Re-Re-Clarifying My Position on Gay Marriage
As the result of this posting yesterday and the comments that followed, I would like to take this opportunity to re-state my personal position on “gay marriage.” It pretty much comes close to the comments of Matty here, and Michigan-Matt here.
I personally oppose intruding on the religious institution of marriage via court mandates or legislation. One of the main reasons, aside from intruding on religion, is that I have never once, during the entire gay marriage debate, heard anyone say they favor it due to wanting a covenant with God and their partner.. or frankly because of love.
The entire gay marriage debate has come down to this: We want financial benefits. That is a legitimate argument for civil unions, which I and the President support. But it is a very selfish and love-less reason to support gay “marriage” as Gryph describes here.
Gays and lesbians don’t want “gay marriage”, what we want is traditional monogamous marriage. It’s people such as yourself that attach all the labels to it. The facts are that we have families and children to take care of just like straight people. So we should have benefits of marriage to help us shoulder those responsibilities like everyone else. So quit hiding simple prejudice behind pseudo-intellectual word games.
Me, me, me, me, me. That’s the problem with the American gay communities’ stance on gay marriage. “It is all about me.” Guess what folks, real marriage is not “all about me.” It is all about a covenant between God, you and your spouse. Until the language of the debate from our side moves to talking about love, commitment and covenant — and less about financial gain and selfishness — we will continue to lose. Straight Americans know what marriage is about. We, by and large, haven’t figured it out yet. No one in the straight world gets married in a serious relationship only in order to improve their financial situation on April 15. That is the only argument we seem to bring to the table.
Finally, much has been made by our friend Andrew about this public exchange between a 16-year old Virginian and US Senator George Allen over the issue of gay marriage. Says the teen,
I never dreamed of the day when I would reach a political debate on a human rights issue based on civil liberty and the foundations of our great country with a Senator, former Virginia Governor, and a potential candidate for the Republican Presidency. Senator George Allen (R-Virginia), held a public hearing in Culpeper this evening.
If you haven’t, please read the whole posting. I agree that this young man was very courageous and professional in the way he handled himself and I applaud him for it. But it reinforced my mystification at the argument that gay marriage is a “civil right.” Huh? Andrew loves citing this over and over. But aside from saying your tax refund would be higher under “marriage”…. no one has yet explained (to me) how withholding marriage (Gryph’s definition) is “trampling on my civil rights.”
Sorry folks, I don’t see it and I think it demeans true civil rights infringement such as senseless gay bashings in Blue State cities such as San Francisco, Philadelphia and New York City where most seem to take place.
I’m sure there is much more to be said in my “re-re-clarification”… but I figured this was a good start to get the moonbats a’jumpin!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
#0 - “No one in the straight world gets married in a serious relationship only in order to improve their financial situation on April 15.”
Have to provide a different data point here.
I personally know straight couples who were in serious (but unmarried) relationships, who then married only in order to improve their financial situation on April 15.
And to improve their situation in other, unrelated way - unquestionable hospital visitation, unquestionable inheritance, etc.
Love was and is a huge factor in their relationship - but not in the marriage as such. Also, forget about child-rearing or anything like that (for these couples I know). And forget about God.
There IS an element of injustice in allowing any unrelated straight adults to marry - death row inmates, the childless elderly, atheists - but not allowing unrelated gay adults to marry. I support gay marriage because I support equality before the law and oppose injustice.
Having said that: I am perfectly happy to take “civil unions” for a couple generations while society adjusts.
Partly by reading comments on this blog, I have come to “not support” (though “oppose” would be too strong a word) gay marriage that is imposed by mere judicial fiat.
Comment by Calarato — March 23, 2006 @ 1:14 pm - March 23, 2006
Typo - paragraph 4 should read - “And to improve their situation in other, RELATED wayS”.
Comment by Calarato — March 23, 2006 @ 1:15 pm - March 23, 2006
I know a lot of gay people who want a convenant with God. I’m not one of them. I just want the same government benefits that straight married couples get. And, as for this attempt to malign more liberal states:
Just FYI, most deaths of Black people take place in Africa.
Comment by Michael Demmons — March 23, 2006 @ 1:16 pm - March 23, 2006
And I don’t think hospital visitation and inheritance rights qualifies as “me me me.” That’s pretty callous!
Comment by Michael Demmons — March 23, 2006 @ 1:17 pm - March 23, 2006
And I don’t think hospital visitation and inheritance rights qualifies as “me me me.” That’s pretty callous!
You don’t need marriage to get those, either.
Comment by V the K — March 23, 2006 @ 1:20 pm - March 23, 2006
P.S. Bruce - As far as marriage being a “civil right” - I believe it has been held to be so by the courts. Which might be why death row inmates can marry their groupies, for example. (We are getting out of my expertise here.)
Again - If death row inmates can do it, I don’t see why we can’t. But again, I will take “civil unions” if that makes some people feel better.
Comment by Calarato — March 23, 2006 @ 1:25 pm - March 23, 2006
Ding! Ding! Ding!…. right you are, VtheK (#5).
Michael - YOU may feel that way. But YOU have to admit that the rhetoric of our gay organizations who are pushing to disrupt the religious covenant of marriage do NOT talk that way. Their language is extremely selfish and money-driven. It is apparent when you leave the cities…
-Bruce
Comment by GayPatriot — March 23, 2006 @ 1:26 pm - March 23, 2006
You don’t need marriage to get those, either.
You need marriage to guarantee them. Try signing a contract with your partner and then trying to have that contract stand up to a family determined to make sure their son’s partner doesn’t get a dime.
It happens. Feel free to ignore those instances though because they don’t support your point.
Comment by Michael Demmons — March 23, 2006 @ 1:30 pm - March 23, 2006
#0 — I’m glad you clarified because I had many of the same questions before other commenters raised them. You seemed to be distancing yourself from The Advocate on the issue — although I’m not sure if you aren’t still doing that.
However, I think you miss the boat in your definition of marriage. Not to put too fine a point on it, but most of us passionate gay-marriage advocates are careful to draw a distinction between religious and civil marriage, which you neglect. (P.S. What’s wrong with wanting the same legal protections as everyone else?)
BTW, I for one have managed to use both Biblical and love-based arguments for gay marriage, although I must admit that I am agonistic and don’t put much stock in the former. (However, I wouldn’t foist my position on churches, either.)
Comment by Malcontent — March 23, 2006 @ 1:53 pm - March 23, 2006
#8, marriage doesn’t guarantee those either. Just ask Anna Nicole Smith.
I have, for a long time, asked advocates of gay marriage to identify one single right that satisfies these three conditions:
a) You have no other remedy besides marriage.
b) Marriage guarantees the right, and
c) It’s the government’s place to give it to you in the first place.
In all the years of gay marriage debate, I’ve yet to ever hear of a “right” that satisfies all three of these conditions.
Of course, I’m off the deep end about gay marriage, my own opinion being so far out of any mainstream (both the opposers and advocates). But that’s a whole ‘nother post altogether…
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — March 23, 2006 @ 2:37 pm - March 23, 2006
Mal-
Like Michael, I would argue that while YOU might be doing that, that is not how most Americans perceive the issue nor how the gay groups rhetoric communicate the issue to America.
I am distancing myself from the Advocate in that they merely restated the obvious in order to find a reason to Bush-bash.
-Bruce
Comment by GayPatriot — March 23, 2006 @ 2:40 pm - March 23, 2006
I think thats a mis-characterization of my point. It’s not about taking care of “me”. Its about taking care of my family. That is why heterosexuals get married, to start a family. I am just saying we are not any different. There is no talk of “rights” in what I said. Do note that I spoke of assuming responsibility, not being granted a “right”.
And believe it or not, I actually agree with how you define marriage. But. Our government surely does not define it that way. And thats a good thing. Why would I want to turn over administration of a sacrament to the government? Thats the role of the Church, not state.
However, your argument that marriage is not a civil “right” is full of some very large holes. There were of course at one time laws against inter-racial marriages. Did those couples have no “right” to get married?
It also at one time was illegal for Chinese immigrants to get married, and for Chinese women to even be allowed in the country. This in order to control the number of American citizens that were Chinese. Did they also have no “right” to get married?
You also say:
Bruce I could have imagined that the day would come where your solution to the issue of gay marriage would be to sit around together holding hands and singing kumbya, but here we are.
I don’t know where you get your information, but the discussion has always included those elements. However, President Bush, and large elements of the GOP do not believe we are capable of those things in the first place. And you have little hope of changing their minds unless in a one-to-one discussion. It’s not going to happen during an episode of “The Capitol Gang”. Really Bruce many of them don’t even believe that gay people exist in the first place. They think we are just sick or immoral or perverted straight people gone bad. They do not even acknowledge the identity. It’s a lifestyle, remember? They can’t grant us the idea of being capable of falling in love until they are willing to accept our humanity first.
So you cannot have the discussion about “love” until that basic assumption is made. It can’t be explained, it has to be demonstrated. Thats why the majority of those straight people who favor gay marriage personally know people who are gay or lesbian. And the majority of those against gay marriage don’t. I don’t mind educating people on the issue who are actually willing to listen to a different point of view, even if they don’t end up changing their minds, but most of these people are not.
And Bruce, you are free of course to do any kind of commentary on your blog that you wish. And I can take the heat. But this is the second time that you have used a public entry to more or less just take a cheap shot at me. Surely you could find other things of interest.
Unless everything I write is so incredibly compelling that you must respond to it. As far as I know, the only person who thinks that is MattinMichigan; even I don’t think I’m that interesting. But as I said, this is your blog, and if you want to turn it into the “Gryphmon is the moonbat anti-Christ” blog you are welcome to do so and you have my best wishes.
Cheers!
Comment by Patrick (gryph) — March 23, 2006 @ 2:47 pm - March 23, 2006
#10 — It’s a bit like trying to find a Constitutional Right that’s been lost due to the Patriot Act or the NSA wiretapping program.
My own solution to the SSM dilemma is also one that nobody likes, but most people I talk to think they could live with: Get Government out of the marriage business entirely.
Comment by V the K — March 23, 2006 @ 2:59 pm - March 23, 2006
A gay man opposing marriage equality for gay people. Oh I’ve heard it all now!
Are you so desperate to gain acceptance from right wing homophobic nutters that you are willing to shed your common sense and indulge in a spot of self loathing??!
You should be helping gay rights groups expose the bigotry of these people, not cozy up to them!
As an out and proud gay man, I find such views bizarre and unbelievable.
I side with politicians and activists who actually support equality for gay people and surprise, surprise these people tend to come from the liberal end of the spectrum.
Wise up Bruce!
P.S. If you really believe that most gay bashings occur in places like San Francisco I suggest you have a word with the mother of Matthew Sheppard about what happens to gay people out in ” the heartland”
Comment by Adam — March 23, 2006 @ 3:03 pm - March 23, 2006
#13. V, baby! You’ve stolen my ideas! First you rip off my captions, now this!
That’s exactly what my position is, and you can probably attest to the lack of support from either side for that proposition, eh?
#14. Adam: Have you considered that other people have other ideas besides yours? That might help to keep you from being so incredulous. C’mon, you’re a “liberal” guy, aren’t you? Have you tried understanding, or do you just attack those who disagree with you?
“so desperate to gain acceptance”,
“right wing homophobic nutters”,
“shed your common sense”,
“self loathing”
Sounds pretty bigoted to me. Kind of leaves very little chance that anybody who disagrees with you has a valid point at all, huh?
Tell me: how do you engage in intelligent debate from that perspective?
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — March 23, 2006 @ 3:11 pm - March 23, 2006
#10 - I submit that only your conditions (a) and (b) are valid in this discussion (gay marriage equality).
The goverment does SO MUCH that is illegitimate or that it should not be in the business of doing, that your condition (c) effectively encompasses everything and thereby voids the entire discussion.
IF government is going to be in the business of distributing fundamentally illegitimate or non-governmental “rights” and benefits - and, realistically, it is in that business and won’t stop in our lifetimes - then government should at least distribute them without regard to race, ethnicity or national origin, religion, gender (insofar as feasible), or sexual orientation.
Comment by Calarato — March 23, 2006 @ 3:13 pm - March 23, 2006
V the K says:
Yup, I think thats the way to go too. And actually, I”ve always thought that in a sense that is the traditional Catholic opinion too. They simply do not accept that a marriage has taken place unless performed by a Roman Catholic priest. And there is no such thing as divorce either. (Annulment is not the same).
Thats why I think their stance on the gay marriage debate is somewhat heretical. They are essentially saying that a state marriage is also a Catholic marriage, which is cross-grains to their traditional teachings.
Comment by Patrick (gryph) — March 23, 2006 @ 3:25 pm - March 23, 2006
#15 - I know - Adam claims to be “out and proud”, yet is so chock full of stereotypes from the gay plantation that he can’t say anything relevant to the discussion.
It’s too bad, for Adam and all of us, that the “politicians and activists who actually support equality for gay people” he is so fond of, in fact, DO NOT support gay equality.
Repeat: Adam, those politicians you like so much “the liberal end of the spectrum” OPPOSE, repeat OPPOSE, gay equality!
Wise up Adam!
Clinton gave us DOMA (the FMA prototype), and did nothing about sodomy laws during his watch. Kerry actively supports all those State anti-gay-marriage amendments!
Adam, flee the plantation!!!
Comment by Calarato — March 23, 2006 @ 3:29 pm - March 23, 2006
#16: Cal, so you’re okay with the hypocricy? Saying the government is doing something abhorrent and therefore should extend these acts that run contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and limited government to more people in the name of equality sounds counterproductive to me. I say, let’s see what we can do about getting the government to protect the rights it’s there for in the first place. Then we can go back and double-check that we’re all being treated fairly. Extending the mistake of government-verified, government-endorsed, government-sanctioned private and personal relationships to more people is going the wrong way.
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — March 23, 2006 @ 3:42 pm - March 23, 2006
know a lot of gay people who want a convenant with God.
This is a bit of a red herring in the whole debate.
#1 for me what makes my marriage my marriage is the religious aspect of it-I made promises before God to my husband, and I intend to keep those promises.
#2 the government has no role in recognizing that aspect of my marriage. Convieniently for me, the government does recognize that, but if tomorrow the government refused to recognize marriages, it wouldn’t make me less married before God, or negate my duty to keep the promises I made.
That said, I think the reality of this debate is what the government’s purpose is, in recognizing marriage, and where gay marriage fits.
I do agree to a degree with GP that often the arguments for marriage are of the “me, me, me” variety, but some of those arguments still have a lot of merit. I don’t think it is fair that a gay couple has to jump through several extra hoops to get the things I get for just jumpint through a couple of hoops. I think there is a strong case for some type of civil unions, maybe marriage (mostly because by the time you get to civil unions, the reality is that the issue is turned into a name game, with very little difference between marriage and civil unions).
I do think the government has a vested interest in maintianing stable family relationships, and making sure as many children grow up in stable homes as possible, because the reality is that the kids statistically do best have two parents. Where gay marriage fits in all this is the question, which is one reason that while I am not exactly opposed to gay marriage, I am not sure tinkering with major institutions without debating all the ins and outs and ramifications is a good idea.
So I sort of lean towards the take it slow approach-make the case for civil unions, work the debate, make a clear case, and then as civil unions become the norm consider a move towards marriage.
Comment by just me — March 23, 2006 @ 3:57 pm - March 23, 2006
Well, it didn’t take long for an “Adam” to come out of the woodwork (#14). His attitude is typically fascist, isn’t it? If you oppose “the gays” on an issue, or have a different perspective — you are branded as homophobic and self-loathing. How childish.
If that logic were true, then as an opponent of abortion-on-demand, I suppose that makes me a woman-hater?
I think Jesse Jackson is a profiteering buffoon… am I now a racist?
Good heavens, “Adam”, think for yourself for once in your gay life.
Comment by GayPatriot — March 23, 2006 @ 4:40 pm - March 23, 2006
Another good post, Bruce! Thanks for bringing some clarification to an issue that’s often fraught with half truths, political opportunism, crass self-interest and pandering without bounds –and that’s just from the GayLeft.
Patrick –get a life, will ya? You post outrageous comments and then take issue when people hold you accountable. Come on. I haven’t had to be this close to whining, self-absorbed, me-me-me behavior since I was in the hospital nursery and I was next to the bald kid in bassinet #3.
Wait… where were you born?
Again, good post, Bruce. You nailed another one to the bull’s eye.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 23, 2006 @ 4:57 pm - March 23, 2006
whoa, whoa, whoa Patrick: “I’ve always thought that in a sense that is the traditional Catholic opinion too” (I used the “whoa” ’cause you’re such a fan of Brokeback Mtn)
This from the anti-religion bigot? No, that’s not even close to what the Catholic Church holds or teaches. So hang on to your attempt at instruction unless it’s on what the GayLeft feels or needs… it’s a much better fit for ya, guy.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 23, 2006 @ 5:15 pm - March 23, 2006
I’ve come to the conclusion that my comments in the last two paragraphs in my post # 12 were out of line, and that I was being a jackass. Especially considering the number of cheap shots I’ve made in the past toward Bruce etc. myself. So I do apologize. At least I didn’t insult his dog. I hope.
Comment by Patrick (gryph) — March 23, 2006 @ 5:23 pm - March 23, 2006
Apology accepted –at least by me–Patrick. And BTW, good job on alerting readers here on how to respond to those ungrateful peance-niks over at Christian Peacemaker Team. Thanks.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 23, 2006 @ 5:27 pm - March 23, 2006
Guess what folks, real marriage is not “all about me.”
Out of context this makes sense. In context, the history of marriage is given short shrift.
“Moonbats” is OK, but RWNS isn’t?
(How do you folks get the smiley faces?)
Agape.
Comment by Gene — March 23, 2006 @ 7:20 pm - March 23, 2006
I suggest you have a word with the mother of Matthew Sheppard about what happens to gay people out in ” the heartland”
Those of us who had enough common sense not to leave a bar with a couple of crackheads in hopes of scoring a three-way tend to do okay.
Comment by V the K — March 23, 2006 @ 7:50 pm - March 23, 2006
There is not a church, synagogue or mosgue that will be forced to recognize gay marriage. Gay Marriage has been legal for years in MASS and all the churchs are doing just fine thank you. It is a false claim by the far right. Gay americans should not be forced to go to a lawyer and pay for the rights that automatically convey to straight couples. Do not mix the religious with the secular. Once again - it has NOTHING to do with religion. It has everything to do with our government treating everyone equally.
Comment by buckeye bill — March 23, 2006 @ 8:54 pm - March 23, 2006
Wow, Buckeye. You sure have read a lot of bumper stickers!
Comment by V the K — March 23, 2006 @ 10:05 pm - March 23, 2006
Thanks V - always appreciate insightful comments like that - at least you did not disagree with my premise - it is not religious - it is strictly civil - something even you can get behind!
God bless,
BB
Comment by buckeye bill — March 23, 2006 @ 11:20 pm - March 23, 2006
Once again - it has NOTHING to do with religion. It has everything to do with our government treating everyone equally.
Unfortunately, our government DOESN’T treat everyone equally.
For instance, it won’t let NAMBLA members marry their five-year-old lovers.
It won’t let polygamists marry past their first wife.
It won’t let bestialists marry their favorite cow.
It won’t let anyone who’s closer than cousins marry each other.
In short, “all you need is love” is a catchy song hook, but it’s lousy grounds for establishing legal relationships. States have historically been far more stringent, as is their right, and I see no reason for the judiciary to attempt to change that in a misguided attempt to impose “equality”.
If we want gay marriage, we need to convince the American public that it is both reasonable and necessary. But right now, we have gay rights groups and activists who lurch in a schizophrenic fashion between calling anyone who opposes gay marriage horrific names, but promoting as “pro-gay”and “gay supportive”, and pushing enormous sums to, Democratic candidates who blatantly espouse legalizing said opposition on religious grounds.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 23, 2006 @ 11:23 pm - March 23, 2006
I’m sure there is much more to be said in my “re-re-clarification”… but I figured this was a good start to get the moonbats a’jumpin!
What fallacious bullshit. You think that if someone disagrees with you that makes them automatically “jumpin’” and extremist?
What are you, 12 yrs old?
Marriage is NOT the sole province of religion, yet this entire entry makes the opposite assertion as axiom.
Comment by God of Biscuits — March 23, 2006 @ 11:53 pm - March 23, 2006
ndt
5 year old kids, cows, dogs, zebras, elephants, spiders as well as currently married men or women, cannot enter into a legal civil contract to marry - nor should they be allowed to be enter that civil contract - so that knocks out most of your thesis - unless you want to redefine who can sign and execute a legal civil contract - do you?
I agree that we need to convince the American public that this is a issue of the govt (not churchs) treating loving couples (legally capable of entering a contract) the same across America.
Drop the NAMBLA , COWS, Mormon mulitple marrying types - it does not move your point forward - leave that to Rev. Fred Phelps - but you knew that didn’t you?
BB
Comment by buckeye bill — March 24, 2006 @ 12:01 am - March 24, 2006
#10: I think the marital privilege i.e. the right not to be compelled to testify against one’s spouse fits all three of your conditions. Only marriage confers the right, marriage guarantees the right, and, since it is within the domain of the legal system set up and run by government, it is the government’s place to give it to you.
Comment by Ian — March 24, 2006 @ 12:24 am - March 24, 2006
After being with my lover for 19 years, I do belive that God really does’t have a problem with us being together. Really, how much more do you think I would love my lover, via marriage.
I keep reading about the reasons for Gays wanting marriage, money, rights and all the rest of the BS. In New York you rarely find couples that are together more then a couple of years, if that long, and this is what you would call a marriage.
Comment by Don — March 24, 2006 @ 12:31 am - March 24, 2006
“It is all about a covenant between God, you and your spouse.”
Sez you. I doubt many married atheist couples believe some mythical sky pixie has anything whatsoever to do with their marriages. The fact is a religious ceremony is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to be considered legally married.
Comment by Ian — March 24, 2006 @ 12:49 am - March 24, 2006
I’m awfully close to being on the same page as “just me” and Calarato.
For a number of reasons, I support same-sex marriage. One of the reasons is deeply personal. My sister and her partner, who deeply love each other, have been faithful to each other for nearly 30 years. They had to pay an attorney over a thousand dollars to get some of the basic rights and privileges that were automatically bestowed on my parents when they said “I do”. I think that’s wrong. Likewise, for the four gay men I know best. Two have been together 40 years, the other two for 35 years.
But, at least in my lifetime, I don’t expect same-sex marriage to be legalized beyond, perhaps, a small handful of states. In many respects that’s the fault of gay activists who strongly pushed for it before society is ready to accept it. It would have been far better, and probably more successful, to urge states to legalize civil unions.
Had that happened, once people realized gay unions aren’t a threat to “traditional marriage”, it’s likely society’s tolerance would have ultimately evolved into acceptance of same-sex marriage. Now it’s hard to imagine all those state amendments being repealed any time soon.
(More in a minute; have an emergency.)
Comment by Jack Allen — March 24, 2006 @ 12:56 am - March 24, 2006
(#37 CONTINUED)
BTW, the one “right” my sister and her partner want more than anything (as do the four gay men I mentioned) is something the best attorney can’t get them, no matter how many documents are drafted and filed. And that’s legitimacy. Is it wrong to want Mrs. and Mrs. or Mr. and Mr. to have the same dignity and respect as Mr. and Mrs.?
But on to a different comment: I take strong exception, Bruce, to your suggestion that marriage must always be a religious institution. Who says so?
Under current law in all fifty states, once a civil license is issued the only requirement is that an authorized authority conduct and certify the marriage ceremony. Having the ceremony conducted and the union blessed in a church, temple or mosque is an option not a requirement.
My niece, a Lutheran, and her fiance, a Catholic, were married in a garden ceremony at his parents’ home by a judge, who happens to be a Jew. They are just as married, and they and their children are as much a family, as they would be had they been married in the cathedral in a ceremony conducted by the archbishop and every parish priest in the diocese. And I resent your suggestion, intended or unintended, that they are somehow not really married.
Comment by Jack Allen — March 24, 2006 @ 1:43 am - March 24, 2006
#33, buckeye: Okay, so you think you can shoot down the argument by calling it silly. But it’s pretty intellectually lazy. If your argument is that because gay folks love each other that they should have these same “rights”, then I’d like you to argue why those same rights shouldn’t be extended to willing, of-age, and in love cousins, or second (or third or fourth…) spouses. If you really do have the courage of your argument (that it’s a civil right that nobody should be denied), then you should have no problem defending your position when it comes to something you don’t agree about. Do you?
#34, Ian: Great point. I’d not thought of that one. However, I’d have to say that I don’t necessarily agree that it satisfies the 3rd condition. Although the government does confer this right, that doesn’t mean it’s the government’s place to give it. I don’t believe spouses (nor anybody else) should be allowed to not testify (as long as it doesn’t violate their own 5th Amendment rights). So I still don’t include that as a “right” in this case. Good argument, though. Hadn’t heard that one brought up.
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — March 24, 2006 @ 2:07 am - March 24, 2006
GP, do you really think that green card marriages or people who marry based on the bank account of their spouse-to-be are really interested in love or in what God wants?
If straight people know what marriage is all about, then why is the divorce rate at 50%?
“Like Michael, I would argue that while YOU might be doing that, that is not how most Americans perceive the issue nor how the gay groups rhetoric communicate the issue to America. ”
The Pew poll released a few days ago showed a big drop in opposition to gay marriage, so the rhetoric may be having some kind of an effect.
I don’t go along with most of what gay groups say, but I think that many gay conservatives are automatically going to take the most negative view of these groups and their message, even moreso than straight people would.
Comment by Carl — March 24, 2006 @ 3:58 am - March 24, 2006
They had to pay an attorney over a thousand dollars to get some of the basic rights and privileges that were automatically bestowed on my parents when they said “I do”.
Yes, and I had to pay a couple of attorneys a couple of thousand dollars to get the same parental rights some people get just by copulating. I’ve also bought every house I’ve ever owned entirely my own, while most people I know got help from their parents. For that matter, I worked and scholarshipped my way through college, while some people’s parents paid their entire way. Life doesn’t treat everyone equally. Cry me a river.
Comment by V the K — March 24, 2006 @ 5:28 am - March 24, 2006
#15 — Yeah, unfortunately, just simply removing government from the equation won’t work. For a lot of activists, the thrill in getting SSM is precisely to stick it to Christians and other people of faith. As we have seen from some of the comments, there is a lot of anti-religious hatred among people who champion SSM.
On the other side, there are those who could make a very good case that there is a societal interest in promoting traditional marriage, and would argue that government should offer incentives to encourage couples to stay together.
Basically, when heterosexuals redefined marriage through easy no-fault divorce and the acceptance of serial unions and infidelities, they made it into something that was just about a grab-bag of social conveniences. I think that if marriage was still tied to a legal requirement of lifelong commitment and monogamy, we wouldn’t be having this debate.
Comment by V the K — March 24, 2006 @ 5:49 am - March 24, 2006
V the K you hit on one of the worst things that I think happened to marriage, and that is the no fault divorce statutes. Making divorce as easy to get as paying an attorney a few hundred bucks to file the papers cheapened marriage. I remember when I was in college a friend of mine was getting married to a guy she hadn’t known long, and while talking about the wedding she was planning she quipped “yeah, and if it doesn’t work out, we can always get a divorce.” I remember thinking that marriage isn’t going to last long, if she is already contemplating getting a divorce (and it lasted just over a year). When I married my husband it was with the intention of staying married.
I would actually like to see a world where marriage is harder to get, and a move away from no fault, but that isn’t going to happen.
If straight people know what marriage is all about, then why is the divorce rate at 50%?
If I remember right this stat isn’t actually right-50% of all first time marriages do not end in divorce-it is one of those statistical twists. The reality is that divorce rates are still higher than would be preferred, but the other interesting tidbit is that they are also going down (read the second link).
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htm
http://www.divorcereform.org/nyt05.html
Comment by just me — March 24, 2006 @ 6:59 am - March 24, 2006
The divorce rate is at 50% mainly because of people who go through 5 or more serialized “marriages.” The rate of couples who actually stay together is, I believe, north of 70%. The 50% figure is just a bumper-sticker factoid the anti-marriage crowd likes to throw out.
Comment by V the K — March 24, 2006 @ 7:18 am - March 24, 2006
#43 — To continue your point, it’s human nature to value things less the cheaper and easier they are to get. We would hold marriage in much higher regard if it were more difficult to get into and out of. I think one of the reasons I appreciate the blessings of fatherhood as much as I do is because of all the extra effort I had to put in to attain it.
Comment by V the K — March 24, 2006 @ 8:57 am - March 24, 2006
GP, when you post a re-re-re-clarification stance, I would be interested if you think that gay relationships, such as the one you and many others here (long-time partnered, committed, and some with children, etc.), are worthy as being married if they choose. Much of your argument has to do with your perceived notions of how other gay people, especially the left, are fighting for marriage equality. In other words, there are many straight people who get married, without thinking of it being a covenant of God, or get married for convenience and/or money, or enter marriage where one or both have absolutely no intention of being faithful, etc., but you aren’t advocating that marriage should be abolished altogether.
I understand your arguments that many are going through the marriage equality fight in the wrong way, and that’s fine. But what is your personal opinion? If you found the right guy, would you want the right to marry him if you choose, or do you simply feel you should not have the right?
I’ve seen a few comment here that Bush supports civil unions. I seriously question that. My recollection is that once during the 2004 campaign Bush said he would consider civil unions (not exactly support). And since his reelection, he has stated twice during the SOTUs his support of the FMA. Has anyone here heard anything else since the campaign on his views of civil unions and/or when he will propose a bill to Congress and/or at least suggest that states should support his view of adopting civil unions? Heck, I haven’t even heard that Bush changed his mind and supports the removal of anti-sodomy laws.
Also, I don’t necessarily believe that gays who don’t support gay marriage are self-loathing. In fact, some here have made good arguments. And even many of the ones who haven’t I don’t believe are self-loathing. But when I see a comment from someone who clearly likens committed same-sex relationships more so to relationships with houseplants, than opposite-sex relationships, I’m afraid it looks like self-loathing to me.
Comment by Pat — March 24, 2006 @ 9:26 am - March 24, 2006
“Although the government does confer this right, that doesn’t mean it’s the government’s place to give it.”
I’m not sure who else could legitimately confer the marital right. If you’re arguing that the govenment shouldn’t confer additional rights on those who get married, then it is impossible for ANY right to meet your third condition.
Comment by Ian — March 24, 2006 @ 9:37 am - March 24, 2006
“I have never once, during the entire gay marriage debate, heard anyone say they favor it due to wanting a covenant with God and their partner.. or frankly because of love.”
That’s funny…I don’t remember anyone asking me. So let me say it now, loudly and clearly. I came out so I could marry for love, and I did so AS A CHRISTIAN. Evidently other people commenting on this thread did, too. I’m sick and tired of a few liberal atheists being cited as standard-bearers for everything that goes on in what is so often euphemistically called “the community.”
Do I give a royal rip what Joe and Jane Q. Thumbsuck want to call same-sex unions? Not in the least. A good many of them probably wouldn’t like what I would call THEIR marriages, either. Nor do I need Mommy and Daddy Government to validate me by bestowing the blessing of the word “marriage” on my relationship. All I want from the Nanny State is for it to leave me and my loved-ones the hell alone.
Just who is this “anyone” you claim you’ve never heard say they care about covenanting with God and their partner? Maybe your confusion arises from the fact that folks who feel thus (like me) think that the State should know its place and keep to it.
Validating people’s feelings and officially approving of certain religious convictions is, very frankly, not the government’s job.
Comment by Lori Heine — March 24, 2006 @ 10:52 am - March 24, 2006
The blogger’s idea would be relevant, if not for the fact that marriage in the United States is not a religious insitution. You need never step into a church or say a word to a preist or pastor to get married in America. The government recognizes civil marriage AND ONLY civil marriage. And delving a little deeper here, when one looks at the history of marriage, marriage only became an official sacrament of the church in 1530 at the Council Of Trent. Now, does the government recognize other church sacraments? Does it recognize baptisms? Does it recognize communion? The answer is simply, no. There also is no categorizing of marriage based upon which religion the couple espouses to. A couple’s choice of where he or she gets married, be it in a church, a synagouge or in las vegas ala an elivs impersonator, matters not to the government. But it does matter considerably if you are going to argue that marriage is religious property. Marriage lost its exclusivity to the church the moment the government got involved in it. For simply, in the United States, the church has absolutely no control over who can or can not get married, only the government does.
And now off the subject… Talk about some god damn, appeasing mother fuckers. I’m just going to call the writer of this blog Neville Chamberlain from now on, shortened to Nelly. What the hell is wrong with you, Nelly?! Taking our opponents side? Why don’t we all just say, “Yes! we live a life of sin and deserve no governmental recognition of our relationships! Yippee!!” Talk about some fuckin’ shit. That is bull shit and you know it. And if you don’t know it… get a little more fuckin’ self-observant Nelly, as it should be very apparent to everyone who is gay. People who are straight can be forgiven for thinking that gay people don’t deserve equality in the law. But gay people themselves who think that, there is no forgiving them. That is just being a weak minded, dimwitted idiot! So stop being such a pacifist, Nelly. Terrorism isn’t the only thing worth fighting.
Comment by Anonymous — March 24, 2006 @ 11:31 am - March 24, 2006
#26 - Gene, Gene, Gene -
You are free to use RWNS all you want. Your choice.
You just aren’t free to determine whether I take you seriously. If you use RWNS, I probably won’t take you seriously.
There is no hypocrisy involved in me (or anyone else) then calling the Lefty moonbats “moonbats”. You are free to not take me seriously, if I do that. You are free to tell me so.
I can’t speak for others who use “moonbat”, but when I use it, I use it with cause. E.g., for Michael Moore, or for some of the more severe ranters in this forum.
But, perhaps you can’t take me seriously if I should do it. That’s your freedom. I am free to use terms that would result in your not taking me seriously, if I want to.
Words/actions have consequences. Anyone can do whatever they want, IF they simply are prepared to take the consequences honestly.
Here’s an example of dishonesty. If you warned me that my using “moonbat” would make you take me less seriously, and I chose to use it anyway, and then you naturally took me less seriously, and then I whined at you or played Victim (for your naturally taking me less seriously)… That would be dishonest.
Comment by Calarato — March 24, 2006 @ 12:01 pm - March 24, 2006
Then I don’t believe you’ve been listening. Long before there was a movement for legal recognition of same-sex marriage, there was a movement for religious recognition of these marriages. As a result of that movement, thousands of congregations across the country have peformed and recognized marriages between same-sex couples, on an equal footing with marriages between opposite sex couples. Gay people in many demoninations have labored with their co-religionists for this recognition precisely because they saw their marriages as a religious covenant.
Which leads to an interesting question: Why should some of the marriages performed by the Quaker meeting in D.C. (for example) be treated differently by the state than other marriages performed by the same meeting?
In any case, as others have pointed out, civil marriage in this country is independent of religious marriage. We don’t allow religious objections to prevent other marriages — the Catholic church isn’t given a law that denies people the ability to remarry, and Orthodox rabbis aren’t given a law that prevents interfaith marriage.
If you die, your spouse has a legal right to collect a survivor’s benefit from Social Security. The only way to have such a right is through marriage.
Further, if you and another person own a piece of land jointly, one of you can sell his interest without approval from the other. In many states, if two spouses own land jointly, one spouse cannot transfer his/her interest without approval from the other. Again, this form of land ownership is available only to people who are married. (If you and your unmarried co-owner contracted for this right, and then you sold your interest without approval, your co-owner could seek damages from you, but he could not have the transfer set aside as invalid. Spouses with this right could do so).
These are just two examples.
Comment by Jonboy — March 24, 2006 @ 12:32 pm - March 24, 2006
5 year old kids, cows, dogs, zebras, elephants, spiders as well as currently married men or women, cannot enter into a legal civil contract to marry - nor should they be allowed to be enter that civil contract - so that knocks out most of your thesis - unless you want to redefine who can sign and execute a legal civil contract - do you?
Exactly my point. The government does not treat everyone individually.
Meanwhile, as to Anonymous, who I think exemplifies the hatemongering gay left that is doing its best to ensure that gays NEVER receive benefits:
What the hell is wrong with you, Nelly?! Taking our opponents side? Why don’t we all just say, “Yes! we live a life of sin and deserve no governmental recognition of our relationships! Yippee!!”
Reread the post. GP never said that gays deserve no governmental recognition. What he said was that it was clearly obvious that most gay activists were going after marriage out of selfishness, greed, and jealousy. That should be patently obvious from the numerous arguments made on this board by liberals that tear down heterosexuals by citing their divorce rates.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 24, 2006 @ 1:22 pm - March 24, 2006
That’s about the most bogus nonsense I’ve seen here yet.
Comment by rightwingprof — March 24, 2006 @ 1:27 pm - March 24, 2006
Jonboy, “If you die, your spouse has a legal right to collect a survivor’s benefit from Social Security.” Sorry, it’s neither a right nor a legitimate policy option and it needs to be reformed by Congress. Congress granted survivor benefits for the SocSce program –as well as lots of other grab-on privileges which are killing SocSec for me, my kids, and even for my parents in their later years.
Try again?
On the contracted agreement between same sex spouses or any other set of adults regarding the disposition of property interests… wrong on that one too. Here in Michgian you can contract to deny the unilateral decision by your partner to sell off, modify substantially or foreclose financial benefit in a property interest.
Like I wrote earlier, the 1000+ “rights” that SSM proponents argue do NOT exist for them, about 30 of the key “rights” can be completed with spouses in agreement. The balance are nothing more than puff intended to mislead the public on the unique legal attributes of marriage.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 24, 2006 @ 1:32 pm - March 24, 2006
I wonder about a very basic assumption informing Bruce’s central claim: namely, that the needs of the individual are somehow opposed to the needs of society as a whole. You can see this in his complaint that for “American Gay communities,” marriage is all about “Me, me, me, me, me.” BTW, Bruce has a habit of making blanket statements about the selfishness of Gay people that the facts simply can’t support: One would suspect him of Alan Keyes-style homophobia (”Hedonists!”) if one took a few of these remarks out of context. Since the three preeminent supporters of same-sex marriage in America — Andrew Sullivan, Jon Rauch and Evan Wolfson — have made extensive arguments about the social benefits of same-sex marriage, his claim here doesn’t hold water.
But even if it did, so what? In a society that values individuals and individual liberty, government must defer to the wishes of the individual as long as those wishes do not impinge upon others’ legitimate rights. That’s why government can’t tell you what to eat, or in what city you should live, what occupation you must pursue, or what websites you’re not permitted to visit.
So far, I have seen no evidence that legal recognition of same-sex marriage would either pick my pocket or twist my arm (to apply the Jeffersonian standard). Granted, Stanley Kurtz has stated that same-sex marriage would delegitimize opposite-sex marriage, and destabilize the family unit — but the evidence he has presented from the Netherlands and Norway flatly contradicts his claim. (Nor have I seen any evidence that same-sex marriage could lead to group marriage: Frankly, no one seems to know how legal recognition of polygamy could work, while same-sex marriage would function for all legal purposes as an opposite-sex marriage would.)
Most individuals who wish to enter into an opposite-sex marriage state that they’re doing so for their own happiness. I see no reason for individuals who wish to enter into a legally recognized same-sex marriage not to give the same reason.
Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 24, 2006 @ 1:49 pm - March 24, 2006
If marriage is a religious institution for you, so be it. For many others, (and I include myself in that number) marriage is about the protection of a relationship and a family under the law, period. Quite frankly, I feel that your position borders on the dogma spouted by the theocrats who would institute a western version of sharia if they could. In your view, anyone who isn’t in a god-centered marriage really isn’t married at all, and so is relegated to the second class status of civil partnership. I don’t believe access to equality in this country has ever been formally predicated upon espousing a particular religious faith or any faith at all. In any event, your argument about the intrusion of courts into religious matters is confusing. No one proposes that a faith would be required to bless a union with which it disagrees. The gay marriage debate is about equality before the state, not the church. Nothing being sought would interfere with a religion’s freedom to limit marriage according to a particular belief system.
Comment by Demetrius — March 24, 2006 @ 2:01 pm - March 24, 2006
52: NDT and whoever posted the original Santorum-esque comment, you obviously haven’t figured out the concept of “informed consent,” let alone “individual liberty,” if you honestly believe that a 5-year-old kid or a zebra is analogous to a mature adult human (or vice versa).
As for “currently married men and women,” they’ve already entered into a marriage contract. They are free to enter a new marriage contract with someone else, but before they do, they have to break the old contract. That’s called divorce. Exclusive monogamy is a key structural-functional component of civil marriage.
But under a legal code in which men and women have equal rights and responsibilities, gender doesn’t play a functional role in opposite-sex marriage: Husband and wife have the same rights and responsibilities. A bride is not required by law to take the husband’s name any more than the husband is required to take hers (in some opposite-sex marriages just as in many same-sex marriages, the spouses take each other’s name); she’s allowed to own property in her own name just as the husband can, and she can seek divorce for the same reasons and on the same terms.
Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 24, 2006 @ 2:06 pm - March 24, 2006
53: That’s about the most bogus nonsense I’ve seen here yet.
It is neither bogus nor nonsense, rightwingprof — though depending on how you interpret the historical evidence you may or may not agree. Augustine and Innocent III discussed marriage as sacramental, but didn’t go much further into the matter. The Council of Trent, however, officially placed marriage among the Sacraments, and established the marriage rites.
Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 24, 2006 @ 2:26 pm - March 24, 2006
NDT and whoever posted the original Santorum-esque comment, you obviously haven’t figured out the concept of “informed consent,” let alone “individual liberty,” if you honestly believe that a 5-year-old kid or a zebra is analogous to a mature adult human (or vice versa).
But you see, Tim, “informed consent” is a discriminatory factor.
My whole point in making the argument was to point out that government can and does discriminate, which the people shrieking “equality” fail to recognize or realize, and that one should think twice before making tears in the legal fabric that allows it to do so.
But it also brings up a second point, which I must confess to wanting to do, which is that gay activists tend to have a “get a grip” problem. Instead of shrieking, if someone makes a remark like I did, the response should be, “Yes, that is true; however, no one is insisting that gay rights requires that we remove the consenting adult protections for sex, and if they are, they are dead wrong.”
Of course, it’s much easier to respond in a hateful and bashing fashion, which is why you made your statement.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 24, 2006 @ 2:56 pm - March 24, 2006
But under a legal code in which men and women have equal rights and responsibilities, gender doesn’t play a functional role in opposite-sex marriage: Husband and wife have the same rights and responsibilities.
But the problem is, Tim, they don’t have equal rights and responsibilities. Women are a protected minority, men are not. Women have the power of life and death over their children, as protected by law, and men may not interfere.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 24, 2006 @ 2:58 pm - March 24, 2006
Cal, poopsie, relax. I take you seriously. I really do. I even changed the link from RWNS.
But Bruce used the Moonbats in the blog posting.
When you’re next in Palm Springs, let’s do lunch. (Invite open to all of you.)
Agape.
Comment by Gene — March 24, 2006 @ 3:37 pm - March 24, 2006
It is both. Marriage was considered a sacrament in the church long before the Great Schism — which is why it is a sacrament to the Orthodox. It was also a sacrament before the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD, since marriage is a sacrament in the Assyrian Church. In fact, marriage is a sacrament in every one of the ancient churces. You are confusing Rome’s obsession with offically codifying doctrine with doctrine.
Comment by rightwingprof — March 24, 2006 @ 4:19 pm - March 24, 2006
“But the problem is, Tim, they don’t have equal rights and responsibilities. ”
Which is a problem that needs to be fixed, as in repaired, rather than fixed in law for all time. The law used to rcognize a father’s authority over his children, as a way of correcting the inordinate power a mother had because they were under her control in the home. The law has basically abolished those protections. That is is the state of the law now, but that doesn’t make it some kind of moral norm. The law requires men to register for the draft as a duty of citizenship, but not women - that needs to change. Equal responsibilities go with equal rights.
Back on topic, the point has been made that the religious ramifications of marriage matter not at all in a question of law. Period.
The point has also been made that the Church did not recognize marriage as a sacrament until very late. That is simply a matter of fact. For centuries the Church didn’t think any aspect of lay life was very holy at all. Even in Scripture Jesus says that there is no marraige in the kingdom of heaven and Paul says that in these end times peole should rerain from amarriage if they can. His language against marriage is not that much less disapproving than against homosexuality. So that’s what the Church has thought on the matter for a very long time. I know some Protestants see things differently, in a rather more Judaic way, and that is typical of Protestants. Fair play. But that doesn’t make it normative for Christians.
The point has not been made that hetro marriage for love is at least as subversive of traditional mariage as divorce is. Traditional marriage was all about legtimating children and ensuring inheritance, and obviously on a deeper level on securing the father’s resources to augment the mother’s. This was why physical infidelity on the woman’s part was so heinous (where the man’s was not); because it undermined the credibility of the paternity of children and therby the father’s interest in providing for those particular children. Love for your wife was quite secondary. In fact there were times when the Church taught that love for one’s wife was really just a form of fornication, because it distracted from one’s love for God and took one;’s mind off higher things. (How fucked up is that?). You didn’t marry for love; you took a mistress for love. If you couldn’t afford that, you just waited until Carneval or Mayday to play.
The point has also not been made that legitimacy in society or approval don’t matter at all. I don’t want approval from people I don’t approve of, and that covers a lot of people. I want my rights, whatever they happen to be, to stand on their own beyond the approval or disapproval or power of anyone ot vote up or down. That’s all.
Comment by Jim — March 24, 2006 @ 4:21 pm - March 24, 2006
You’re free to argue that survivor benefits for spouses are not sound policy (although it’s an abuse of the language to call it “illegitimate”), but there is no denying that spouses have a legal right to survivor benefits. It is not an inalienable human right, but it is a right granted by law. And it is only available through marriage.
I’m not an expert on Michigan law, so I can’t dispute what you say. But in most states, such a contractual agreement would not be effective. If one partner sold his or her interest in the property to a person without notice of the agreement, the purchaser would be a bona fide purchaser for value. The non-selling partner might sue his or her (presumably) ex-partner for damages, but the law would not set aside the sale. Whereas if the same was true of two spouses, the law would set aside the sale.
You can argue about what is or is not a “right” and about whether the government should or should not give married people certain privileges, but it is indisputable that marriage changes, all in one blow, the legal status of two people in relation to each other. The legal relationship between spouses is given primacy before almost every other relationship in our society. No set of private agreements can fully replicate the status that marriage brings about.
And I still haven’t seen an answer to one question: Why should some of the marriages performed and blessed by a particular congregation receive recognition when others do not? Is the government now in the business of dictating doctrine to religious congregations? Are Baptist marriages more worthy of legal recognition than Quaker marriages?
Comment by Jonboy — March 24, 2006 @ 5:20 pm - March 24, 2006
Gee, I had no idea I was supposed to go through life all bitter and miserable because the bureaucracy won’t issue me a permission slip to have a relationship with someone of the same genital group.
Comment by V the K — March 24, 2006 @ 5:45 pm - March 24, 2006
Anyone who claims not to have heard love cited as a reason for gays wanting to marry either has not been paying attention or is lying.
I am in love with a man, and he loves me, and we want to be married. What we are seeking from the state is civil recognition of our marriage (and equal justice under the la