Same-Sex Marriage

[Jude]

This probably isn't productive as people are getting emotional about the situation and in many ways I feel the discussion on this issue is becoming increasingly unfair.  It doesn't really matter anyway, we agree on the basic principle being discussed, just not the process.  This is clearly too emotionally charged to have a civil debate, so I'm stepping out at this point, I definitely didn't mean anything I said as a personal slight against anyone on this thread.  I'm not going to lock (because that would be lame).

[Talia]

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957


An Odd Couple Defends Couples That Some (Oddly) Find Odd

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/opinion/17dowd.html?ref=opinion


Prejudice is a burden that confuses the past, threatens the future and renders the present inaccessible. Maya Angelou

[Serephino]

I couldn't get the first article to load.  But yes, it'd damned sad when a prisoner on death row can get married and I can't....

[PaleEnchantress]

I've been following this thread since it was just a few posts. I haven't said anything yet since I did not trust myself to remain calm. It just seems wrong to me that two people could be denied the right to marry because they are the same sex. The majority really have no business telling 2 people that cant have the legal ability to share their lives together.

As for that some good points have already been made. However, since the idea of a slow and gradual change being best has been discussed. I would like to add something. First of all same sex marriage rights have been something of an issue since the gay rights movement picked up speed in the 70's. That puts the issue over the 30 year mark already. Secondly while small alterations added up over time may be the least dramatic way to do things, it isn't the best for all involved. It may be the least jarring to those that are prejudice, but what about all the same sex couples that would like to get married within their lifetime?

Civil Unions do not provide the same benefits of marriage. It would be a nice thing if they did. Even so separate but equal is not really equal. If someone loves a person of their own gender, they deserve the same security to settle down and have a family that everyone else does. Most of all they deserve it now, not three generations from now.

[Jude]

As for that some good points have already been made. However, since the idea of a slow and gradual change being best has been discussed. I would like to add something. First of all same sex marriage rights have been something of an issue since the gay rights movement picked up speed in the 70's. That puts the issue over the 30 year mark already.

Already mentioned that, but compared to other Civil Rights Movements, the homosexual rights movement is still in its infancy.  Social change takes a long time.

Secondly while small alterations added up over time may be the least dramatic way to do things, it isn't the best for all involved. It may be the least jarring to those that are prejudice, but what about all the same sex couples that would like to get married within their lifetime?

Realistically, the amount of people who are actually positively effected by passing gay marriage is very small.  Around 10% of the population is homosexual, I'm not sure if that takes into account bisexuality, but not everyone who is homosexual is going to want to get married (or have someone who wants to marry them).  I have no idea what percentage of homosexuals would marry if they could, there's a lot of arguments for the percentage being lower than the amount of straight couples since there will be less social and religious pressure to stop "living in sin" (since by religious tenets they're sinful no matter what they do).  This is one of the most tragic things about the measure though, I believe it's the right thing to do, but there won't be a very visible upside once the measure is passed.  There's no post-legislation vindication.

Civil Unions do not provide the same benefits of marriage. It would be a nice thing if they did. Even so separate but equal is not really equal. If someone loves a person of their own gender, they deserve the same security to settle down and have a family that everyone else does. Most of all they deserve it now, not three generations from now.

Civil Unions in many places do provide the same benefits of marriage.  There have been court cases in state supreme courts mandating it (such as in New Jersey).  It's simply a fact.

Making a separate but equal comparison is completely invalid and very emotionally loaded, it's actually kind of offensive that you'd say that homosexuals having a different law governing their marriage is comparable to minorities being segregated from majorities in public facilities.  There's obviously a difference between law which is theoretical and expressed in terms of precise words (so you can simply directly copy the provisions for straight marriage word for word and change a few statements here and there to reflect sex) and separate but equal public physical facilities for African Americans.

This isn't about the right to settle down and have a family.  This is about legal rights associated with marriage.  There is nothing stopping homosexual couples right now from living together with the person they love and treating each other as spouses.  They're simply not extended the same legal protections that straight couples are.  I completely agree this is wrong however, but you have to keep a realistic outlook on it.

If you force something through which the populace does not agree with, you face backlash.  You can't live purely in the realm of abstract right and wrong regardless of the realities, or you will lose in the long run.

[Talia]

Jude's quotes or statements:

Social change takes a long time.

but not everyone who is homosexual is going to want to get married (or have someone who wants to marry them).

Civil Unions in many places do provide the same benefits of marriage.

If you force something through which the populace does not agree with, you face backlash.  You can't live purely in the realm of abstract right and wrong regardless of the realities, or you will lose in the long run.


Ted Olson:

"We’re going to explain why allowing same-sex couples to have that same right that the rest of us have is not going to hurt heterosexual marriages. It has no point at all except some people don’t want to recognize gays and lesbians as normal, as human beings.”

"You can be a child molester and get married. You can be a wife beater and get married. You can be a child-support scofflaw and get married. The importance of that emotional relationship is so vital to the pursuit of happiness that even prison felons, who aren’t really procreating, have a right to get married.” 

Noting the rabid effort being made to restrict marriage to only those who can protect its sanctity, a chuckling Olson reeled off some names: “Tiger Woods, Eliot Spitzer, Mark Sanford, Kobe Bryant, Bill Clinton.”



“I think there’s something the matter with you if you don’t care enough to feel the suffering that they’ve been through and if you’re not emotionally upset about the fact that we’re doing an immense amount of harm to people,” he said. “We’re not treating them like Americans. We’re not treating them like citizens.”


“They are preserving the sanctity of marriage, so that two gay men who've been together for twenty-five years can't get married, but a guy can still get drunk in Vegas and marry a hooker at the Elvis chapel! The sanctity of marriage is saved!”
Lea DeLaria


All I'm saying is the bottom line here is the fact that it is a clear constitutional issue...everybody and I mean everybody has the right to live with the same legal rights and liberties as everyone else. These said laws should be the same every where...not just in some states or certain countries or for the select lucky few. The reasons that they aren't is because of prejudice, lack of understanding, unwillingness to empathize with others different from themselves, evolve with change and changing needs and in generally being afraid as politicians to go against the grain, grab their balls and to the correct moral thing!

[PaleEnchantress]

Already mentioned that, but compared to other Civil Rights Movements, the homosexual rights movement is still in its infancy.  Social change takes a long time.

They do take time, which is unfortunate. The woman's suffrage movement was valid before it even picked up steam near the turn of the century. It's wonderful that we have equal legal representation between men and women now, but it was still wrong for there ever to have not been. It upsets me that same sex marriage is even an issue.  If someone personally believes people of the same sex shouldn't get married then they can exercise that belief by not marrying someone of the same sex.

Realistically, the amount of people who are actually positively effected by passing gay marriage is very small.  Around 10% of the population is homosexual, I'm not sure if that takes into account bisexuality, but not everyone who is homosexual is going to want to get married (or have someone who wants to marry them).

Indeed homosexuals are a minority. That doesn't mean they deserve any less then what the majority gets. Not all same sex couples will want to marry, but they should have the option to do so and receive the full benefits marriage provides.

Civil Unions in many places do provide the same benefits of marriage.  There have been court cases in state supreme courts mandating it (such as in New Jersey).  It's simply a fact. Making a separate but equal comparison is completely invalid and very emotionally loaded, it's actually kind of offensive that you'd say that homosexuals having a different law governing their marriage is comparable to minorities being segregated from majorities in public facilities.

Nice to hear that Civil Unions are in some places providing all the benefits of a marriage. It's not exactly perfect but it is very close. Now if that were the case everywhere I am sure most of us pushing for same sex marriage would feel some relief. I do not see the separate but equal comparison as invalid. Separate physical facilities are a higher caliber of separation then one that is based on legal paperwork. There is still a level of separation that there shouldn't be. I personally would be quite satisfied if Civil Unions provided the same benefit of marriage nationwide, most homosexual and bisexual people I know feel the same way. I wouldn't view it as being finally equal but it's at least "good enough for now".

This isn't about the right to settle down and have a family.  This is about legal rights associated with marriage.  There is nothing stopping homosexual couples right now from living together with the person they love and treating each other as spouses.  They're simply not extended the same legal protections that straight couples are.  I completely agree this is wrong however, but you have to keep a realistic outlook on it.

I agree with you here really. There really isn't anything I can add here  that I haven't said.

As far as being realistic. For years I took the higher road and tried to treat all views as equal. It made me feel very empty. I find it far more fulfilling to stand up for what I really believe and accept no compromise. Does that inversion of intolerance make me just as bad as the people I'm fighting? I don't think so, but even if it did I have to do what lets me look at myself in the mirror.

On a final note Jude, you make a lot of well constructed arguments and back many of them up well. Your posts are well structured too. I am however having trouble understanding what your actual point is. Just taking your last reply into consideration:

Realistically, the amount of people who are actually positively effected by passing gay marriage is very small.  Around 10% of the population is homosexual, I'm not sure if that takes into account bisexuality, but not everyone who is homosexual is going to want to get married (or have someone who wants to marry them).  I have no idea what percentage of homosexuals would marry if they could, there's a lot of arguments for the percentage being lower than the amount of straight couples since there will be less social and religious pressure to stop "living in sin" (since by religious tenets they're sinful no matter what they do).  This is one of the most tragic things about the measure though, I believe it's the right thing to do, but there won't be a very visible upside once the measure is passed.  There's no post-legislation vindication.

At first it sounds like you are saying that you abide by a majority rule. Then it sounds a bit like you are pro same sex marriage. To put it in college writing terms I am completely lost on what your "thesis statement" is.  Would you mind clearing it up for me?

[consortium11]

A couple of thoughts I had relating to the passing of same-sex marriage judicially (as opposed to legislatively).

If it was passed it would probably be something along the lines of (very roughly);

Each person has the right to enter a legal marriage (with all the benefts and responsibilites attatched as defined by the legislature) with any consenting partner they so choose inrespective of gender, race, religion or any other characteristic (excluding blood relatives)

The first thought is a small one; does someone having the right to do something mean another is obliged to facilitate it? If a catholic priest refused to marry a same sex couple, would he be infringing on their rights, and would they be able to force him to marry them?

The second... and the bigger one. Does this entrench the idea of religious marriage into law?

Let's say a subsequant government decides it wants to be pretty damn strict on the seperation of church and state principle. It decides it wants to get the hell out of marriage; anyone can have any religious (or non religious) service they want (as long as they find someone to administer it) but it legally doesn't mean a thing... instead you have a civil union that grants you the legal rights. In such a case, would the right described above mean that such an action would be unconstitutional and thus not able to take place? The same with any law that attempted to significantly reform current marriage laws?

[Mnemaxa]

What about religions that allow same sex marriages?  They do exist, but are in a very tiny minority.  They are being marginalized, despite the ideal of freedom of religion.  Currently, their religious practices are not recognized by law, as it stands, as same sex marriages are unlawful marriages. 

It's a small, but annoying little splinter to bother people with.

[Jude]

Were it up to me, Government would not recognize relationships between people with any special rights or privileges.  I don't understand why a man and a woman who agree to live together and only have sex with each other deserve protection and benefits that two men who are just good friends and decide that they want to spend their life together in a platonic way are denied.  I think supporting any lifestyle choice which is completely arbitrary through the tax code and legislation is fundamentally wrong.  I'm against the existence of a nanny state that encourages its citizens to behave in certain ways.

If someone wants to be single for the rest of their life, they shouldn't be punished for it.  The same goes for homosexuals, and I believe the current system punishes them unfairly (especially because I don't think homosexuality is a choice).  Even if Gay Marriage occurs, the system will still favor people who live a lifestyle of romantic commitment, and there are people out there who choose to live out an existence of platonic pair-bonding that will be discriminated against.

However, I recognize that the majority of the country does not want to give up the extra benefits they receive for being married and probably considers my thoughts on the matter ridiculous.  My opinions are far from mainstream and are simply not politically feasible.  Advocating a position that's untenable politically doesn't get you anywhere, in my opinion, so I choose to back something that's 'less unjust' than the current system, i.e. equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.  I would definitely prefer a political system that defines marriage as a romantic union between two consenting adults, instead of two people of the opposite sex as our current system does.

And basically, because I want to see same-sex marriage come about, I'm against it being done by Judicial Activism.  I don't think society respects laws that are forced upon the majority by judicial activism.  I believe that societal progress is a natural process that slowly changes our culture towards a more sympathetic, humanist position if it's allowed to work unfettered.  Sympathetic conversion by way of humanizing people is the way to go, I think, not forcing a position they disagree on them.  When you take the role of the persecuted victim and allow others to see your pain, it makes it hard for them to turn a blind eye to your suffering.

We agree on the end goal, just disagree on the tactic.

[kylie]

Sympathetic conversion by way of humanizing people is the way to go, I think, not forcing a position they disagree on them.  When you take the role of the persecuted victim and allow others to see your pain, it makes it hard for them to turn a blind eye to your suffering.

I don't know about this part.  There is something to it, in the sense that the polls seem to suggest association with gay people increases support for gay marriage.  Although, I've also seen some claims that the people changed may be more likely to be liberals.  So all else being equal (ugly assumption there), that will reach a limit.

          I think that many people are easily moved to believe that their own local victimization is such a burden that it must be the first thing removed.  Whether it's your toe, finger, or brain, every hurt feels very important.  And various types of people are moved to react based on it -- even in cases where the "hurt" is more artificially construed.  The major legislative barrier to gay marriage at present, after all, is called the "Defense" of Marriage Act.  It implies that gay marriage would produce an injury, however symbolic, to previously conventional, hetero-normative marriages.  We can find other cases, some involving arguably more legitimate grievances, where a political party won on claims of victimization and then itself did terrible things.  If the primary platform is victimization per se, then anyone who wants to oppose the movement will point to such things.  It is important to point to actual grievances, but I think a movement needs to have some positive claims.  Perhaps, it also needs to create situations where matters must be decided -- whether it's sitting in the "wrong" part of the bus, or going to court. 

          It can also be rather demeaning to suggest that a primary source of identity/message should necessarily be evidence of injury.  First, this makes it the duty of the most injured or vulnerable gays to be the most public and vocal.  Second, opposing parties may seize upon that to insist that gays are doing pretty well in some ways.  While it's not so representative, they could do things in response to mitigate the complaint such as say, pointing to a few fashion designers.  They may also tell more conservative audiences that it was somehow a natural or religiously appropriate outcome for gays to be harmed.  Which is to say that 1) again, the victim story may not affect conservatives and 2) gays will continue to suffer for lack of the benefits of marriage at the same time that some conservatives (among others) are being motivated to act on hate or discrimination -- these things multiply.

[TheLegionary]

Sorry if my opinion may look like a bit rude.
For me, all this discussion about same-sex marriage resembles those medieval arguments about the sex of the angels (were they women? were they men?). In the end, the parties ended up killing each other for nothing. LOL.
As Saint Augustine said, "an idled mind is the devil's workshop".

[kylie]

For me, all this discussion about same-sex marriage resembles those medieval arguments about the sex of the angels (were they women? were they men?). In the end, the parties ended up killing each other for nothing.

Sure enough, it's tough to prove the sex of angels.  However, I'm very skeptical if you say no one killed for a distribution of wealth and power.  When it came to the Inquisition, ideas about succubi, incubi, and witches probably distracted people from inconvenient questions about why God didn't prevent plague and economic turmoil from harming the Church's faithful. 

          Now in the modern US, some of the Christian Right are afraid of losing a bit of something too: Wealth, power, status.  More gay marriages mean money and status for more people, and speaking of gender: Isn't it curious that the radical right tries to portray gay men as unmanly?  (Not to mention some strange demands upon women.)  It only seems fair to ask why their model of power in society demands that the number of "real men" be so limited.  They gain when more of their people can have benefits, but others cannot.  They gain when others cannot get that money or status.  Then, it's easier for them to make enemies or scapegoats of the gay people.  This keeps their people fired up about this one issue, too -- and distracted from others.

          Personally, I don't think "marriage" is an ideal platform for liberation.  However, in the US where a myth of equal opportunity is often taken for granted:  It is an argument about whether (at least some) gays get certain kinds of funding, privileges and tolerance.  It's not all about who's correct on impossible questions, as you seem to suggest.