Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Sex and Relationships

Why Straight People Need to Get into the Fight for Marriage Equality

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted October 28, 2008.


Pragmatism doesn't mean leaving your core principles at the door.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples is vitally important, and working toward achieving it is a "good fight," but the sad truth is that too many straight progressives see it as a second-tier issue, relegating it to a kind of "gay ghetto."

Now, it just so happens that I'm straight (not that there's anything wrong with that), and yet I think it's crucial that same-sex couples enjoy full marriage equality -- and not just "civil unions." Why the unyielding stance, given that the whole thing will never affect me directly?

It's the underlying principle at stake that's so important. Either the law treats all citizens the same, regardless of race, sex, creed, how they identify themselves or whom they happen to love, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then my own rights are in no way secure.

That's an elemental principle of liberalism. One thing I admire about the conservative movement is its ability to stick to its ideological guns -- its core philosophy -- no matter how unpopular that philosophy may be. It's true that George W. Bush has spent tax dollars like Paris Hilton on a shopping binge -- even with a Republican Congress -- and that he's nationalizing banks faster than you can say "Hugo Chavez," but he still lauds the ideal of "limited government" and praises the "power of the free market."

It's not so when it comes to that very important progressive ideal that the law should apply to all people equally; on same-sex marriage, Democrats (if not progressives) have proven to be pretty squishy.

Most polls show that more Americans oppose gay marriage than support it (although the trend has been heading toward supporting full rights for gays and lesbians for a while). In 2004, John Kerry saw those polls and said he opposed gay marriage. This year, Barack Obama and Joe Biden have both announced that while they support civil unions, they oppose real marriage equality.

Obama told the Chicago Tribune, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs, say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

(Obama, who supports most civil rights for gays and lesbians, reportedly refuses to be photographed with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who has been at the center of the gay marriage controversy.)

Of civil unions, Obama says, "Giving (gays and lesbians) a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination." He added, "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."

That's the Democratic party line at this point, and it's a popular one -- only about 1 in 3 Americans oppose granting some sort of recognition to gay couples. But it doesn't change the fact that we have a candidate -- the first African-American to have a shot at the nation's highest elected office, no less -- who appears to be OK with the idea of government offering rights and privileges to some citizens while withholding them from others.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: obama, election08, same-sex marriage, civil unions

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
It's particularly bizarre, given that...
Posted by: HeroesAll on Oct 28, 2008 1:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...marriage is pretty well completely harmless to everyone, unlike, say, carrying a gun.

But everyone in the US has the god-given (sorry, Amendment-given) right to own a firearm, regardless of their sexual orientation. So why get so upset about marriage?

This is one that really makes no sense to me - either all citizens have equal rights under the law, or they don't. If they don't, then that's qualitatively (not quantitatively - a difference of degree but not of kind) the same situation that endorsed slavery.

Land of the free, home of the 'fraid?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Great Solution
Posted by: bryangalt on Oct 28, 2008 3:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think this article hits on the solution if the bigots manage to scare the voters into passing Prop 8.

I am also disappointed in the fact that so many churches out there feel that their only issue is gay marriage. What are these churches doing to stop divorces, which is unthinkable in the Bible.

As a society, we have been progressively moving forward to make the idea of America the operation of America. Let's not stop now that we are so close to the final roadblocks being taken down against a minority that deserves to be equal and happy as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Great Solution Posted by: maestra
» RE: A Great Solution Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: A Great Solution Posted by: TagsNOLA
I'm with the Obama/Biden position . . .
Posted by: Scientz on Oct 28, 2008 5:03 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Civil-unions" which allow the exact same spousal benefits and legal rights as straight couples, but a ban on officially calling it "marriage" so as not to offend religious or social conservatives (meanwhile, "united" gays and lesbians can and will call it marriage in everything but an official capacity).

Is this not a solution?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» In my opinion, no... Posted by: BreeMass
» RE: In my opinion, no... Posted by: clvngodess
» Hyperbole. Posted by: Scientz
» Yeah Posted by: suprmark
» RE: Yeah Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: Yeah Posted by: suprmark
» Civil Union is the only viable option Posted by: Libertarian Paternalist
Is it Normal?
Posted by: Tobruck rock on Oct 28, 2008 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder if children being adopted by gay couples will grow up in a normal way like other children ( Who's Mom and Who's Dad?).
I know a male child will learn a lot from his father, who's going to shape the character of the daughter (the other guy playing mom!).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Is it Normal? Posted by: BreeMass
» RE: Is it Normal? Posted by: lepidopteryx
» RE: Is it Normal? Posted by: HoboHomo
The Canadian experience
Posted by: activist on Oct 28, 2008 6:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Same-sex marriage has been a reality in Canada since 2003 and the institution of marriage has not collapsed. Here, the idea of civil unions as an alternative to equality is actually the Conservative position and even they have pretty much abandoned that as an official position (since there isn't much of an audience for it outside of a few determined nutbars). Good luck in catching up with us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This should work.....
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Oct 28, 2008 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree, first off state sanctioned "marriage" is another "man-made" fallacy that society has bought into. Let the church's, temples, and mosques "sanction & sanctify" those unions. It may sound naive, but who am I to judge whom another person loves, I am not God/Jehovah/Allah/Supreme Deity so it is not my place to speak for Spirit! It is my place to believe that Spirit is in my life, and live according to the laws that have been set down. It is also my place to:(1)have no judgment how someone else chooses to live their life, (2)not to condemn someone because they do not live/believe the same way that I do, (3)love everyone - ok so at least treat them with the same respect that I want to be treated with!

Separate has been proved not equal! The fact is injustice anywhere to anyone diminishes us all!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thoughts on M-word
Posted by: Kevbo on Oct 28, 2008 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think the majority of gays expect churches to perform marriages for them unwillingly but certainly via civil unions gays should be able to expect the same legal/social benefits and rights those who are 'married' via a major religious ceremony enjoy.

I shake my head at the Christian watchdogs all worked up over the M-word. The word itself is not the sacrament. What about the word in other languages? Would they be happy if gays used a different word? Garriage? They fight over the word because they have no logic to employ to defend their hatred. Just their gut and their holy book.

But how preposterous is it that a particular word in the vernacular be narrowly defined BY a government body to gratify a religious body or the uptight and prejudiced who don't even attend church? What about the words wedding, wedlock, nuptials, betrothal, conjugation, matrimony or gettin' hitched?

So many Repubs/Conservatives claim they want less government in their lives but hypocritically want more government in the lives of others if it suits their polarizing, pandering platforms. Legislate my faith, but only mine!

Shouldn't they want the government to only legally ratify civil unions and leave the M-word to churches? Doesn't doing otherwise create an inroads for other government intrusions? Hmmm?

Ironically, no matter how this ends, Prop 8 fans can never stop gay couples from calling what they have a marriage. Sadly they can make things difficult for all of us whether we realize it or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The basic premise of this article is being ignored...
Posted by: BreeMass on Oct 28, 2008 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...at least so far, in the comments. The fundamental issue is rights for ALL of us, not just rights for gay people to marry. Josh Holland hits the nail right on the head here - by denying others fundametal civil liberties we put all of our civil liberties at risk. We cede the authority we have as citizens to claim the "inalienable rights" granted to us in the Constitution when we deny those same rights to others. This isn't just about marriage for gay people, this is about protecting our rights as American citizens from the rabid insanity of theocrats. In protecting the rights of gay people, we protect ourselves. How difficult is that for people to understand?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is it that the right is afraid to have a comparison of divorce rates, etc.?
Posted by: Beck on Oct 28, 2008 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My guess is that gay couples are going to have a lower divorce rate than straight couples, at least for quite some time. People seem to value more that which they had to fight to attain. I'll bet that once gays have been able to adopt kids for a long enough period of time for statistics regarding those grown-up kids (crime rates, dropout rates, divorce rates) to be compared with heterosexual couples, the children of gay couples will be shown to do as well or better than those of us who have traditional marriages. And this will rankle, to say the least.

Remember when the biggest argument against gays from the right was that they were so darned promiscuous? And now marriage is the problem? It's also odd that news clips will often show gay pride parades as an example of gay life, with the wild costumes, etc., but when a state legalizes gay marriage, you see frumpy middle-aged or older people showing up to be married. You can imagine that their marriages will be pretty similar to straight marriages, just as normal, with just as many dull times.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A note on "normality"
Posted by: BreeMass on Oct 28, 2008 7:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In response to the above posting on whether or not gay marriage is "normal"...

Who is to say that homosexuality isn't "normal"? Statistics say that about 13% of the population is homosexual. About the same percentage of the population can smell cyanide. Less than that have type AB-positive blood. Redheads make up less 2-6% of the American population. Can we really make the argument that redheads, people with Type AB-positive blood or those who can smell cyenide (random examples, I know) are abnormal? If not, then how can we make the argument that homosexuals are abnormal? Homosexuality appears in nature among non-human species at a frequent enough rate to be categorized as "normal".

When we talk about normality, we must be carfeul not to confuse "normal" with "dominant". Sure, heterosexuality is the dominant and "traditional" form of relationship, but how can we say it is the only normal one? Homosexuality has existed in humans since the dawn of recorded time, how can we say it's abnormal? It's very existence throughout human history lends credence to the argument that homosexuality is a perfectly normal state of sexuality for humans. Different from you might prefer? Yes. A smaller percentage of the population? Absolutely. Abnormal? I don't think so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A note on "normality" Posted by: Tobruck rock
» RE: A note on "normality" Posted by: mjglow
» RE: A note on "normality" Posted by: BeckyD
» RE: A note on "normality" Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: A note on "normality" Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: A note on "normality" Posted by: Tobruck rock
» RE: A note on "normality" Posted by: HoboHomo
This is a vanity issue
Posted by: tommy_slothrop on Oct 28, 2008 7:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Marriage is not a right; it's an obligation. It evolved as a way to ensure that children were supported. In the age of birth control it's an anachronism.

The state should get out of the marriage business. Support of children should become a separate isssue.

Gay people have been getting married in Unitarian churches for decades. This is to be celebrated.

Arguments about what is normal are irrevelant. Normal is neither good nor bad.

I've never understood the gay movement's need for approval from the mainstream. Look at what these people have done to the world. Do you really want their approval?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is a vanity issue Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: This is a vanity issue Posted by: cmaciain
Appreciate the article
Posted by: Bliss Doubt on Oct 28, 2008 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey Joshua, great. I noticed you had to add the disclaimer, within your first ten lines, that you are straight. I theorize that people will not see this issue for what it is because they're afraid people will think they are gay. After printing out the freemarketvotersguide.com the print was much tinier than on screen, and it was making me nauseous to try to figure out who stood for what. Finally, I let the candidates' and incumbents' positions on a marriage amendment be the guiding factor, and in checking back, those who had the right position on this issue had the right position on all the other important ones, like the abortion ban. Anyone who wants to tamper with our constitution for the sole purpose of excluding people from the freedom and equality intended by it are just playing politics, standing behind cultural lines, pandering.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Appreciate the article Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Appreciate the article Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Appreciate the article Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Appreciate the article Posted by: HoboHomo
A Workable Compromise
Posted by: Last Chance on Oct 28, 2008 7:43 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm in favor of Civil Union to protect the rights of gay couples, but marriage is about children. In my opinion, every child deserves both a loving and well-educated mother AND a lovng and well-educated father. The hetero family unit is basic to the human race and most other species on planet Earth, and that is deeply implanted in our instinctual brains. Certainly, there are plenty of cases where single parenthood is inevitable when the father or mother is abusive, but even then, the child instinctively looks for the missing parent, the father or mother. And there are a few cases where a child's parents are so terrible, a gay couple are the only available guardians. Even then, the boy or girl will look for a mentor from both sexes because it's an instinct to need love and guidance from both, not just one.
So, please people, be as gay as you want to be, join in civil union and be happy together, but respect the children's needs first and foremost by helping to arrange for them the traditional families they need and want.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Workable Compromise Posted by: lepidopteryx
» RE: A Workable Compromise Posted by: BeckyD
» RE: A Workable Compromise Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: A Workable Compromise Posted by: mjglow
» RE: A Workable Compromise Posted by: BeckyD
» RE: A Workable Compromise Posted by: mercury613
» Here's a start for you.... Posted by: CatDad
» RE: A Workable Compromise Posted by: maxpayne
follow the money
Posted by: billwald on Oct 28, 2008 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The issue is tax breaks for officially married people and extra work benefits for officially married people.

These days medical benefits are a large part of one's compensation package. Why should a married person with 5 kids like myself have a 25% larger total compensation package than a single person with equal responsibility and time on the job?

The homosexuals shoot themselves by demanding that only their specific deviation deserves a special compensation package that matches that of officially married people. I propose equal pay for equal work.

Each employee should be paid the same medical benefits compensation in dollars. If he wishes to share his med dollars with his wife or his mother or boyfriend or his postal carrier, no business of mine.

Govt jobs and large companies offer various medical plans which may be changed at the beginning of the fiscal year. I propose that at this time the employee be permitted to designate the recipients of his medical plan. For example, 50% to himself, 25% to his wife, and 25% to his mother.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not all that hard to be a tough civil libertarian and push to keep politics out of marriage.
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 28, 2008 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama/Biden and the rest should make the case as simple as this:

There is no harm or threat being posed on to you by same sex couples. It is time for society to shut up and show some marriage tolerance and stop telling or bribing people who to marry. If you don't like same sex marriages, then don't get into one but please, shut up and butt out ! We the people have more important matters to take care of such as repairing the economic damage, getting us out of this bloody war, providing affordable healthcare for all, and in general solving the same problems that lead to the 50% plus divorce rate in the first place. Stop using marriage as a sellout business proposal and let people enjoy the non-monied aspects of marriage regardless !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The rhetoric against gay marriage
Posted by: Kym525 on Oct 28, 2008 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is exactly the same as it was (and in some places still is) against interracial marriage. As a black woman in an interracial relationship, I am appalled that some black ministers in California are using the same hate-filled rhetoric that once was used against us not so long ago. I refuse to make common cause with a group of people who once would not allow black people to worship in the same church as they and were willing to excuse violent acts against blacks all in the name of Jim Crow.

The same bible they use against gays is ironically the same one that was used to enslave blacks and to deny them full rights as citizens. Many whites believed that "miscengenation" was against god's law, citing the passage about being "unequally yoked". The ugly spectre of this attitude exists to this day--ask Rep. Harold Ford about the television ad that sank his campaign--the white woman blowing a flirtatious kiss into a camera saying "I'll see you later". That image played right into the hands of white men who hate the very idea of interracial relationships.

I have yet to meet ONE single person who is against gay marriage who can tell me how it will effect them on a day to day basis. Will a constitutional amendment make our economy stronger? Put people back to work? Guarantee health care for all? Get our troops out of Iraq? One would think that gays and lesbians forming lasting bonds would help to stem the tide of HIV/AIDS by creating stable relationships and loving homes for children, both of which are so desparately needed. Besides, not every gay person wants to get married--they would just like the freedom to make that choice if they wish.

Mildred Loving--the brave woman behind Loving v. Virginia--believed in marriage equality for ALL and spoke about it before she died. She would be ashamed to see that her words are going unheeded.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Take THAT HoboHomo Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Take THAT HoboHomo Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: Take THAT HoboHomo Posted by: Kym525
Time To Take A Stand
Posted by: QQOblivion on Oct 28, 2008 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The institution of heterosexual marriage has been sullied by the state-sanctioned bigotry associated with it.

You want to "save marriage"? Then let gays marry too! Otherwise, count me out.
I call for a boycott against conscientious people entering straight marriages until the marriage institution is grounded in basic human rights for everybody.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Time To Take A Stand Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: Time To Take A Stand Posted by: Libertine
Social Rights: such as INSURANCE, Health & Living Will representation
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Oct 28, 2008 10:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
are issues that are MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO RENDER without a defined legal partner or representative.

Without a married partner, one's rights to self-determination are singularly reduced.

how DARE citizens act as if the Insurance industry has to represent ALL citizens equally?

They don't make money with 'spousal coverage' or extending family benefits further than single people.

how DARE you citizens get uppity & demand coverage like everyone else!

now shut the hell up ... they've GOT things under control in the USA, so let them get on with undermining Canadian values for universal public healthcare... they've got an entire nation to fuck up... they're TOO BUSY to have to deal with those 'pink & lavender' folks who just cut into the Bottom Line...


Spread Love, not corporate dependence...

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
~~~
"... tolerance of intolerance is cowardice..." ~ Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
"Violence can only be concealed by a Lie, & the Lie can only be maintained by Violence." ... "Any man, who has once proclaimed Violence as his Method, is inevitably forced to take the Lie as his Principle" – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So in other words...
Posted by: acmwallace on Oct 28, 2008 10:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.... conservatives want to have the government tell us who we can and can't marry? Sounds pretty much interventionist to me.

If you're against gay marriage, be against it, but don't let your religion control our government's policies. The constitution is about asserting rights, not removing them. You can do just what a lot of folks did a couple decades ago - "sure, Johnny, it's legal for blacks and whites to marry, but it just isn't right".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Saving Marriage film has a lot to say on this
Posted by: DaBear on Oct 28, 2008 10:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Saving Marriage sounds like an intriguing film, IMO, based on an interview with co-producer Mike Roth by Sonali Kolhatkar. In that interview Mike Roth points out that many Left people in Mass. who were opposed to gay marriage because they were fundamentally opposed to "marriage" per se changed their minds once they'd had a taste of the cultural "nods" their new marriages brought with them in their communities. This is an often overlooked aspect of this issue: the "legitimacy" of relationships and the transformational impact of same-sex marriages on heterosexual marriages (the potential for positive egalitarian shifts in them).

For my own reasoning, I've learned a lot more about partnering in "marriage" from gay couples married or "unioned" and otherwise. As a white male it's all too easy to fallback on the oppressive traditional notion or model for marriage while in one myself and I deeply wanted to have a different model. Marriages and partnerships between same-sex couples helped me to see a whole different way of partnering and my wife and I are still figuring that out for ourselves rather than accept the gross lopsided distortions and noise that "traditional" heterosexual "marriage" brings into our lives.

But bottom line, as a matter of law, there should never, NEVER be a constitutional amendment that removes rights from one group by another (especially when the group removing them is theocratic and fundamentally anti-American in nature). That's what Pro 8 does in CA and I'm glad Josh wrote this piece to focus on that. I'm equally offended that Obama can hold such a position, but then again, what can we expect from an owning-class sycophant anyway...

The entire ordeal with this disgusting proposition has shown me the true colors of Xtian fundie whackos and their sympathizers. The obscene level of bald-faced lying and contortions of commons sense and civility on the part of the Religious Right and their ilk is absolutely galling and fundamentally shocking. If they win, every last one of us has lost something huge on a human rights level.

And I won't accept that lying down or sitting up or bending over, either. The Xtian fascists will pay with pain for forcing their brand of oppressive religious totalitarianism on me and others should they win this fight. This is about basic human rights, not "marriage." I won't rest until every last Xtian fascist is excised from civic life in this nation-state.

Things have gotten out of hand,
no more Xtian Taliban

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Straight Grandma FOR Gay Marriage!
Posted by: nise52 on Oct 28, 2008 11:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If two individuals care for each other and want to marry, I say let them. Marriage is a civil ceremony and religion only comes into the equation when they want to marry under a particular religion's "rules". You have a marriage license that is filed with the county's courts and entered into the county records. This process has ZERO to do with religion.

When I discovered that my religion tried to "legislate" marriage I found a new religion. It's easy to do...there are plenty to choose from!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Civil Union is the way to go, abolish churches right to legalize unions
Posted by: Libertarian Paternalist on Oct 28, 2008 11:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The debate on same sex marriage is very strange. The social conservatives believes that "the fabric of society" will fall asunder. The Gay and Lesbian activists wants to force social conservatives to accept them on all levels, they call being able to be married, calling it a marriage a civil liberty.

Guess what folks, society as we know it will not go under if we allow same sex civil unions nor is it an infringement on your human rights, civil liberties not to get married/call your union marriage.

As an atheist I am abhorred by the religious conservatives wanting to use legislation to keep out social norms they do not want but i am alss abhorred by radical Gay and Lesbian activists trying to force churches and priests to marry same sex couples, to infringe on their right to religious freedom.

Both paths are roads that lead to hell. In Sweden we recently had a Supreme court case were a evangelical minister was sentenced to 1 month in prison for calling homosexuals a "cancer on the body of society". In Sweden free speech is protected as is religious freedom. However the Supreme Court invalidated these most essential Human Rights, civil liberties. And guess what folks, reverend Ake Green has now been in California and is the main show case what will happen if same sex marriage is approved by law. Next will come legal persecution of religious people to argue against same sex marriages, according to the campaigners in California. According to them it will lead to the same infringement of your right to free speech as well as religious freedom as in Sweden.

Being a social libertarian and a Human Rights Hawk I was utterly appalled by the the Swedish Supreme Court ruling. I am ashamed of my birth country but even more ashamed by my colleagues in the Swedish legal system.

Grant civil union status to all unions, abolish the right of all religious organizations to grant legal status to their version of unions. If somebody wants to have their union blessed in a church, they can choose a church that accepts them but do not force churches to marry somebody against there religious convictions.

Sweden is at the moment trying to pass a same sex marriage law, it seems about to fail because they refused to go the civil union way. It is a shame because all Unions should be recognized by law, have equal recognition.


NYT article "A line in the sand for same-sex marriage foes


Nevertheless, the “Yes on 8” campaign has brought over from Sweden a pastor named Ake Green, who a few years ago was sentenced to a month in prison under Sweden’s law banning hate speech, because he gave a sermon denouncing homosexuality. Mr. Green’s testimony was featured in a 90-minute “Yes on 8” satellite simulcast that was recently downlinked to 170 churches throughout the state.

“He is a symbol of what is ahead,” said the Rev. Jim Garlow, the senior pastor of Skyline Church in the San Diego area, a leading organizer of the “Yes” ranks.

“When you have laws that make homosexual marriage a protected class, then the government has a compelling interest to normalize that and must declare anything in opposition to that hate speech,” said Mr. Garlow, who hosted both the recent simulcast and regular conference calls with as many as 2,000 pastors, to motivate the ranks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bravo!
Posted by: rjgwood on Oct 28, 2008 2:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As the mother of a gay daughter who is only eighteen, I am hoping that someday our country will recognize my daughter's right to pursue happiness as SHE defines it!

This will ONLY happen as the conscientious straight community demands it!

Let's push for the freedom to marry the person of your choosing! As long as both people are consenting, the government should not be able to pick who is allowed to marry!

Families of all shapes will only strengthen this country!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The hypocrisy of the right
Posted by: Kym525 on Oct 28, 2008 2:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Aren't these the same people who complain about too much governmental interference in personal affairs? So why are they always insisting that the government get involved in people's personal lives? They went insane when the courts overturned anti-sodomy laws; they are ballistic over Roe v. Wade, and now they want to allow the government to tell others who they can marry?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CornetMustich
Posted by: CornetMustich on Oct 28, 2008 2:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes indeed.

Kudos to CT and its Supreme CT.

In 2005 the CT Legislature enacted a civil union law for same-sex couples and in 2008 the CT Supreme Court voted in favor of marriage equality.

As a Justice of the Peace I look forward to officiating at the marriages (formerly civil unions) of same-sex couples now too.

Cheers CT. And good luck CA & FL.

Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace
POB 1266 Washington CT 06793 USA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gratification Rights vs. Civil Rights
Posted by: pnsuitec on Oct 28, 2008 3:45 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the core of the argument in favor of homosexual marriage is the contention that sexual gratification is a birthright, and that people with non-traditional desires should have the same rights as heterosexuals to pursue fulfillment.

“How would you feel if you couldn’t marry the one you love?” has become a catch phrase in a well financed campaign to permanently amend the definition of marriage.

This philosophy, however, could also be used to justify behaviors that deviate even farther from the social norm than homosexuality. And if the gay community succeeds in defeating a ban on same-sex marriage, then we should prepare ourselves to make decisions about other subcultures vying for sexual equality.

Pedophiles, for instance, are already organizing to persuade society to de-criminalize their behavior by lowering, or abolishing altogether, the age of consent for minors. The next step would be to have their attraction to children re-classified as an “orientation” rather than a mental disorder.

The North American Man/Boy Love Association, on its website, states its position clearly: “We believe sexual feelings are a positive life force. We support the rights of youth as well as adults to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies.” And they go on to say: “We call for the fundamental reform of the laws regarding relations between youths and adults.”

Sounds like a long shot, but so did homosexual marriage twenty years ago.

And what about the gray areas that will be created if the definition of marriage is changed from a union of “one man and one woman” to a union of “two persons”?

Will the legalization of homosexual marriages make it possible for same-sex family members to unite with each other in holy matrimony? Incest laws, enacted to protect against offspring deformities associated with inbreeding, would become irrelevant and there would be no logical reason to prohibit these types of marriages.

Needless to say, the job of defining acceptable forms of sexual gratification, once the process of normalizing abnormal behavior gains traction, will become increasingly more difficult. How will society determine where to draw the line on the "orientations" of our relatives, neighbors, co-workers, and fellow citizens?

The possibility of having to periodically re-define normal human sexuality, however, could be eliminated if the line is simply allowed to remain where it has been for the vast majority of cultures since the beginning of recorded time: male/female sexual intimacy on one side, everything else on the other.

But we will miss the opportunity to settle the issue if we keep getting the concept of gratification rights confused with civil rights.

Paul Howard Nicholas
Natural Light Information Service

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Convoluted Posted by: bobtr900
Thank you Joshua!
Posted by: cmaciain on Oct 28, 2008 4:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you, Joshua, for a wonderful article and for pointing out the obvious Obama hypocrisy! Why so many people aren't madder than Hell about this, I don't know. The idea of a black man willingly accepting and promoting "Separate but equal" makes my blood run cold. And I heard no one reproaching him for it. Thank you again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How soon we forget
Posted by: shoosta on Oct 28, 2008 5:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just this weekend, our (gulp) esteemed mayor presided over an good-old-time rally in support of California's proposition 8 that seeks to ban "gay marriage". At this rally were the usual right wing hate-mongers. But curiously and frightenly they were joined by a large contingent of African-American church members. Imagine that. African-Americans rallying for the purpose of denying civil rights to fellow American citizens. Back in the 50's and 60's, African-American churches united with white churches and other groups to obtain and uphold the civil rights of black Americans. How sad it is that any group of Americans should wish to deny any other group of Americans basic civil rights- the right to love and unite with another human, the right to share personal property, the right to insurance coverage, the right to visit one's love in the hospital and to make personal and financial decisions on their behalf if incapacitated. The definition of family has changed over many centuries of human civilization. American families have long ceased to be defined merely by a specific religious pronouncement. Religious dogma has also changed many many times as our human experience has been altered by our environment and our increasing knowledge of the world and universe in which we live. Biblical interpretations vary from sect to sect and again over the course of time. These interpretations of the now are quite different from those a couple of decades ago or a couple of cenuries ago or more. These things are temporary and arbitrary. The declaration of inalienable human rights, however, need not be temporary or arbitrary. If you are Human, they are yours.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All youse who want the state out of the marriage business . . .
Posted by: fork on Oct 28, 2008 6:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
" Let the state marry same-sex couples; or get the state out of the marriage business altogether, and rather have it offer "civil unions" to all couples, whether gay or straight.
Either solution would be fine with me. In the latter approach, the government would issue everyone the same civil unions, and people could have their "marriages" solemnized in religious or civil ceremonies."

No, no, no, a thousand times no. Religions are the latecomers here; they don't own "marriage". So let's stay with the "traditional" version of marriage, as a legal/ social contract, not a religious convention. The god botherers can also have a "religious union" if they like.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Third Option
Posted by: Libertine on Oct 28, 2008 4:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article's author said:

If you believe in the principle of equal protection, then there are only two options: Let the state marry same-sex couples; or get the state out of the marriage business altogether, and rather have it offer "civil unions" to all couples, whether gay or straight.

There's a third option -- let's get the government out of everyone's bedrooms altogether and let's stop letting the government regulate and define sexual/romantic relationships, regardless of what they are called. I don't think the government has any business regulating the sexuality of consenting adults.

So far as the benefits and privileges currently granted to married couples by the government, most of them have to do with the practical concerns of sharing a household: health insurance, tax filing, and so on. Domestic Partnerships could be granted based on such practical concerns and would not be limited to sexually based relationships.

For instance, those sharing a household with an elderly parent, a parent caring for a disabled adult child, two single parent siblings sharing a home, and so on would also be able to register domestic partnerships because the focus would be on sharing a household, not the presence of a sexual/romantic relationship. Whatever type of personal relationship existed between domestic partners would be of no concern to the government.

To those who say that marriage is about children, I would say that these are two separate concerns. The government addresses the welfare of children born to never-married parents, just as does with married parents. This wouldn't change, as the focus should properly be in how each parent relates to the child, not on how the parents relate to one another.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In lots of other places it's gov ceremony first.
Posted by: Callibrarian on Oct 28, 2008 11:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Aruba you have to marry in city hall with this guy with a huge belly (and an ugly plaid shirt) whose voice reminds you of the priest in "The Princess Bride." (Mawwedge, mawwedge, mawwedge!) Afterwards you can have a ceremony with Ronald McDonald and Chuck E. Cheese as far as they're concerned. No biggy.

I think gay marriage is good in that it will teach the rest of us about equality. Traditional marriage comes with all its gender coded jobs. If you're in a same sex relationship nothing is a given---you must work things out on how to fairly run your joined life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's marriage anyway?
Posted by: pbj on Oct 29, 2008 9:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Marriage is a societal / religious stamp of approval on a relationship. Until May of '08, in California that stamp with that title had been reserved for heterosexual unions. So don't try and tell me that I'm some hideous beast for wanting things to go back to where they were 5 months ago before 4 judges decided to tell me (intervening in all of our lives) what marriage means. Civil unions grant just as many legal rights as marriage does. No one's legislating who someone can love, have sex with or even enter into a societally-approved relationship with. But it's preserving the traditional label, with all of its connotations, to what was traditionally meant. Why does that matter? I write contracts for a living. If I have a 100 page contract I don't just add a new concept to page 1 and expect all other 99 pages to continue to make sense. When adding a fundamentally new concept, you must review the entire document and see what your new section will do to the document. Will the contract still function as intended? Often not. Making fundamental changes requires weaving the new concept into many different sections, sometimes those that are unforeseen. Gay marriage is like that. You can't just change the definition of a term and expect the rest of the functioning of society to go unchanged. There will be unintended consequences. The better way is to either make the proponents of gay marriage justify why the definition of an already understood term should be changed in light of the evident equality of civil unions (a concept admitted by the CA supreme court), or to stick with civil unions. If the goal is to co-opt the positive branding that comes with marriage, that goal is unattainable. Burger King may make a fine burger, but it's not going to appeal to McDonalds fans just by changing its name, and it will piss off McDonalds in the process. Just like calling gay unions marriage doesn't make them marriage, but it sure is pissing off a number of people. Until gay marriage proponents can show me why the status quo should change in the face of an institution (civil unions) patently equal, I vote to preserve the pre May '08 status quo. Yes on 8.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes
Posted by: VMRH on Oct 29, 2008 10:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Amen!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anyone who believes "Gay Rights" Don't Effect Them, is... among those...
Posted by: One American Lady on Nov 1, 2008 5:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who Don't Realize the Full Facts of Creation...
and the Pre-destination of Man.
"Straight People", have children who can develop tendancies for being "Gay"...
MANKIND WAS DEVELOPED, AS "MALE / FEMALE"... no Distinction... when it comes to being a Human...
The Stucture of the Body, can Develop, Pre-distined, as Male OR Female... depending on the Pre-Distined Purpose, for Each.
But, the Pre-Distined Stucture is there... any individual may choose, to be Male or Female, but THE TRANSFORMATION, CANNOT BE DONE, ON A NATURAL PROCESS... BUT MUST BE DONE...MEDICALLY / SURGICALLY... NOT BY NATURAL AGING / NATURAL PROCESS.
All Human Beings, "take some type of Substance,(Alcohol / Drugs) Medicines, to ALTER THEIR BODY / MIND... so, ARE THEY REPRIMANDED, FOR THAT ACTION ??
Whether "Straight People, like it or not, the Gay Rights, can be Found to Be, Constitutional", but... then, "Straight People, believe Christianity... is to be a Certain Way, too"... but there are Hundreds, of Religious Beliefs, in the World...
I've always said, "if a person, studies a Bible.. any of them / History Books / Medical Books / Encyclopedia Books, IT TAKES THE WORDS FROM EACH OF THESE BOOKS, TO FORM A LAW... WHICH IS BASED ON FACTS... THAT ARE / CAN BE "CONSTITUTIONAL".
All Human Beings, have "parts of their body, that are Male & Female, in One Body".
Why is it Acceptable, that "Straight People" are the Correct Race of People ??
Why is it such a Conflict, to Perhaps, state, that All the People, should have been "Gay" to start with... but they weren't...
Same-Sex Relationships, have been happening since the beginning of time... so why the Public Conflicts of Emotions, now??
Ask a "Straight Woman", who is Experiencing "PMS", about any "abnormal tendancies", she might be having or has had...
AT WHAT AGE, DO MOST PEOPLE, "PROMOTE .. GAY LIFESTYLES ??".
Is it happening,moreso, in those who are Mid-life ?? Or from other reason,such as that of a
Hormonal Imbalance / Change of Life, situations.
From all accounts, the "Change of Life" is taking place, with individuals, of the Younger Years, now...why is this ???
Read the Wording on the Subject of the: Endocrine Glands.
No Matter What Gender Relationships anyone has,
I'd Advise the individuals, to "Practice a Healthy Relationship"... Emotionally / Physically / Mentally / Legally.
One American Lady

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fight for Marriage Equality Fought on Wrong Grounds. . .
Posted by: SkeeterVT1 on Nov 3, 2008 3:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Advocates for marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples made a fatal tactical error in waging their fight as one of equal rights onthe basis of sexual orientation.

This should have been waged as a fight for equality on he basis of GENDER, not SEXUAL ORIENTATION. It should also have been waged a a fight on the basis of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

This is a GENDER issue -- specifically discrimination against same-gender couples because of their gender makeup, not their sexual orientation. It's no secret that there is far greater opposition to two MEN getting married than there is to two WOMEN getting married -- even though a solid two-thirds majority of same-gender couples who have legally "tied the knot either in marriage or civil union have been female couples. Contrary to popular belief, marriage remains controversial with the majority of gay men, as evidenced by the fact that most male couples who have "tied the knot" are middle-aged and older -- much older than their lesbian peers.

This is also a CHURCH-STATE issue -- a deliberate attempt by the Religious Right to enshrine an anti-gay religious doctrine into the laws of the state, in clear violation of the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment.

Had this been made an issue of GENDER equality and SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, advocates for same-gender marriage would have scored much more victories than they have.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]