, and from a completely different direction.
Beliefs
Before I go any further I want to try to explain the religious aspect of the objections from the perspective of the Catholic Church to help clarify its views for any leftists reading this. First, they believe in a higher being as their creator, namely God. In layman’s terms their religion is a set of beliefs that give them a code of conduct, along with various milestones in their lives that bring them closer to God. There are seven sacraments, such as Baptism, Communion, and of course, marriage. Marriage is quite important, as it is through procreation that the human race survives. Procreation is another key element to marriage – having children is a miracle and gift from God (and yes, Catholics do take science classes and understand the biology involved). For obvious biological reasons, this part is physically impossible for a gay or lesbian couple. One other note regarding procreation – many Christians also believe that life begins when the two cells meet and a baby begins to grow. I wanted to mention this last point while we’re here, although that belongs to a separate debate.1
Or, if you’d rather hear this issue explained from a direct source, here is how San Francisco’s Archbishop Cordileone weighed in:
Meanwhile, San Francisco’s Archbishop-designate Salvatore J. Cordileone might find himself at the receiving end of leftist criticism if he does what he says he will do.
In a CNA article titled “New San Francisco archbishop vows to support marriage, immigrants”, Archbishop Cordileone affirms the Catholic Church’s support of traditional marriage:
While he said that he will need time to get to know the area, the archbishop-elect anticipates that many of the challenges he faces will deal with “issues of family life,” which are ultimately rooted in “foundational philosophical issues” about the nature of the human person and the purpose of sexuality.
“Marriage is a foundational good,” he emphasized, explaining that the Church’s stance against “gay marriage” is not discriminatory but is simply rooted in the nature and definition of marriage as an institution.
Children “can only come about through the embrace of a man and a woman coming together,” he said, adding that this necessarily limits marriage to the type of union that can bring new life into the world.
“Children deserve to have a mother and a father,” the archbishop-elect said, and so “we need to do everything we can to strengthen marriage.”
In addressing “moral challenges” involving the weakening of family life, it is important to realize that strong marriages benefit all of society, he said.
He added that there is a need to lovingly welcome those who “feel alienated from the Church” due to their sexual orientation, showing them that “our stand for marriage is not against anyone, but it’s because we believe this is foundational for the good of our society.”
In other words, Archbishop Cordileone is in agreement with Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy on the nature of marriage, specifically the definition of marriage as being a union between a man and a woman only.
Back to my leftist friends, hopefully now you see why your insistence on redefining an element of someone’s values can be found so offensive. I know you don’t agree with it – all I’m asking you to do is to understand the reasoning. This is called “tolerance”, and respect for other people’s values that may differ from your own. Or another way to put it is respecting “diversity”. If you want to consider yourself tolerant and respectful of other religions, that does not mean limiting yourself to only those religions that are followed mainly outside of the US by non-white cultures. You also need to include a people that is strange, exotic and completely foreign to you – average Americans. Now I know that taken literally my overview of the faith probably has leftist secularists chuckling at the stupidity of those knuckle dragging Christians for their backwards faith, but maybe you should look in the mirror. How many of you still follow the Global Warming Climate Change cult despite the debunked science at the heart of those beliefs? For that matter, how many of you accepted as your Lord and Savior a second rate politician back in 2008? And how many of you still worship him?
Now that we’ve covered the arguments against gay marriage, let ‘s look at this from the leftist perspective. The left’s two main arguments seem to break down to societal acceptance, and legal rights.
Acceptance
Leftists have pretty much dropped the term “gay marriage” because this accurate description doesn’t seem to resonate well with average Americans, so it is now referred to as “Marriage Rights” or “Marriage Equality”. This has a twofold purpose – 1) How many people will say that they are truly against something that involves equality or rights, and 2) it’s easier to scream down opposition as hateful bigots, since respectful, intelligent dialogue has not worked as the leftists had hoped it would. When you get down to it, the co-opting of the word marriage comes down to something more basic – societal acceptance. I have some bad news for you leftists – that’s not going to happen, at least not how you are probably envisioning it. And it’s not because conservatives are bigots, it’s because your expectations are unrealistic.
Before I go any further, let me clarify that not all conservatives are angels. There are those who are anti-gay bigots, and there is not much we can do to change that. Mind you though, opposing gay marriage itself does not equate bigotry. The people who the left should be looking for acceptance from are the open minded conservatives. Based on that ultimate goal and how the left goes about pursuing it, achieving the acceptance that leftists envision is not possible.
A few years ago the satirical newspaper, “The Onion” wrote a funny article stating that “Local Gay Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance of Gays Back 50 Years” (Images in the article are NSFW-ish). In the article they talked about over the top costumes and sexual displays that led straight onlookers to decide that they were wrong that gays were just like them and that these people are in fact deviants. And this is not homophobic either – if my town had a parade and Sister Babe and I participated with her wearing a dominatrix outfit while leading me on a leash with me shirtless and wearing cheekless leather chaps along with a mask similar to The Gimp character from the movie “Pulp Fiction” my neighbors would probably view us as a bit deviant and be less accepting of us, hetero or not.2 The article was a good piece of humorous fiction, but it brings up a valid point. A recent article on National Review’s online pages (can’t find the link – sorry for lack of better citation) asserted that you can’t say that any culture should completely accept you when you are introducing an element to it that is foreign to that culture. If you are making your presence in a community predicated on how you are defying it, expecting full acceptance is impossible. That is not to say that if you are gay you can’t be accepted in a heterosexual community, but if your goal is to spit in the face of the values of some of its members it is unrealistic to expect to be fully accepted. And for those of you who think that gay marriage is no different than interracial marriage, read my previous post where I argued in favor of gays being allowed to serve openly in the military (yes, really).
Legal Rights
If achieving state recognition of non-heterosexual relationships and affording the legal protections with it are the goal, why not take that approach? As I cited earlier the majority of Republicans and Conservatives favor civil unions, and the left would have a much easier time passing said laws since the religious element has been removed from the equation. The reason why not is where the issue starts to get ugly. To the left this issue is not about rights or legal protection. It is about achieving rights and equal protection, but only in a way that is particularly offensive to Christians. I’ve written before about the leftist need to hate, and not having a Republican president forces the left to get creative in designating a target. If this argument were framed strictly around rights that could be gained through civil unions the left would most likely have achieved it. One of the ugly sides of the leftist identity politics is the necessity of permanent victimhood. By maintaining divides in society the left is able to frame themselves as champions and protectors of their groups. Anyone who actually graduates from the victim class and achieves the success (that they didn’t build themselves, of course) and wants to be identified for who they are rather than their group’s collective grievances is seen as a sellout. If gays are granted simply the legal protection and benefits, suddenly spitting in the eye of the Catholic Church might not seem as important. And of far greater importance, not having a cause to rally around could leave this segment less likely to vote for people who need to have them as victims.
Divide
The voting aspect is key, as we’ve been seeing that the president’s realizes that he can’t run for re-election on his record. His only hope is to get his base fired up and angry, hence the manufactured “war on women”, suggesting that removing dead people from voter rolls is a return of Jim Crow, and of course, portraying support for traditional marriage as extreme anti-gay bigotry. If the general electorate is getting tired of the president’s act, he figures he can get his base angry enough to focus their anger since empty promises of hope and change have left nothing to offer but divisiveness and class warfare. And in true Alinskyite fashion, the Chick Fil A fast food chain has been chosen by the left as its latest target for demonization.
This brings us to how the left treats people who don’t share their opinions.The main reason for Chick Fil A’s being targeted is the fact in itself that Cathy is a Christian and supports Christian values in the charities it sponsors. And this also leads to another dark side – the anti-Christian bigotry of the left. Part of this comes from natural opposition on highly emotional issues – abortion and gay marriage. It also comes from basic philosophical differences, such as how one views being a part of a community. To the conservative charity is volunteering time or giving money to those in need, while to the leftist being charitable means forcing someone else to give their money to the government for redistribution. Leftists also seem to have disdain for anyone who believes in a higher power other than the state. Seeing how they’ve treated Cathy and others who share his view of marriage has been disturbing at best.
Distort
We’ve seen outright distortion of Cathy’s views. It took me all of two minutes to find how the LA Times twisted Cathy’s words with its headline, “Is Chick-fil-A anti-gay marriage? ‘Guilty as charged,’ leader says.” Actually, Cathy was only asked about his views on traditional marriage, never a word about gay marriage. Yes, I’m getting into semantics here, but the headline creates the impression that Cathy expressed a dislike for gays. Chick Fil A doesn’t discriminate against gays. They will hire and promote employees regardless of sexual orientation, and will serve any customers. There are no “Queer only” restrooms or water fountains. For the reasons stated above, being opposed to gay marriage does not make you anti-gay. To give a similar example, I am very much against rape. At the Occupy Wall Street protests among the myriad of crimes committed at them, rape was among them. Because of my strong feelings on this subject when Men’s Warehouse decided to support the OWSers I decided to stop doing business with them. While I am running my own personal boycott of Men’s Warehouse I’m not taking this to its extension of labeling anyone who supports them as being pro-rape for supporting the occupiers. And I am not citing their pro-rape stance as part of the left’s War on Women. It would sound stupid if I were thinking that way, and it’s no less stupid coming from the leftists on gay marriage.
Suppress
The assault on Chick Fil A also shows a much darker side of leftist rage – the desire to kill free speech when they disapprove of it. Out in California angry leftists staged protests trying to destroy businesses who did not support gay marriage. Back in 2009 gossip columnist Perez Hilton launched a heated attack on Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean because she held the incorrect opinion on gay marriage. Perez Hilton showed his tolerance and respect for other views by blogging that “She gave the worst answer in pageant history. “She lost because she’s a dumb b—-, okay?” For people who claim to hate bullying the left certainly likes to engage in it.
…And Back
And at the end of the day we’re already starting to see a backlash, where even the not exactly conservative publications like the Boston Globe and Chicago Sun Times are picking up on the fact that clamping down on free speech might not be such a good idea. Now the right has fired back to some degree, with Mike Huckabee organizing on Facebook a “Support Chick Fil A Day” for Wednesday, 8/1. Even thought Sister Babe and I generally don’t go out to eat during the week we might go there on general principle. We also generally don’t grab fast food, but when we do it usually is Chick Fil A. And no, it’s not because of the company leadership’s religious views. We go there because as fast food goes their food is excellent. Their places are always clean, the staff members are always pleasant, and neither of us has ever had a remotely bad experience eating there. I’ve worked in enough organizations to recognize one where the employees are treated well – you can see it in how everybody conducts themselves and interacts with their customers. Maybe there is a benefit to a company’s values being guided by Christian principles.
Not to be outdone, the lefties are proposing a Gay Makeout Day for the following day, 8/2. No, it does not look like a serious effort, and I really hope that it doesn’t happen. Aside from being obnoxious I hope that anyone thinking of trying this will realize that going out of their way to behave offensively won’t help to promote tolerance or understanding. It’s not hateful of me to want to be able to eat dinner without two guys making out in front of me. I don’t want to see two transsexuals making out in front of me while I eat, nor would I want to see two lesbians kissing, even if both chicks are totally hot. (Author’s aside to Sister Babe if she’s reading this: Just kidding Sweetie – love you!) But I’m not bigoted, as I wouldn’t want to see a heterosexual couple getting it on in front of me, either. For that matter, I’m guessing that people with families would prefer to eat in peace as well. Let’s hope that sanity prevails over leftist anger on this one.
There is hope though – Antoine Dodson, of the web famous “hide yo kids, hide yo wife” bed intruder video just put out another video, this time supporting Chick Fil A. Dodson is gay himself, and doesn’t really care who makes him a quality chicken sandwich:
“A lot of people from the gay community have been coming to me and telling me that I shouldn’t eat from Chick-fil-A, and I’m thinking like, ‘Oh my God, that’s so crazy. Why?” the openly gay man said in a video posted on YouTube yesterday. “Chick-fil-A makes good meals, and I eat there quite frequently. No one is going to stop me from eating there. If I’m going to have a Chick-fil-A sandwich, I’m going to have a Chick-fil-A sandwich.”
My advice to any leftists reading this, get over yourselves. Your support for gay marriage doesn’t make you a civil rights crusader following in Martin Luther King’s footsteps, nor does my opposition make me two holes in my bed sheet short of being a Klansman. Showing the angry, bigoted, intolerant side of your ideology that tries to scream down any dissenting opinions isn’t helping anyone. For that matter, if your serious about wanting tolerance and civility, the best way to receive it is to start showing it.
Cross Posted from Brother Bob’s Blog
1 To any Catholics or other Christians reading this, what I gave was just a “seven miles high” general overview of the faith. I’m going on my Catholic upbringing as my reference point, but having spent roughly twenty years as a Born Again Existentialist my knowledge of the faith is a bit rusty. If I completely missed any of the points please correct me in the comments but don’t rough me up too badly – any misrepresentation was purely accidental.
2 Lest anyone think I was serious, no, Sister Babe and I neither I own nor wear any outfits like the ones I described. My apologies to any readers who were eating at the time, and deeper apologies to any readers who know me personally and now had that horrific image of me scorched into their minds.
Bob, Google the FOLSOM STREET FAIR. Zombie did a write up on it a year or two ago. It proves the Onion writers were psychic.
NSFW, BTW.
Ummmm…. Really, REALLY NSFW…
In fact, not safe for anywhere….
And remember everyone….that which is seen…can never be unseen
I love the charity work of Chick-fil-A.
Especially the foster homes and all of the scholarships.
But the married couple’s retreat sounds wonderful, too.
Their food is terrific.
What, exactly, has Elizabeth Warren’s baby, the Occupy movement, accomplished?
I am convinced that what happened was that Gays demanded that the Right accept civil unions thinking that the Right would never go along. When the Right thought that civil unions were a reasonable and fair compromise, the far left decided to ignore the compromise and demand more not because they wanted the right to marry, but because they wanted to continue the socialist agenda (to destroy the traditional family). It’s called bad faith compromise.
And that is the problem every time with compromising with the left. You give a little in the name of compromise, they instantly demand more and they will never, ever step even a little to the center (much less the right,) to compromise with you. At this point I think that it is time to say ‘Screw you! We’ve compromised enough. We aren’t giving in any more. You can take civil unions or forget the whole damn thing.’
I strongly object to classifying this as a “Right” versus “Left” political issue.
F/A readers may recognize me as being one of the “leftists;” yet I similarly wrote a Flopping Aces blogpost a couple of years ago, in opposition to gay marriage — albeit one in which I didn’t attempt to present the issue in political terms, to wit:
California is one of the bluest of blue states; yet CA voters — twice — supported ballot measures in opposition to official government recognition of same gender marriage.
Personally, I am a very strong supporter of equal protection under the law, and I’m specifically a strong supporter of gay rights and gay tolerance. As explained in the above-linked blog post, my opposition to gay marriage doesn’t have anything to do with religion, either. Rather, I went to some length to present arguments, supported by actual academic research, which, in my view, strongly supports the view that gay marriage is, indeed, a threat to traditional marriage, and has the strong potential to disadvantage, in particular, women and children.
But let’s just talk in terms of “gay marriage proponents” and “gay marriage opponents,” and not in terms of “left” versus “right.” In addition to liberals like me, in opposition, there are conservatives, such as Dick Cheney and Ted Olson, who are supportive of gay marriage.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@ Brother Bob,
Entertaining and thought-provoking piece. May I share a couple thoughts?
Tolerance and respect for diversity are noble virtues, but there’s no law forcing you or I to be tolerant, or to endorse diversity. Obviously, The 1st Amendment protects some pretty odious people and their right to voice pretty odious beliefs. My point is that I don’t think respect for their lifestyle is the end game for most homosexuals, so flipping it around doesn’t really prove anything. They want the same legal rights you have and I’m sure they’d be happy to get those rights without an invite to the Church bakesale.
Since you’re asking people to see thing through the eyes of the other side, how would you handle the dilemma of the average gay person? If you couldn’t get married and the reason you were given was that a certain religious group doesn’t care to extend that right to you, what would your response be? Would it be the response you are proposing the Left and Homosexuals have, that they should simply accept the status quo because to challenge it would not be “tolerant and respectful of other religions”? I doubt you’d be so meek. Your reaction would likely be, “listen, I could care less what your religion preaches, what does that have to do with me and my right to marry?” See, it’s really not that complicated. Talk to any gay person, and you’re likely to hear that they simply want the same legal rights as straight couples. Trying to turn that demand into an attack on religion is a pretty big stretch.
I think that’s a huge overstatement. The reaction isn’t anti-Christian, it’s pretty specific to one issue. I personally don’t support any attempts to sanction this company for the owners beliefs. To my thinking, if he wants to alienate a large portion of the population and potentially harm his sales in doing so, so be it. But if a politician expresses a personal opinion about the company, that’s well within his or her rights, and the electorate can reward or sanction the remake in the voting booth.
@Hard Right: I read PJM regularly and saw Zombie’s original post. Always entertaining, and this one was definitely NSFW!
@Larry W: Always good to hear from you! Good point on the naming convention.
@Tom: To answer your first question, no you may not.
jk… We get so many inane liberal drive by comments around here – intelligent, well thought out opposing views are always welcome – thanks for your comment!
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry, the problem is not the issue itself, it is the obvious cynical use of the issue by the Left, and so no, we’re not going to shut up about the politics of it – we’re not the ones who politiczed it. In practice much of this strident paranoid advocacy has been not about legitimizing freedom for gays or other protected classes, it is all about de-legitimizing existing institutions. The Left simply does not like power to be distributed at the local level, they prefer centralized top-down exercise of government power supposedy to make the world, every last crevice and particle of it, a better place. The family is an institution that, as the Left sees it, is competition to this benevolent will to centralized power. The statists fight for what is good, so competion is evil. Freedom of speech is also evil, when you don’t agree with them. It’s calculated intimidation, Larry. Right in front of us all. We don’t like it. Do you?
We have here (1) news media intentionally distorting and magnifying the comments of a private citizen, and (2) government officials using this as an excuse to grandstand, publicly harass, and illegally deny business licences on the basis of personal beliefs of the business owners. That is absolutely against the law.
Look how contrived and calculated this whole thing is. The President’s own public position was anti-gay marriage until two months ago. Do Leftists have no memory? Apparently. It’s as Orwell described. The President has always been at war with Chic Fil A.
Law works on the basis of precedent. So does real world politics. If denial of government services, and official “naming and shaming” of individuals for perfectly legal (and innocuous) personal beliefs is allowed to stand once, it provides a justification for further intrusions and disregard for the law. And in fact, donors to the Republican Party have alreasdy been retaliated against via Federal government regulatory and legal harassment, and the same outrageous “naming and shaming” behavior by government officials tht we just saw with this stupid Chic Fil A thing.
It’s not about gays. Do you see the problem here? Do you see the misdirection and deception? Do you see how the problem could grow?
The recent trend to present homosexuality as a normal part of American culture was established, years, ago, by the U.S. Communist Party. Evidenced below is a link to the Communist Goals as presented in the 1963 Congressional Record — Appendix, pp. A34-A35. No. 26 on the list states, “Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as ‘normal, natural, healthy.'”
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
At its core, Atheistic Communism is rebellion against God. It therefore makes sense the American family would be specifically targeted. Traditional marriage, after all, encompasses both moral absolutes and natural law.
Tom, people don’t agree that same sex marriage is a right. The left says it is, but they have a habit of making up rights to further their anti-American agenda.
And yes, it is part of the continuing attack on Christianity by the left. I know you know that and everything else I said, so spare us your BS. Now ooze back to whatever sewer you came from. I haven’t forgotten what a disgusting maggot you are.
Bob and Aye, you aren’t kidding. Eeek!
The MSM and the Obama administration have taken this football and are running with it to take the spotlight away from his “You didn’t build that” b;under.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I actually agree with your previous referenced post on gay marriage as well thought out. I certainly have no problem whatsoever with contractual civil unions. We can’t however ignore the fact that it is the radical far left of the Democratic party (not “all on the left”) who are pushing gay marriage as part of their agenda, against those Democrats who agree with you Larry.
I do however disagree with Dick Cheney or Ted Olsen as being considered “Conservative” as examination of their political leanings show that they are both clearly “Establishment” Republicans.
This in earlier today: Black pastors group launches anti-Obama campaign around gay marriage
Gay Marriage To Make Democratic Party Platform: Reid
IMO, Obama and the far-left are creating a rift in the Democratic party that could cost them big-time in the Democratic elections.
nice summation of the entire debate. where I live in Chicago it’s pretty tough to be out of the closet as a conservative. I feel the same as you, believe in civil unions, but am against calling it a marriage. I find that virtually all the lefties I know will say, “I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal”. But when the brass tacks are spilled, and you say, “You know, we ought to end all federal spending on abortion. However, abortion should be a person’s individual choice and legal.” , they get in a tizzy about how you are some demon wanting to enslave women.
@Jeffrey Carter: I feel ya – living in DC as a (usually) Republican, Tea Partier and a Philadelphia Eagles fan I officially have given every person in this town a reason to hate me =8^)
On the lefties liking freedom check my previous post on how leftists actually view freedom.
@Brother Bob
Questions for you…
1. The catholic church (less than 24% of Americans are catholic) is also against remarriage. So do you propose that remarriage is banned in the US? If not why’s that different?
2. Or if you understood more as to why the catholic church was against remarriage would that make you support a ban on remarriage? If not then why not?
3. The catholic church is also against abortion, adultery, birth control, blasphemy, heresy, masturbation, homosexuality, pre-marital sex and worshipping other Gods – should they also be made illegal? If not why’s that different?
4. The US has separation of Church and State – so why should the religious beliefs of some be taken into account of what can be legal and what cannot be legal?
5. Should the religious beliefs of Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Hindu and Buddhists also be enshrined in law? If not then why not?
6. Since when has marriage been synonymous with religious ceremony and do you have evidence that the first marriage was religious?
7. If you believe marriage should only be a religious ceremony then should atheists be allowed to marry? If you do then why should they?
8. If procreation is a reason for only having marriage as being a contract between two people of the opposite sex– then should those who can’t have or chose not to have children be allowed to marry? If they should then why?
9. Originally it was illegal for people of different race to marry but that was changed – so do you think that was a good change?
10. If so – doesn’t that make a mockery of your thin edge of wedge argument? If not – then why that different?
Making it illegal for two people to marry because of they are of the same gender is not tolerance. That’s imposing your belief system on others. Those who support gay marriage are not insisting that those against gay marriage have to marry those of the same gender. They are saying you believe what you want and do what you want upon yourselves – but don’t impose your belief system on others.
Typical righty—they think if they write a lot, they go further in proving their point. Here’s an exercise: Try to place the main points in a syllogistic proof. Try connecting one syllogism to another, in a logical fashion. I use the syllogism as an example because it is one of the simplest, and best known, forms of logical inference. You can get plenty of help with form on the internet. If you’re not engaging in logical discourse, then you’re just stating your opinion (and we all know about opinions being like noses—every body has one); or, worse yet, you’re just engaging in righty propaganda.
@GaffaUK: Good points. The important thing here being that “freedom to marry” is not forcing anybody to do anything against their beliefs. Where the conservative position is ‘force’ someone to act in accordance with their own religio-conservative beliefs beliefs about marriage.
It’s is the same with abortion and contraception—that’s why the pro-abortion position is called ‘pro-choice’ (it gives the individual the ‘right to choose). In contrast conservatives want to take that choice away, based on their religious beliefs.
But the ultra-conservative religious position is that if they don’t take some sort of action to protect their moral values, it might compromise the ability to go to heaven when they die.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry, nice to have the OC checking in on this one. I agree with you that this is not Red or Blue issue and California is a clear example to refute that claim. Chick Fil As in SD County where really busy yesterday. I am in marketing and this is a dream scenario for them. The best marketing in the world is to be able to demostrate your quality to new customers and have them pay for it. I am guessing that their business will grow nicely and not just the huge bump they got yesterday. Regards, Mike.
@Liberal1 (objectivity): Spoken like a true liberal wacho. America showed up at chick fil a yesterday and NO one forced them to. In fact I am guessing there where both Red and Blue participants as well as all nationalities that represent America. I am also guessing that there are many gays that believe in the 1st Amendment rights as well. Nice try to divide on this one but just like 0-bama you failed miserably, again.
Liberal1 (objectivity):
Your bold typeface can’t turn BS into fact. The moment – the very moment! – that gay marriage is legalized, gays will rush to churches at top speed with the express purpose of suing them when their request to have the ceremony performed is rejected. Gay marriage is nothing but a set-up for this event. That’s certainly what I would call forcing someone to do something against their beliefs.
Or is it really a right they’ve been dreaming of forever and ever? I think not. I’m old enough to know that gays said nothing about marriage until recently. Why didn’t they give a damn about it until now? Why didn’t they demand it back in 1973 when homosexuality was removed from the diagnostic manual as a mental disorder? They had to wait? Wait for what? If it’s a right, then why wait? Was it because they had to soften up the public with propaganda? So, if they actually wanted to get married in 1973 (and forever before that), then what do they have waiting in the wings right now that that can’t discuss publicly because we’re “not ready for it yet”?
As for your off-topic rant on the glories of abortion as a “choice”: seen any pictures of chopped-up babies recently, or are all those pictures just a “right wing scare tactic”? Have you heard Richard Dawkins’ psychotic suggestion of killing 2-year-olds? Gee, that’s a conclusion he reached using “reason” and by being “free of superstition.” I wonder what else he has in store for us?
@GaffaUK:
1) The Catholic Church (most learned people would use capital “C” simply due to proper English, those who don’t, do so to show distain) does not ban remarriage. Quite the contrary, remarriage is supported by the Church under certain conditions. What the Church does not recognize is a civil divorce. Even then, under certain conditions, those who have received a civil divorce may remarry.
2) Moot. See #1
3) The Catholic Church is also against murder, child abuse, theft, battery, incest. Those things are already illegal.
4) The “Separation” clause does not exist in the U.S. Constitution. Justice Hugo Black, a KKK member and anti-Catholic, decided to use a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, which was not part of the U.S. Constitution, and twist Jefferson’s meaning, to create his ruling. The U.S. Constitution guarantees that there will not be a “formal” state religions (i.e. The Church of England) but it also guarantees the free exercise of religious belief. Black’s ruling was due to his KKK disdain for the Catholic Church which he felt was too powerful in the United States and a shot across its bow. It was, and remains, bad law.
5) Many of them are as they are common moral law.
6) Do you have proof that the first marriage was not religious? Are you aware of when the first marriage “license” was issued in the United States and the reason for it?
7) If two atheists choose to marry, then let them enter into a civil union, since it has no moral/religious connotations and is a simple legal contract between two adults, subject to being dissolved by a court of law.
8) Should we require that all those who contemplate marriage be subjected to physical exams and tests to determine that they are capable of child bearing? A man in his 70’s is still capable of impregnating a woman. To date, modern science has not yet found a way for one man to impregnate another man.
9) Moot argument unless you can prove that it is 100% possible to determine one’s sexual proclivities visually.
The institution of marriage between a man and a woman is a traditional institution. What other sociatal traditions do you want to abolish? In your last sentence you make the claim that gays are only saying “Don’t impose you belief system on others.” Is that not exactly what the gay lobby is trying to do? You say that Catholics represent just 24-% of the total population yet gays, who represent 2% of the population are trying to impose their belief system on the other 98%. But it doesn’t end with just being able to marry someone of the same gender, does it? It continues on to include teaching homosexuality as normal in early elementary educational grades; laws that grant special considerations (affirmative action based on sexual peference); and changing the entire stucture of traditional moral norms. For what? A $255.00 Social Security death benefit?
Tolerance cannot be gained by demand or force. But those are the methods liberal/progressives choose to apply to this “fight”, as well as others.
@retire05:
Well said Retire05.
The NEA and AFT dominated American public school systems somehow fail to tell those students it their care that the primary hate target of the reconstituted KKK in the 20th century was Roman Catholicism in America, secondarily it was American Blacks then came Jews. Justice Hugo Black kept faith with his KKK calling were it counted most to the white bigots in pre-Martin Luther King American. IMHO Justice Hugo Black did as much damage to Catholicism in American as he could get away with without blowing up the New Deal Democratic coalition.
The 1st Amendment was designed to provide for robust religious involvement of Christians, their clergy and their church congregations in American civil affairs and public policy. The Founding generation generally expected that robust religious involvement in American public life to be Protestant, although the liberal Christians among the Founders, such as George Washington, made a point of making provision for Jewish and Catholic participation in American civic and political life.
Separation of Church and State as understood by the Founders meant that religious practice and participation in American civil affairs would be protected from the predations of and restriction by the state. That’s why the 1st Amendment prohibits religious Establishment, such as the Church of England, which traditionally functioned as a subsidiary to the British state, sort of like a British version of a US Department of the Spiritual Interior.
God of Liberty: A Religious History of the American Revolution
The homosexual portion of the population is roughly 5% or less. To make the other 94-95% change their centuries old traditions is an asinine proposition. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a civil union; in fact, there are even churches that would perform these civil union ceremonies.
The problem lies with the left activists not accepting the compromise. For two same sex folks, a civil union (or you could even call it a civil marriage contract) would accomplish the same legal property protections as traditional marriage.
Retire05
1) Dodged. I’m more than happy to use a small C for the catholic church thanks. I’m sure you are well aware I’m referring to remarriage after a divorce. (Of course historically the corrupt catholic church has a nice little earner with annulments) Anyway if a reason for being against gay marriage being legal is because the catholic church is against it – then logically you would also be against those who have divorced being allowed to remarry unless they have been annulled by the catholic church? Or are you cherry-picking on what suits you?
2) Dodged. Not moot. If as Brother Bob explains if you understand why catholics are against remarriage then that might persuade you to support their stance – would the same applied with their stance on divorcees getting remarried. (not that most catholics follow the teachings on the church I’m sure)
3) Dodged. That’s what’s considered illegal by the secular state and not wholly based on the teachings of catholicism. I can see my point has flown over your head. Would a venn diagram help? To put it simply if catholic teaching is used an excuse to be against making gay marriage legal – than why aren’t all catholic teachings also legal?
4) Dodged. There is a separation of church and state even if you happen to not like the ruling. So you would like the US to be a theocracy and not have a separation of church and state?
5) Dodged. Should ALL teachings of other religions be enshrined in US law? Why not Sharia Law? Or does it depend on percentage of population who follows a religion as to whether it is enshrined in law or not? A minority of less than 24% is ok then? Not that those 24% would support a theocracy.
6) Dodged. I don’t need proof as I’m not making the assertion that marriage is wholly religious or not. The point I’m making that nobody knows! Marriage has happened before the US was conceived and throughout history non-religious people have married. Religion doesn’t own the rights to marriage.
7) Dodged. So you believe marriage between atheists should be illegal? Lol. Howabout agnostics? Or those with weak faith? Will be there be a test to find out who’s fibbing? lol
8) Dodged. Clearly there are people who cannot have or chose not to have kids. Marriage is not wholly about child-rearing. Should it be illegal for a man to wed a woman who has had a hysterectomy?
9) Dodged. If marriage is so traditional then how come it has changed so much over the centuries and varies across the globe? Again – do you support the change that mixed race couples can now marry – or should it have remained as no institution should be allowed to change? Lol
10) Not even answered.
0/10 FAIL
Allowing gay people to marry doesn’t abolish marriage. What people on here fail to realize is that not all people who are gay or who are left or who are right – think and believe the same thing! There’s a big difference to those, like myself, who think the Catholic church should be allowed to marry and not marry who they like based on whatever bigotry opinions it has – but gays should be allow to marry civilly or in other religious or non-religious legal institutions that are happy to marry – than those who believe that all religious institutions should be forced to marry gay people. If people think that gays cannot marry even by those who are happy to marry then by definition – that’s imposing your belief on others. If gays could get married – it wouldn’t effect my marriage one iota. The blatant cherry-picking of certain religious values (whilst ignoring others) to mask homophobia is laughable.
@GaffaUK: You said:
Apples and oranges, Gaffer. The only way your argument is valid is if both gay marriage and re-marriage are issues that the Catholic Church is against for the same reason. Evidently you either don’t know the Holy Bible very well, or you have forgotten much of what you might have known.
The Catholic Church is against both issues for – and here is where you get lost – DIFFERENT REASONS. Therefore comparing the two is a moot point.
Fish.
Barrel.
.
.
Hi Gaffa, I strenuously object to your apparent assertion that being opposed to government recognition of gay marriage is synonymous with homophobia. That’s like saying that objection to certain Israeli government policies is synonymous with antisemitism. You assert that traditional marriage (and its protection for women and children, which is the chief reason that it has endured as an institution for thousands of years, as opposed to sporadic experiments with gay marriage, which have never endured) is not threatened by gay marriage. There are objective data which indicate otherwise, which I have cited previously.
There is such a simple solution to this controversy: allow civil unions between same gender couples and let the couples call it whatever they wish, but have the government call it something other than marriage. This would provide for both equal protection under the law and reasonable accommodation, without further eroding an institution which has protected women and children since the beginning of recorded history.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@GaffaUK: @retire05:
Not so, for a better part of a half a century SCOTUS has backed away from KKK Justice Hugo Black’s opinion. Hugo Black’s views regarding Separation of Church and State are not actually supported by SCOTUS. What KKK Justice Hugo Black did however was to popularly legitimized what was actually constitutionally illegitimate, which is the policy position of what was then the KKK on this issue. What KKK Justice Hugo Black did was to make it possible for anti-Catholic bigots, Marxists and Secularists to trumpet an illegitimate constitutional doctrine an erroneous understanding of “Separation of Church and State”. Separation of Church and State is actually a very old institution in Western Civilization, going back at least as far as the Divine Institutes of Lactantius. It is intended to limited the power of the State and to protect Freedom of Conscience and to provide for some degree of autonomy of religion from the state.
The First Amendment was designed to provide for robust religious involvement of Christians, their clergy and their church congregations in American civil affairs and public policy. The Founding generation generally expected that robust religious involvement in American public life to be Protestant, although the liberal Christians among the Founders, such as George Washington, made a point of making provision for Jewish and Catholic participation in American civic and political life.
Separation of Church and State as understood by the Founders meant that religious practice and participation in American civil affairs would be protected from the predations of and restriction by the state. That’s why the First Amendment prohibits religious Establishment, such as the Church of England, which traditionally functioned as a subsidiary to the British state, sort of like a British version of a US Department of the Spiritual Interior.
God of Liberty: A Religious History of the American Revolution
Separation of Church and State
The bottom line GaffaUK is that Retire05 knows what he is talking about and you don’t.
BTW GaffaUK, you aren’t a resident or a citizen of the UK are you?
@GaffaUK:
Since it is now obvious that you use a small “c” for no other purpuse than to be insulting to the faith held by millions of people, I will respond to you with the understanding that I am responding to someone with an obvious bias toward the Catholic Church.
You are apparently not familiar with the doctrine of the Catholic Church or you would not make such assinine statements. The Church holds the belief that a marriage sanctioned by God cannot be dissolved by man (as Gods authority supercedes mans authority). You also seem to think that being granted an annulment is just a very simple process that requires little effort. You could not be further from the truth. An annulment is not an easy process, and in fact, takes years. The original marriage is investigated and even the former spouse is sent a questionaire about the marriage. If the original (ex) spouse objects to the annulment, chances are it will either be denied, or it will go into further investigation via relatives, friends, pastors.
If a couple decides to marry without dispensation (annulments) then, in Church doctrine, they are not married in the eyes of the Church and are simply living together. And while I am at it, I will point out that if one of the parties of the couple that wants to marry has been married in another Christian faith, they must seek an annulment of that marriage since the Catholic Church recognizes the marriages of other faiths as blessed by God.
Then you add the little dig “corrupt Catholic Church”, so shall we talk about how the Church of England got its start? Seems to me that Henry VIII had a unique way of getting rid of his wives so he could remarry and deemed himself the head of the church, ordained by God due to the accident of his birth.
No, marriage, in our modern culture, is not always about having children. As a matter of fact, we have strayed from the very reason that a man and a woman married, in the first place. How is that working out with the public housing units full of children that have no idea who their father is while their mothers support them off the backs of productive tax payers? But historically, there is no getting away from the fact that marriages were sanctioned for the protection of children. And it was meant to provide, in a legal way, for the continuation of the species, i.e. human beings. Otherwise, we would have what is prevelant in the gay community; people bouncing from one partner to another. Oh, wait, that is why we have so many fatherless children, isn’t it. The end result of lack of respect for marriage is producing an unwanted result.
And your comparison to interracial marriage is falacious unless you can show where sexual preference can be determined visually as one is capable of determining a persons race visually. So share with all of us how you can tell is a person is homosexual simply by looking at them. Ironic that you should use that argument when a number of African-American ministers, not of the Catholic faith, have recently come out against same-sex marriages and the “evolution” of the President on the issue. They also insist that the same-sex marriage movement is nothing like the Civil Rights movement, and they are 110% correct.
Allowing gays to marry absolutely does make a mockery of traditional marriage. But the dirty little secret is that is the goal, isn’t it? And you ignore that gays are already allowed to marry under the same rules and guidelines as heterosexuals. The only way you can support homosexual marriage is to change the debate from one of “We want the right to marry” (which they already have) to one of “We want the right to marry anyone of our choosing” which even heterosexuals do not have.
I had a long debate with a homosexual man that said the ability to marry ‘the person of his choice’ was his right. When I asked him if he thought that siblings should be able to marry, he answered with a resounding “NO”, same with someone who is afflicted with an Oedipus Rex complex, again, a resounding “NO.” When I asked why, he said that sibling marrying siblings or sons marrying mothers was sick. I pointed out that if the guidelines of “marriage” were to be changed to include “the person of my choosing” then that would also include my examples.
The bottom line is that laws should be passed to serve the sociatal good. Same sex marriage serves no sociatal benefit except to pander to a small segment of that society and does not one thing to advance the survival of the species.
@anticsrocks and @retire05
2-5% gay?? Get real.
Try 10-20% ++
http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx
@JLH: You use a gallop poll as support for your statement. Not even close to reality.
@JLH:
That 10% has its origins in the scientific fraud of Alfred Kinsey, a vicious destructive sexual predator and criminal who posed as a scientist. Kinsey had the generous support of the Rockefeller Foundation at the time because he gave the Foundation the “findings” the Progressive-Left officers of the Foundation hungered for.
Competent empirical work places the numbers at:
1% or so lesbian
1-1/2% ~ 2% homosexual
and another
1-1/2% ~ 2% bisexual
The Gallup Poll in question didn’t ask people if they were gay; it asked people what percent of Americans those polled thought were gay. In other words, to ask everyday people what is the incidence of gayness in America in 2002? So they guessed 20%.
Today, it wouldn’t surprise me if the guess were 30%, based on the increasingly prevalent portrayals in movies and television.
This is from a peer-reviewed survey of 750 men in Calgary, Alberta (which is much more like Dallas than San Francisco):
The following was from a 1994 New England Journal of Medicine review:
LW/HB
@JLH:
I’ll quote from your Gallop report
The report you cited describes the media fostered false impression made by decades of so of homosexual rights advocacy by the Media and Hollywood upon the American public. Think product placement. Watch TV and this is the impression you will get.
However, competent empirical work places the numbers in question at:
1% or so lesbian
1-1/2% ~ 2% homosexual
and another
1-1/2% ~ 2% bisexual
Civil Unions are not and can never be legally equivalent to marriage. There are numerous rights and privileges that come with marriage that one does not receive with a civil union. Stretched across all states, cities, and municipalities in the country, the number of such rights and privileges is:
(A) In the thousands
(B) Constantly changing
(A) basically means that the cost of making Civil Unions legally equivalent to Marriage today is insurmountable; literally every leaf node of every level of government in the entire country would need to comb through every legislative piece of code to tease out mentions of “marriage’ or “spouse” and pass new laws that added, e.g “spouse or civil-union partner”. This effort would amount to the single largest and most expensive legislative overhaul in the history of the country, by several orders of magnitude. Just think of all the taxes we’d have to raise to pull it off!
(B) basically means that even if (A) was accomplished, there’d be a never-ending need to keep fixing laws as they passed, to ensure all references to marital status had equivalence-of-civil-union clauses built in. Also a categorically insurmountable cost.
So the entire “Just give gays separate but legally-equal civil union status” case is demonstrably bunk. You can still argue that gay couples should only receive civil-union status, but don’t pretend that you’d be giving them anything CLOSE to the legal privileges afforded to straight couples. You aren’t and you never will be.
A side note, this is exactly what undermined separate-but-equal racial segregation: it was finally seen for the oxymoron it truly was – separation itself negates the equality. Segregation could never be fixed by just trying to spend more money on colored buses and colored schools, or improved placement of the colored drinking fountains. Similarly, the gap between the legal rights gay couples receive via civil unions and the legal rights straight couples receive via marriage can never be fixed by just “working harder” to grant more rights to civil unions.
Hi Kevin,
“The purpose of this legislation is to grant civil recognition of a new institution which [for the sake of example] shall be named ‘Twainiage.’ ‘Twainiage’ shall be granted all the rights and encumbered with all the responsibilities of the established institution known as ‘Marriage,’ but the term ‘Twainiage’ shall apply to same gendered couples, whereas the term ‘Marriage’ shall apply to opposite gendered couples.”
See, not difficult at all.
‘Twainiage,’ by the way, wasn’t my idea. It’s a great name proposed by a gay conservative:
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/09/17/where-do-conservatives-stand-on-gay-marriage/
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@Kevin:
Nonsense. It’s very easy to make civil unions have the legal standing. (As Larry has just shown,) I would insist (in fairness) however that if married couples have to pay a tax penalty, civil unions should have to pay the same tax penalty.
@Ditto: @Kevin:
Likely substantially all of those numerous rights and privileges that come with marriage which gay activists claim to seek could be provided for today under contract law. Surely state legislatures could smooth over the few bumps that might arise. Law firms, investment advisers, insurance companies et cetera would be eager to serve such a large market with specialty products designed for committed gay couples … if a demand for such products were to exist. Interestingly over the last two or three decades or so when there was supposed to be a substantial frustrated pent-up demand in the consumer market for the benefits of gay marriage no such demand for virtual gay marriage products arose. Thereafter when the legal restrictions for gay marriage were dropped in several jurisdictions the numerical response by gay couples getting married has been uniformly underwhelming, particularly in the face of such a supposed pent-up demand.
Hey Larry” Homosexual to some degree” How’s that work? lol What about Metrosexuals? They are probably perceived as gay by real men.
2% gay gotta be low 25-30% gotta be high and must include those dang metrosexuals.
““The purpose of this legislation is to grant civil recognition of a new institution which [for the sake of example] shall be named ‘Twainiage.’ ‘Twainiage’ shall be granted all the rights and encumbered with all the responsibilities of the established institution known as ‘Marriage,’ but the term ‘Twainiage’ shall apply to same gendered couples, whereas the term ‘Marriage’ shall apply to opposite gendered couples.”
Twainage? Yuck. Here, this is much simpler: “No law may deny same-gendered couples equal access to the legal institution of marriage as exists for opposite-gendered couples.” Mine doesn’t require modifying the English language, nor complicate existing law (in fact, it greatly simplifies many things by eliminating reams of valueless civil union vs marriage nuance). Plus, my version just needs 5 votes – how many votes does yours need?
You seem to acknowledge that buttressing all existing legislation pertaining to rights/privileges/responsibilites of marriage with “civil-union addendums” is not going to happen… and instead suggest our government could “simply” pass legislation definining into legal and lingual existeence an entirely new institution of marriage. That is, if I have this right, identical to marriage. But with a different word. Look, my point was one of pragmatism. There are same-gendered couples today being denied access to rights conferred upon married couples. They want to adopt and raise children now. They want living wills now. They need shared benefits now. Their soulmates are dying in hospitals right now, and they aren’t being allowed to be at their deathbed right now. What would you put the odds at (be honest) of gay couples attaining those rights and privileges in the next 5-10 years due to a SCOTUS ruling, worded roughly similar to what I wrote? Now, your “Twainage” idea has been in the public market place of ideas for at least 2 years now. Based on the amount of momentum and enthusiasm it’s built up in 2 years (specifically by count of membership of grassroot organizations pushing for passage of federal Twainage laws), what are the odds we’ll see anything like your legislation enacted in the next 5-10 years. Be honest, give a number.
Ditto,
If I read you right, you’re thinking we need some way to make darn sure same-sex couples get all the exact same benefits AND pay all the exact same taxes their opposite-sex counterparts pay when they get married. Hmm… wanna play, “who can come up with the simplest solution?”
@Mike O’Malley:
That’s such a good comment.
I would add: The latest figures for the whole USA add up to only 68,000 gay couples who have actually tied the know since it’s legality in various states.
Here, in Long Beach, CA (2nd biggest number of gays in one city) only a tiny minority of the gays and lesbians here are married.
I know the owner of one of our most popular gay bars.
He says playing the field is as popular these days as it was before AIDS!
Settling down is the furthest thing from the minds of most gays here.
A much bigger group of gays and lesbians simply SAY they are married.
While they are together.
@Nan G:
68,000 gay couples X 2 = 136,000 gays and lesbians. And that is with decades of pent-up demand in a population of over 313,000,000.
Let’s run some numbers. First we can try JlH’s top number of 20% above:
313,000,000 . people in USA
x 2/3 ratio of adults in US population
=
208,666,666
x 20%
=
41,733,333 gay and lesbian persons in the USA eager to get married
136,000 gays and lesbians who got married
that means
only 0.32% of 41,733,333 gays and lesbians in the USA actually wanted to get married?
Now we can try my top number of 2% above:
313,000,000 > > > . people in USA
x 2/3 > > > ratio of adults in US population
=
208,666,666
x 2%
=
4,173,333 gay and lesbian persons in the USA eager to get married
136,000 gays and lesbians who got married
that means
only 3.2% of 4,173,333 gays and lesbians in the USA actually wanted to get married?
@Kevin:
Change the federal tax code eliminating head-of-household filing status and put all single persons on the married filing separate tax tables?
Hi Kevin,
You make it sound (#41) like some emergency. It’s not an emergency.
I’ve presented objective data which indicate that gay marriage IS a threat to the institution of traditional marriage, the latter of which has a very good track record of having protected women and children for millennia. This also squares with what common sense would have predicted (as explained in my earlier linked blog post). It’s of vastly greater importance to do it right and not to throw out the baby (the institution of marriage, with protections to vast numbers of people) with the bathwater (existing disadvantages to a relatively small number of people). We can fix the problems to which you allude in #41 without threatening the institution of marriage and all it would take is a little more time. We could then have a situation which protects the interests of both sides of this debate. There is simply no reason to do something so ill-advised, on the grounds of a pseudo-emergency.
What happens if SCOTUS upholds Proposition 8? You realize that gay marriage has never passed in a single state. This is despite the fact that the arguments previously made against gay marriage have been very weak — i.e. based on religious beliefs. As more evidence emerges regarding the negative impact of gay marriage on the institution of traditional marriage, I believe that support for gay marriage will dry up.
Gays should have equal protection and reasonable accommodation. They can have both by recognizing that there are important differences between gay marriage and traditional marriage and that gay marriage should go by a different name, which does nothing more nefarious than to recognize that it’s not the exact same thing.
– LW/HB
@Richard Wheeler: It’s fill in the blank type sexual other than Heterosexual, that we you include all types. Hate to think what types the demented mind could come up with.
@Mike O’Malley:
I stink at that kind of math, but I trust your work.
However……whoever thinks gays are 20% of the population needs to learn something.
Long Beach has more gays than anywhere else outside of SF and NY, and WE don’t have anywhere near 20%, I think that number is outrageous.
SF estimates itself have only 15% gay population.
LB only between 5% and 6%.
NYCity between 4% and 5% but with a bigger population.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
What gay activists fail to tell the American people is that very few homosexual supporters of gay marriage actually intend to act like married heterosexual couples. A sizable majority of homosexual supporters of gay marriage have no intention and no inclination of entering into a life time monogamous sexual commitment to their sexual partner. A sizable majority of homosexual supporters of gay marriage have no intention of abandoning radical homosexual promiscuity. Many of the radical homosexual activists intend to inject radical sexual promiscuity as an accepted behavioral standard into normative heterosexual marriage. It just that … they ain’t sayin’ that in public … yet …
.
@Nan G:
Solid empirical work puts the actual numbers close to the 2% homo and 2% bi rations I alluded to above.
@Mike O’Malley:
Mike, it’s hard to know where to start with some of these comments you throw around with zero factual support. Underwhelming you say?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-24/gay-marriage-produced-259-million-for-new-york-city-economy-1-.html
@Tom:
LOLZ Tom!
Those statistics are as substantive as a balloon filled with Helium!