Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A perfect example of the double talk from the religious right on gay marriage amendments. Compare this post from the ADF blog about such amendments, where they say that anyone who claims that such amendments will void partnership benefits is only preying on fear and meant to confuse:
Preying on these and similar fears, advocates of same-sex "marriage" argue that proposed state marriage amendments will undermine the ability of government and even private entities to grant benefits to unmarried people. This false argument is being used to confuse many people...
To this post on the ADF blog praising the appeals court in Michigan for using the anti-gay marriage amendment to void such benefits. They are simply lying through their teeth when they claim that such amendments don't void benefit packages by universities and government agencies.
Comments
Nothing lies like a fundie.
Posted by: khan | February 4, 2007 10:13 AM
Is marriage a religious institution?
Maybe I'm just a whiner or overly sensitive, but I feel that I am at times the only gay person that is not comfortable or satisfied by the term "civil union". To me it feels like a consolation prize given as a means of pacifying gays. I hope that we gay men and woman will stop our belly aching about the issue of "marriage" until our work is done. Whiney or not, I am saddened to see that many gays are willing to accept second class citizenship. Our entire gay civil rights movement that has been courageously fought by a very few, is about equal rights. This of course means marriage as well.
We should not be satisfied by civil unions. Unions to me are not equal. It is a concilation prize. It's not about doing the right thing, it's about politics. Even the politicians that are in favor of calling our civil unions marriage are afraid to speak openly about it, with the exception of a few impassioned politicians that have a strong sense of integrity and also what is right and what is wrong.
We cannot look to the bible for any answers regarding equal rights. Those laws were written at a different time and for uneducated illiterate people. They were also a very superstitious people that made many of their laws in regards to those superstitions. We therefore cannot be influenced by scripture. We live in a country that has a law of separation between church and state. That's the wonderful thing about our country.
Somebody please help me understand why marriage by many is considered a religious institution. For the sake of discussion I would like someone to tell me why atheists are then eligible for marriage? It seems to me that heterosexual marriages are afforded just about any opportunity and environment they choose to take their vows. Even those darned heathens.
They can choose a church marriage, they can get married underwater, on a mountaintop, by a justice of the peace or even by a ship captain. However, the most romantic and holy place I can imagine to pledge ones vows of love and fidelity, is driving through a drive-in chapel in Las Vegas, as one would order a family meal. I'm sorry, I'm only human and I got a bit choked up when mentioning that. I love happy meals. The best part, no one has to even get out of the car, and the best man and woman are provided for one of the most important events in ones life; holy matrimony. How can one even compete with that kind of service? I think they even change your oil. That may be just hearsay.
Has it dawned on anyone that the constitution of the United States says very clearly that all people shall be treated as equal? There are no clauses added to that, such as, except gays and African Americans. What was stated in that document then still rings very clear yet today and likely for many years to come. We don't have to look too awfully far back into our history to find examples of how we ignored the constitution for selfish heterosexual Anglo-Saxon citizens so we could still own people. It wasn't until the early part of the nineteenth century before woman were allowed to vote. Not so long before that, slavery was legal. It wasn't until nearly fifty years ago that African Americans weren't allowed to marry whites. If we are to learn anything from our nations history, we should then know that whenever we veer off from what that beautifully crafted document we call our nations Constitution for whatever convenient reason, it is eventually overturned and changed for reasons of being unfair and not following the principals set forth in that document Back to my original question, I am hoping someone can give me a valid reason to prevent any two people that love each other from having the right to marry. I have heard some reasons that make no sense to me. One being that if gays were allowed to marry it would have the impact of destroying traditional marriage. We only have to look at the statistics of the success of heterosexual marriages to discover that more than half end up in divorce. Gays did not cause that. Fidelity within marriage has a terrible track record as well. Therefore I would truly like to hear some reasonable argument posed that would make sense why gay marriage ought not be allowed. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver www.aaronjasonsilver.com; Fennville, Mi 49408
Posted by: aaron silver | February 4, 2007 4:18 PM
Suggested correction, Khan:
Nothing lies like a fundie LAWYER!
The good ol'e ADF, always good for a few laughs...
...if they weren't so dangerous.
Posted by: SharonB | February 4, 2007 4:49 PM
aaron: I sometimes wonder if the fundies gave up their collective claim for "the sanctity of marriage" when they got the government involved in their own unions.
Posted by: Pseudonym | February 4, 2007 6:21 PM
aaron -
I am all in favor of absolute equality - including marriage (though, I would rather see the institution of marriage abolished as a civil institution - it's not relevant to the discussion). But I am supportive of civil unions as a step along the way. There are a lot of families at risk without any legal security, security that civil unions provide. Civil unions are far more feasible right now than marriage equality.
I believe in fighting for both. I want to see absolute equality, under the law and I think we will see it in our lifetimes (I think our kids will see acceptance far beyond the law). That does not mean that I am not going to fight for every right along the way. In this case, the legal security that civil unions provide a couple, couples with children - protecting the children as well. Gay parent households in many states, risk the state taking the kids away from the non-custodial parent, if the custodial parent dies. Life long partners can still be refused a place at there lover's death bed, in many places.
Total equality is important - absolute acceptance, is important. But so is every hard faught right along the way.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 4, 2007 11:12 PM
Aaron: "Is marriage a religious institution?"
Historically it was, but the state then insinuated itself into the thing and now I think it is something else. This complication of course is just one more reason why church and state should be separated.
Civil unions are a good start though, especially if they are made legally equivalent to marriage in all respects.
Posted by: James | February 4, 2007 11:50 PM
Here's a related story you might have missed. Apparently it is traditional in California on Valentine's Day for same-sex couples to apply for marriage certificates, knowing they will be turned down. This year, the clerk-recorder of Yolo County (near Sacremento), who has to enforce the law though she believes in marriage equality, is giving the couples 'certificates of inequality' reading
"your choice of marriage partner displeases some people whose displeasure is, apparently, more important than principles of equality."
What makes her stand more impressive is that she not only is straight and has been married to the same partner for 37 years, but she is also a self-described evangelical Christian.
The story is:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/po/20070203/co_po/gaypairswontleavecalifclerkemptyhanded;_ylt=AptqR8ngCanE.3JrKPAJo8hJ.nQA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
Posted by: Prup aka Jim Benton | February 5, 2007 4:09 PM
Prup aka Jim Benton, how does that qualify as a "tradition"?
* * *
Ed Brayton, you seem to be very confused about the marriage amendment and the appeal court decision.
For example, the ADF and other supporters of the amendment have not opposed granting benefits to unmarried people, so long as the benefits are made available in a manner that does not endorse sexual conduct outside of marriage (sexual orientation is not relevant to that proviso) and so long as the definition of marriage is not undermined.
The Appeal Court closed the door on treating nonmarriage as marriage but left another door open to making benefits available on another basis that is relevant to the provision of benefits.
Alternative legal avenues have long-existed to bestow benefits to unmarried people without basing those benefits on a partnership status that mimics marital status and which would be used in the SSMers' courtcentric campaign to undermine the state recognition of and preference for the social institution of marriage.
Posted by: Chairm | February 6, 2007 11:37 PM
Bull. If you don't want anyone having sex outside of marriage, but then prevent gays from getting married, you're saying that you expect gays to remain celibate all their lives.
Yes, and "alternatives" existed to "bestow" facilities on non-white people during Jim Crow. So what?
Trying to get married is not an attempt to undermine marriage.
Posted by: Skemono | February 7, 2007 12:42 AM
Skemono,
Bull. If you don't want anyone having sex outside of marriage, but then prevent gays from getting married, you're saying that you expect gays to remain celibate all their lives.
Yes, they do expect that. These folks wish that gay sex, gay folks, gay communities, and gay movement did not exist. Never underestimate the animosity with which they view us.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 7, 2007 7:40 AM
Oh great, chairm is here. Where are your buddies Fitz and On Lawn at?
I'm sure they can't be too far behind...
Posted by: doctorgoo | February 7, 2007 12:19 PM
"You want the state to endorse sex outside of marriage."
I for one want the state to stay out of it. If I choose to have sex outside of marriage that is my business.
Posted by: John | February 7, 2007 12:36 PM
I keep telling Chairm, Fitz and OnLawn to leave and they keep coming back. It's getting rather tiresome. I will be deleting every single comment left by any of them, period. I am tired of their nonsense.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 7, 2007 1:16 PM
Ah well, like cockroaches... Now Fitzy's over at my blog, plagiarizing and committing unspeakable acts on the English language. :)
I knew he was plagiarizing when a guy who doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're" was suddenly able to spell "methodological" correctly. :)
Posted by: Alan | February 7, 2007 2:35 PM
Ed,
I just got here. What were they saying?
Posted by: j thacker | February 8, 2007 12:19 AM
j thacker -
Just your standard bigotry and vitriol.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 8, 2007 1:13 AM