…and this is a 
The “problem” is our existence
Category: Politics
Posted on: August 15, 2008 8:49 AM, by PZMinion
MAJeff here, getting all gay and stuff. It's been a pretty big year for LGBT folks in the U.S. A couple weeks ago, the state in which I live repealed a law enacted during the height of anti-miscegination activity, and is now allowing same-sex couples from anywhere to marry here. Prior to that, California joined us in offering full equality to same-sex couples. That victory may be short-lived, though. There is an effort underway to take away the right to marry. Folks here can help out by contributing to Equality California who are leading the NO ON 8 campaign.
I had to chuckle the other day when I came across this post at an LA Times blog about their meeting with the folks trying to make life worse for queer people:
The measure's supporters are generally careful to avoid appearing anti-gay, probably because they realize that, for all the voter split on same-sex marriage, Californians generally support gay rights. They professed in our meeting to have no ill will toward gay people...until the talk went deeper.
Wait, you mean they're lying when they say they have no problems with gay people? I'm shocked! Shocked, I say!
The LA Times writer continues:
one Prop. 8 supporter said, gay rights are not as important as children's rights, and it's obvious that same-sex couples who married would "recruit" their children toward homosexuality because otherwise, unable to procreate themselves, they would have no way to replenish their numbers. Even editorial writers can be left momentarily speechless, and this was one of those moments
Ah, the recruitment line, code for "They're coming to rape your children."
The Times blogger is right: the anti-gay folks are careful to avoid showing their true colors; they work very hard to hide the anti-gay animus that drives them. But, lurking beneath the surface of their "We only want to protect marriage" lie is a deep and abiding hatred of queer folks and our communities. Their problem isn't that we want equal access to the same rights our heterosexual counterparts have. No, their problem is that we exist at all.
That was brought home pretty clearly in a recentletter-to-the-editor in the Boston Globe:
ENOUGH ALREADY with the Globe's gay agenda. How many front-page stories do we have to see to know that your agenda is to promote the gay/lesbian lifestyle? The July 21 article "Bloom's off the brick row house: Buyers picking modern high-rise over classic style" could and should have been written from the heterosexual perspective. What you're writing about is not a gay issue, it's a human issue, and casting the story in a manner to feature gays is inappropriate. It's time to straighten out, and I mean that in all senses of the word.
I have my own problems with such stories--namely that they continue to put forth an image of gay men as wealthier than the general public, when there's actually a wage-penalty attached to those of us who aren't hetero, and, regarding marriage issues, gay parents are getting by with fewer resources than their straight counterparts (that report is specifically for CA)--but that's not the point. The bigoted letter writer isn't concerned with accurate presentations, he's concerned that there are gay presentations at all. Housing issues may be universal, but the universal is particular--and it's straight.
I'm sure some folks will trot out the, "Just because I'm against gay marriage doesn't mean I'm anti-gay" or "just because I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle doesn't make me a bigot." Well, it does. What they're saying is that they want us gone. They want us to disappear. They want gay life to cease.
When folks come out and say they're opposed to discrimination against people but actively foster such discrimination, they're lying. They are pro-discrimination. That goes for John McCain, too, who recently said a pro-choice running mate would be acceptable, but not a pro-gay one. He has opposed every effort at including gay people in the institutions of American life. He may not be one of the crazy-ass-type fundies, but he's also no social moderate. He's just a "nicer" version of the "agents of intolerance" he "denounced" 8 years ago. His policy preferences on issues related to sexuality are very similar to those of Pat Robertson and John Hagee and Pope Nazinger.
McCain, Robertson, Hagge, Nazinger, McConnell.... These folks and the organizations they lead aren't just opponents of gay rights, but enemies of gay people. They are all pushing for a return of the institutional closet. They want us neither seen nor heard. And, as ACT-UP so accurately put it, Silence=Death. They may not always want individual gay people to die, but they want our communities to do so.
I take that back, by attempting to push us back into the closet, they do want us to die. There is no life in that miserable space.
Comments
Posted by: valdemar | August 15, 2008 9:08 AM
You're right - the real problem with 'gay rights' is that gays exist and want rights, in a free society. For bigots, many of them religious, this is too much. As a non-American who happens to like freedom (the real kind, for everyone) I hope you win the good fight.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 15, 2008 9:13 AM
The thing that always gets me is the use of the term, "the gay lifestyle". In my experience the friends, coworkers and acquaintances I have that are gay by no means live similar lifestyles.
But the bogyman is much easier to use to promote fear.
Posted by: Mike | August 15, 2008 9:17 AM
Can't disagree with this post at all. There is only one reason to oppose the recognition of a relationship between two people who openly profess their love to one another; bigotry.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | August 15, 2008 9:21 AM
Is this post an attempt to advance your gay agenda and recruit our children into the gay lifestyle? I knew it!!
Posted by: Sigmund | August 15, 2008 9:21 AM
I doubt that anyone sane seriously believes that gay people can make heterosexual people suddenly decide to become homosexual (which is how they argue against gay marriage or adoption). The underlying reason for their support is different, its a belief in a sort of Sodom and Gomorrah situation where allowing equality for homosexuals will result in a vengeful God laying waste to the land. This is the point they should be forced to confront when they manage to get themselves on TV. Do you seriously believe a supernatural being will destroy the earth if the law allows equal treatment.
Posted by: forksmuggler | August 15, 2008 9:22 AM
hear, hear!
Posted by: sjburnt | August 15, 2008 9:22 AM
It is just fear of the unknown, and fear of the 'other' tribe - even though there have always been homosexuals in 'our' tribe.
The same fear that leads to religion.
It is not that religious people are always bigots against gays; it is that both the religious and the anti-gay bigots are both deeply afraid of what they won't understand.
Talk about choosing a lifestyle!
Posted by: Arnaud | August 15, 2008 9:24 AM
But... but... how do you dare post about such a controversial topic while PZ's away?! They'll bomb his house, you know!
Posted by: Aaron | August 15, 2008 9:24 AM
Not to sound like a cliche, but... I'm not gay but I have gay friends.
I've got no problem with gays, lesbians, bisexuals, whatever your sexual preference. It really doesn't throw me off to see two guys kiss or be affectionate.
The whole anti-gay propaganda just REEKS of the anti-black propaganda our country saw back in the 60s. It's very annoying. Anti-gay group propaganda reminds me of the KKK's messages -- spouting hatred cast in the form of solidarity.
We're all humans. As Henry Rollins once said (paraphrased) "Straight or gay, guys are all into parking their pee-pee in tight warm places, and ejaculating like fucking GOD; We should be slapping each other on the back and celebrating this!"
Posted by: qbsmd | August 15, 2008 9:25 AM
I don't think that's a lie. And anyway, you can just ask "protect it from what?" and follow with "QED".
I would also be interested in seeing an explanation of why gay people want to get married. The institution of marriage looks to me like it's getting more irrelevant and broken all the time. Do you think marriage still has a place at all in the future?
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 9:25 AM
This blog post is pornographic.
Posted by: clinteas | August 15, 2008 9:26 AM
Ok,bigotry,yup,there is that.
"Gay rights".All for it.As I am for liberals rights,midgets rights,blacks rights.
Persecution complex tho? Probably comes with the whole scene,but one gets a bit tired of it,and frankly Id like to see less of the topic on Pharyngula.
Very sympathetic to the cause,please just not here.
Posted by: Michelle | August 15, 2008 9:26 AM
I'm against it! Not against same sex marriage exclusively, but against marriage as a whole. I think that it's overrated, and is unfair to unmarried couples. Are you better cuz you're married and we're not? Heck no! We're not scared of commitment, we're just... you know, not driven by religion. Because let's face it, there may be civil marriage but the origin of that union idea is religious. They just removed the spiritual bit. Frankly it just strikes me as an excuse for the bride to be treated like a princess for a day at a crazy price.
But gay people, um... Why do you wanna get divorced so much? I don't get it! (But I agree with the base - freedom to do anything all the way, baby.)
...I'd also start up on polygamy being illegal is idiotic but you know... I would type too much.
Posted by: Glenn | August 15, 2008 9:26 AM
Preach on, brother. I'm so sick of the pretense that equal rights for gays and lesbians is something over which reasonable, non-bigoted people can disagree. My partner and I have been together for 8+ years and I'll stack our relationship up against any straight marriage in terms of commitment, love and devotion, and if someone says nevertheless we aren't entitled to the same recognition, what other term is there for that than bigotry and hatred of gay people?
Posted by: Jams | August 15, 2008 9:27 AM
I think Barack Obama nails the problem right on the head.
"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." - Barack Obama
Sadly, he doesn't seem to be aware that he's part of that problem. It's a sad day when a fucking democrat can't bring themselves to say they're pro gay-marriage. I can only assume his more positive positions on gay rights are more a matter of pandering to pro-gay sentiment in the democratic party. Just another old-fashioned bigot.
re: "recruitment" arguments
You know, they may have a point. Like most heterosexual men, I was totally the gay before my mom and dad performed a little sex show for me. They really turned my head around.
Posted by: coathangrrr | August 15, 2008 9:27 AM
I doubt that anyone sane seriously believes that gay people can make heterosexual people suddenly decide to become homosexual (which is how they argue against gay marriage or adoption).
I think many do. A large portion of the Christian anti-gay community thinks that being gay is a sin that people can choose to embrace.
Posted by: S.Scott | August 15, 2008 9:28 AM
I love this gem from the SBC.net ... "There is no such thing as a homosexual person. We are all heterosexuals. Homosexuality is a description of a condition. It is not a description of the intrinsic nature of the person" (NARTH's Statement of Policy). Given his statement, then, men and women who consider themselves homosexual are really intrinsically heterosexual but they have a sexual identity problem and, as a result, might engage in homosexual behavior."
"I had no idea McCain was such a bigot. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
Posted by: Andrew | August 15, 2008 9:28 AM
I was with you until "Pope Nazinger." (not once, but twice) Germany certainly committed crimes in the 40s, but having been a German in the 40s isn't a crime. You can disagree with someone (as I disagree with pretty much everything the pope has to say) without resorting to childish name calling.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 9:29 AM
Frankly I'd like to hear less about gay people existing.
Posted by: Christopher Waldrop | August 15, 2008 9:30 AM
I love the blatant stupidity of the "I'm opposed to giving gays any rights but I'm not a bigot" attitude. What part of denying a group of people the same rights and privileges as everyone else isn't bigoted?
If their concern is that treating homosexuals (not to mention bisexuals and transgendered people) like everyone else will lead to an increase in homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism, then, I admit, they may have a point. Many bigots argue that homosexuality is a "choice". The logical counter-argument is, "Who would willingly choose to subject themselves to so much hatred and discrimination?" What the bigots believe, though, is that greater tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality will lead to more homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism. They believe greater acceptance will make the "choice" more attractive. The reality, as any intelligent person knows, is that acceptance may lead to greater visibility, it may lead to more people coming out of the closet, but the actual numbers won't change.
Posted by: TX CHL Instructor | August 15, 2008 9:31 AM
I'm a Libertarian; I feel that unless I'm willing to allow other people the same basic rights and liberties that I want for myself, then I would be nothing more than a hypocrite. That's without regard to gender, sexual preference(s), race, skin color, politics, age, or other affinity group membership.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 9:32 AM
Pharyngula is not the place for this.
Take it somewhere where liberal politics is discussed.
It's not that I don't like gay people! I wish that discrimination against them would end. I just don't see why you have to discuss that discrimination!
Posted by: Michelle | August 15, 2008 9:33 AM
@Andrew: He was a Hitler Youth. Hello?
Posted by: Christopher Waldrop | August 15, 2008 9:33 AM
Grammar RWA said: Frankly I'd like to hear less about gay people existing.
Then go back into your closet.
Posted by: sleepercell | August 15, 2008 9:33 AM
i love this argument that gay/lesbian parent turn their children gay. It is funny because almost all homosexual children are born to straight parents. If anything gay/lesbian parents should be given more children because statistically those children are more likely to be straight.
If that was the true issue anyway. But the real issue is bigots and assholes trying to make life miserable for everyone else.
Posted by: llewelly | August 15, 2008 9:34 AM
Soon the black leather helicopters will arrive to abduct you ... better put on your aluminum foil deflector beanie, quick.Excellent article, MAJeff.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 15, 2008 9:34 AM
@Andrew: He was a Hitler Youth. Hello?
Maybe I should just go with what the late Paul Monette called him, "The Bishop of Hate."
Posted by: Janine ID | August 15, 2008 9:36 AM
Andrew, in case you have not noticed, there is always a lot of name calling. But the calling of names does not take away the truth about the current and previous popes' extremely anti-LGBT policies. Care to talk about "The Culture Of Death"? I detect name calling there.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 9:36 AM
Spot on! That's why we should leave it up to the states to decide whether gay persons deserve the right to get married.
Overturn Loving v. Virginia! Damned activist judges.
Posted by: Michelle | August 15, 2008 9:37 AM
@MAJeff #27: More fitting. Frankly I have a problem with "Nazinger". It's too close to "Mazinger" and Mazinger kicked serious ass.
Posted by: Glenn | August 15, 2008 9:37 AM
I would also be interested in seeing an explanation of why gay people want to get married.
I'll give you just one of many reasons. I'm on my partner's health insurance, but because I'm a DP, not a spouse, the contribution that his work makes to covering my health insurance is treated as income and is taxed. We pay about an additional $1200 a year because of that. And unfortunately because that's a federal law, it won't change for a long long time (because of DOMA -- thanks, Bill Clinton!).
More important, of course, is that our government is telling us that our relationship, and by extension the two of us, are second-class.
And just a note to Michelle above... I actually agree that we should just get rid of marriage altogether, at least in terms of giving married couples any government benefits or other advantages (hey, you want to get married in church, be my guest). That was the debate for years in the LGBT community -- why should we join this patriarchal, broken institution? But let's face it -- marriage isn't going anywhere, and as long as it does exist, then it's intolerable to be denied access to that institution and its benefits (no matter how flawed otherwise) solely because my partner and I each have a penis. (can I say penis on this blog?)
Posted by: TX CHL Instructor | August 15, 2008 9:37 AM
"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." - Barack Obama
Barack Obama's one and only concern is getting elected, without regard to who he has to throw under the bus in the process. This statement is just an appeal to moderate conservatives, and may or may not have anything at all to do with what he actually believes -- which appears to change from moment to moment.
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 15, 2008 9:38 AM
Frankly, I am against gay marriage... and straight marriage and any form of marriage at all. I think people get married to try to recruit children into their married lifestyle.
Posted by: Janine ID | August 15, 2008 9:38 AM
Grammar RWA, you have repeated yourself already in such a short time. If you do not like the topic, do not click onto this subject again. It will solve your problem as well as mine.
Posted by: A Modest Proposal | August 15, 2008 9:41 AM
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Given that rationality is the greatest treasure of our society, that science is our most powerful tool for understanding the world, and that liberal democracy is our greatest guarantor of freedom and happiness, we urge that all who are dedicated to upholding and defending these ideals join together, in the formation of an organisation whose primary goal will be their promotion. This organisation will be well served by following the principles it is sworn to defend:
1) Equality; That all are born equal, and respect is merited only by achievements.
2) Morality; That the highest goal is the net increase of utility, but that we must never give up our humanity to achieve this.
3) Individuality; We must always be who we are, and allow others to be who they are.
4) Rationality; We must always base our actions and thoughts on the evidence before us and the application of reason, and change our conclusions if the evidence insists that we must.
5) Community; We must always defend those who cannot defend themselves, and allow the weak equal voice with the strong.
6) Freedom; We must always defend both the freedom from suffering, and the freedom to say what must be said, do what must be done, and strive for greater happiness, insofar as this does not interfere with the freedom of others.
We provide these principles as a basis for discussion, in the hope that from this tiny seed, a great tree will grow. Only by recognising what makes us great, and each doing our own part, in our own way, for the enhancement of all, can we protect what we hold dear. Our ancestors fought with shield and sword; we shall be a shield for what we love, and in this fight we will remember that the pen is mightier than the sword. This is not a call for unity, for unity is the aim of tyranny and repression; this is a call for each to do what seems right to them.
"Free men pull in all directions. It's the only way to get anywhere."
- Terry Pratchett
Posted by: wazza | August 15, 2008 9:44 AM
GrammarRWA says we should take this somewhere where liberal politics are discussed... obviously not a regular reader, or someone who's EVER LOOKED AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE
Word, MAJeff. I don't care who you tap, so long as you're a good person.
Of course, the problem with that is that some people talk about homosexuality as if it were a bad thing...
Posted by: llewelly | August 15, 2008 9:45 AM
clinteas, human rights has always been an approved topic on pharyngula. MAJeff has made it a little more common. Gay marriage is a normal part of liberalism (or at least it should be), thus, MAJeff's article is entirely appropriate. The site's motto, after all, is 'biological ejaculations from a godless liberal'.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 15, 2008 9:45 AM
Yes the best thing to do when being discriminated against is to ignore it and it will go away.
Brilliant!
Posted by: Janine ID | August 15, 2008 9:46 AM
MAJeff, I think in order to quell Grammar RWA's concerns about GLBT topics, you and me and everybody else who every brought up the subject of their own homosexuality better not mention it again. I am so sure that PZ will be blindsided by the fact that he allowed a gay man to post on this topic. You were just so closeted.
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 15, 2008 9:46 AM
I'll just give you my personal real life concrete example :
10 years ago I was sent by my company -a large multinational- to the USA as an expatriate.
I had been living with my partner -who is from Malaysia- for 6 years already. My company promissed they'd do everything to try to get him a visa.
After almost two years of trial and error, I had to return to Europe because it was impossible to get him a visa, we weren't married an that's all that mattered for the US imigration.
My parents were in the exact same situation 25 years ago. My dad was sent to the USA as an expatriate, and his spouse my mom automatically got a Visa.
Do you think it's fair ?
Posted by: Niobe | August 15, 2008 9:46 AM
@Michelle: "but the origin of that union idea is religious"
BZZZTTTTT WRONG
That is bullshit. People have been coupling with ceremonious rituals since the advent of time. Since all life events are co-opted and intertwined with a pervasive religion, this one got tied in too. Religion always claims exclusive rights to public domain issues (morality, anyone?) it has no business claiming. Marriage included.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 15, 2008 9:46 AM
folks, Grammar RWA is parodying the folks saying, "enough with the gays already." (At least based on grammar rwa's history, that's my assumption)
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 15, 2008 9:47 AM
I really don't know what Obama actually believes (and what he will do if elected), that's why I'm having a real hard time supporting the man. But the alternative is just unthinkable.
Posted by: amphiox | August 15, 2008 9:47 AM
Why do gay people what to get married? I think it is because it is a symbol. As someone said in a previous threat, marriage is a three-way contract, between the two individuals AND society. Marriage is society's way of recognizing a sexual union.
It implies not mere tolerance, not even just acceptance, but approval. "This union is a good thing, and we recognize it as such, and name it thus."
And that is what sticks in the anti-gay marriage folks' craw. It IS pure bigotry, dressed up in excuses.
And just what version of "traditional" marriage are they trying to protect? The one from the 1950s, where the woman is the junior partner to the breadwinning male? The ones from ancient times, when women were property and every man married as many as he could afford to support? (one for the poor, a handful for the rich, and hundreds to thousands for the big kahuna in charge?) The one from the dawn of agriculture, where the whole and only point was the churn out as many farm hands as possible so that enough food was grown for everyone could get fed? The serial monogamy pattern of the hunter-gatherers, where a couple stayed together for the conception, birth, and raising of a child to the age of self-ambulation, about 5-6 years, after which they either separated to find another partner or had another child?
Posted by: Mike G | August 15, 2008 9:48 AM
Perhaps a slight change of tactic in the pro-homosexual community is necessary.
Instead of calling for gay rights, we should instead be promoting 'human rights for homosexuals', I bet it would make denying rights such as marriage a hell of a lot harder.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 9:49 AM
Jeez, you liberals sure turn on the hate spigot quickly.
I just think our good friend clinteas should be heard loud and clear:
I know, right?! It's got to be a persecution complex because there's no more persecution against gay people today. I just don't see why we have to keep talking about this graphic sexual content in public. Can't you at least keep it on gay blogs?
Posted by: BaldApe | August 15, 2008 9:49 AM
[Morbo voice]Your victory will always be incomplete! You may cause others to accept your existence, your lifestyle, your agenda, but you cannot achieve total victory. I refuse to turn gay!!!![/Morbo voice]
Seriously, though,
qbsmd said:
So if marriage is so 20th century, isn't it past time to drag our society into the 20th century? That's why "civil unions" (which I previously supported as an alternative) are unacceptable. As long as there is any difference in the treatment of individuals by society, there is a lack of equality.
The more rational solution would be to do what Italy does. Let the legal aspects of marriage be controlled by the state, and the imaginary (oops, sorry "spiritual") aspects by the churches. If a particular religion does not believe in marriages between two people of the same sex, or between divorced people, they don't have to do it, but the legal protection remains equal.
Posted by: Michelle | August 15, 2008 9:50 AM
@Niobe: Yea... They have. Ceremonious rituals for the spirits or the Mother or whatever was their beliefs at the time. Geeze.
Posted by: debaser | August 15, 2008 9:50 AM
Yeah I can't believe some of you people. The comment section of a post on homosexual issues is NO PLACE to make comments about homosexual issues. I don't have anything against it, but how about this thrad gets moved to a separate-but-equal comment section in the back of the forums somewhere. That way I can look at only the strait posts on this issue, as god intended.
Posted by: Janine ID | August 15, 2008 9:52 AM
Michelle, I just want to point out that negentropyeater's story is hardly an isolated incident. Many partner's have been turned away from hospitals when blood relatives and married partner would be allowed in. Also, there is the lack of benefits the married partners take for granted that BLBT couples usually do not get.
It is about not having the same rights as heterosexual people.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 9:52 AM
Zomg. You outed me!
To those who worried: I am a gay man, neither closeted nor self-loathing. There is one less bigot in this thread than you had thought. But more than zero.
Posted by: llewelly | August 15, 2008 9:53 AM
The burden of bearing a massive penisPenis Evolution
Was that fun, or what?
and many more.
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 15, 2008 9:54 AM
Also where is the outcry for the rights of the polygamists?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 15, 2008 9:54 AM
Humm. Maybe.
My brain was severely damaged reading ray comfort this morning so it is hard for me to tell.
if so, my bad
Posted by: Jason Failes | August 15, 2008 9:55 AM
"it's obvious that same-sex couples who married would "recruit" their children toward homosexuality"
Whenever I see the word "obvious", it's almost certain that something completely counter to reality will follow.
Has the definition of "obvious" changed or is there some kind of spell-check mix-up with "oblivious" as in:
You would have to be completely oblivious to believe that same-sex couples who married would "recruit" their children towards homosexuality.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 9:56 AM
This is not unlike Poe's Law, I'm afraid. But with less comedy and more tragedy.
Posted by: Arnaud | August 15, 2008 9:57 AM
Anyway, early christian communities were very much like later monastic communities: their members didn't marry or have sex. They were expecting the Second Coming in their lifetime and didn't see a point in having children. It's only when it became apparent that the return of Jeebus was slightly delayed that they had to find an accommodation.
And yeah, Poe on GrammarRWA!
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | August 15, 2008 9:57 AM
I think Grammar RWA is being sarcastic and mocking some of the commenters he disagrees with by pretending to echo their opinions/positions. The joke is getting a little tired though, IMO.
Posted by: Janine ID | August 15, 2008 9:57 AM
Grammar RWA, you are correct. I should have spent more time jumping all over clinteas.
But please refrain from playing these little games, sometimes I have a difficult time telling the truthful statements from a smartass statement. (And this is coming from a self professed smartass.)
Posted by: PaulB | August 15, 2008 9:58 AM
"Homer's Nestor was not well skilled in ordering an army when he advised the Greeks to rank tribe and tribe. He should have joined lovers and their beloved. For men of the same tribe, little value one another when dangers press; but a band cemented by friendship and grounded upon love, is never to be broken." Plutarch
Posted by: Rebecca Watson | August 15, 2008 9:58 AM
Jeff, I can't wait for PZ to come back and find out you gayed up his site. And on another note, will I see you at the next Seekrit Gay Mafia meeting? We're ratifying the final Agenda.
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 15, 2008 9:59 AM
Amphiox,
it's not because it's a symbol. I don't give a shit about symbols. It's because there are today concrete rights exclusively assocated with it.
I don't give a shit if you call it "marriage" or "bashibouzouk", just let me get the same rights with my life long partner as if I had married a woman.
Read my post #40 for an example of such a "right" that I couldn't get and how it impacted my life.
Posted by: True Bob | August 15, 2008 9:59 AM
Nice post, big gay MAJeff. I might know gay people, but I don't KNOW if I know - it's not a topic I bring up. The people I believe to be straight are generally already married to members of the other gender. Otherwise, it isn't my business.
Benefits to marriage are numerous, for those who do not know. First is a tax break, then there are things like rights of survivors, rights of visitation in hospitals, prisons, etc. Without these things, the state gets involved, and you know how they'll fark things up.
Last, my take on the "choice" issue. I ask those who assert that, how they chose between taking Mike or Brenda to the prom. Or ask them to imagine change their choice from being a leg man to a breast man. Instant cognitive dissonance.
Obligatory married guy joke: Are you sure you want marriage? You know about the sex life diminishing, right?
Posted by: Pablo | August 15, 2008 9:59 AM
When this topic comes up, I like to ask anti-gay marriagers how it feels to be using the same arguments against gay marriage that were used to oppose interracial marriages in the past?
As you note, it was the exact same crap. In particular, "protecting" marriage against abnormalty.
You can go and find quotes against interracial marriages from the past (from judges even) that are basically the same as what we hear now replacing "homosexual"for "interracial").
Posted by: Michelle | August 15, 2008 10:00 AM
@Janine ID: And that's outrageous. Just because you decided not to go through a silly ritual/legal ceremony... Suddenly it classifies your relationship as second-class, not serious... It's ridiculous. Marriage is discriminator to unmarried people.
Here's what I think: down with marriage. If you're a couple (no matter the genders), you should have the same rights as a married couple. Anything else is just discrimination. What's the difference between a non-married couple and one that is married? None beyond the paper and the money they wasted getting the paper.
Posted by: Janine ID | August 15, 2008 10:01 AM
Posted by: gdlchmst
Also where is the outcry for the rights of the polygamists?
I have not problem with polygamy as long as it is not based on the old patriarch model. But sadly, in most polygamist marriages, the women are the junior partners.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 15, 2008 10:02 AM
Janine a smartass? never
Posted by: MyaR | August 15, 2008 10:04 AM
My best friend and his partner of 15 years* got married a couple of weeks ago when they were in California. (They happened to be at the courthouse because they needed to find a public restroom, then just said, "Hey, why not?" Well, they had talked about it before, and they did their serious commitment ceremony several years ago.) And now NY has to recognize their marriage, which is awesome.
* Which makes them unusual for pretty much any type of relationship. They met when they were 23 & 25 and have been together since.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 15, 2008 10:06 AM
And on another note, will I see you at the next Seekrit Gay Mafia meeting? We're ratifying the final Agenda.
I can cater. Tomatoes have started coming in!!!!!!!
Is there a pub coming up? Calendar says so.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 15, 2008 10:06 AM
Liberal politics has always been and will continue to be a topic on this blog.
Go to the Log Cabin society if you want to talk conservative politics and gay issues.
Ratzi was a Hitler Youth.
Posted by: Alejandro | August 15, 2008 10:06 AM
Excellent post
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 15, 2008 10:07 AM
Michelle,
Wrong, read my post #40.
How does a nation control for instance immigraton rights for the partner, if there is no legal document that attests that this partnershp exists and is a bit more solid than just (a person + a person who don't know each other and are trying to make a financial deal) ?
Posted by: Bobber | August 15, 2008 10:08 AM
An excellent post. I lived in Massachusetts during the effort to have gay marriage recognized, and I well remember the hate-filled and fear-driven garbage being thrown out by the opponents of equal rights for homosexuals, and the predictions of dire consequences for "normal" marriages and the doom of civil society.
Funny how the world did not end. The worst fear of the opponents of equal rights for homosexuals is one they won't often voice: that there ARE no negative consequences when human rights are respected, that society does NOT come crashing down when we include more segments of the public body in the circle of full citizenship. What the hate-mongers feared most came to pass: gay marriages are now recgonized as equal to all other marriages in Massachusetts, and NOTHING BAD HAPPENED AT ALL. Which means their worldview, predicated as it is on the fear of incurring the wrath of their oppressive overdeity, is wrong - and that they are on the losing side of history.
Keep the torch lit, MAJeff. Any significant change requires a catalyst. Whether the cause be rationalism, equal rights, or peace, only those who speak will be heard!
Posted by: Randy | August 15, 2008 10:08 AM
MAJeff,
Now I have a picture of "recruiting into the gay lifestyle" of a cross between the Army recruiter who led me to believe some wildly inaccurate things about the US Army and the NFL Draft. Is that how it's done?
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 10:09 AM
I apologize to anyone who felt that I wasted some of their time. By playing as one of those who are uncomfortable with gay people, I hoped to make them look so ridiculous that they'd think twice about posting here. I have no idea whether it worked to any degree.
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 15, 2008 10:09 AM
Polygamy is based on a patriarchal society because our society is based on a patriarchal society. The problem lies not with polygamy but with the societal traditions.
Posted by: SC | August 15, 2008 10:09 AM
MAJeff: I agree. Nothing to add, really.
By the way, this is interesting:
http://atheism.about.com/od/benedictxvi/i/RatzingerNazi.htm
One issue that it raises is his problematic claim that a mindless adherence to the Vatican's authority is a defense against fascism. I was disappointed when the public debate surrounding Hitler's Pope turned into an argument about that pope's personal relationship with Hitler rather than a discussion about the book's description of how he was behind significant transformations within the Church itself that brought it even closer (in more than one sense) to authoritarian regimes. Anyway, just an aside. Not trying to derail the thread from its important topic.
(Grammar RWA - From your comments on previous threads, I had always assumed you were a woman. That's a compliment.:))
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 15, 2008 10:11 AM
Related to negentropyeater's comments on immigration.
I have a dear, dear friend who would, I am guessing, fly to California to marry his partner in a heartbeat (I should try to convince them to come to MA). They've exchanged rings, share property, have been making a life together for several years.
The problem is that they can't get married because his partner is married to a woman. It's a shame marriage, entered and maintained so she can stay in the country. The license counts. The relationship doesn't.
Posted by: Muffin | August 15, 2008 10:11 AM
@Andrew - as a German (and a bisexual), I fully support the "Pope Nazinger" moniker, myself. It's not about the fact that he's German and was born before 1945; it's that he was a) a Hitler youth and b) - worse - that he continues to hold opinions any nazi would've been proud of. It's not even limited to LGBT folks (he's also caused controversies with his remarks about judaism, for example), although of course, LGBT-bashing is pretty much the most accepted form of ${FOOBAR}ism in the western world today, so this is what he's most open about.
Don't let the fact that he's got a funny hat and gilded robes blind you. He's still just a hateful old man.
Posted by: Michelle | August 15, 2008 10:13 AM
@negentropyeater: Require a legal document for immigration if you like, but between two citizens I don't see why they would require a paper.
Just because one isn't married doesn't mean the relationship isn't solid. And frankly what's that with getting people in because you're married with them? What does that mean, that single people can't get into a country? They just have to come in like single people do.
Posted by: BaldApe | August 15, 2008 10:14 AM
Nope, it still pretty much means "things I claim to be true without thinking about it."
It is a pretty major red flag, like "studies show" and the word Darwinism when used on the left side of the Pond.
Posted by: JoshS | August 15, 2008 10:14 AM
Great post Jeff. Coincidentally, I just wrote a short piece on what I think the real objection to gay marriage is (in brief, an objection to losing privileged social status). I'd like you to see it, but I don't want to text-dump on this thread. I'm assuming you can see my email address as a moderator? If so, please email me. If not, is there another way I can get a hold of you directly?
Posted by: zer0 | August 15, 2008 10:15 AM
The world would be a wonderful place, if the greatest crime despised by society was standing in the way of another person's happiness. I only hope that within my lifetime this becomes a non-issue, and gays and lesbians are allowed to freely pursue happiness in every corner of the world.
Posted by: Carlie | August 15, 2008 10:16 AM
I've long thought that the wingnuts who honestly believe that gay people can "recruit" others are either gay or bi themselves, even if they don't know enough to call it that. Otherwise, how would they even be able to think that it's so enticing as to be so easily catching?
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 10:16 AM
(Grammar RWA - From your comments on previous threads, I had always assumed you were a woman. That's a compliment.:))
That's interesting, SC. Anything in particular you can think of that gave you that impression?
Posted by: amphiox | August 15, 2008 10:16 AM
negentropyeater: would you then be satisfied if the laws were changed such that "civil unions" had EXACTLY the same rights and benefits as "marriage" but the two continued to be called by their separate names and the term "marriage" continued to only apply to partners of opposite gender? A fair number of the anti-gay marriage crowd would (or at least claim they would) accept such a compromise.
But I would not. In my mind to call it by different names, even if they are treated EXACTLY the same, means that you are still thinking about them as being different, and therefore unequal, and therefore it is still bigotry.
And it is more than just law, it is the attitude and actions of individual people. To have two separate terms means that it is acceptable to think about the two as being different, and thus unequal.
That is what I meant by symbol. All words are symbols, and symbols are important because they reflect what we think.
Posted by: Janine ID | August 15, 2008 10:19 AM
Gdlchmst, exactly. But you are the one who brought up the subject.
Posted by: Whateverman | August 15, 2008 10:21 AM
In my case, no, it doesn't.
Before I go any further, I'll cut to the chase: I have no problem with states that don't allow gay marriage, but such states should be required to create a seperate-but-equal legal institution. Civil unions (et al) should afford the same legal protections and incentives that a "regular" marriage does.
Now then, I oppose gay marriage to some extent, but my reasons are philosophical rather than ethical/moral/whatever. Although governing bodies do not have free reign to craft any law they want, they're allowed to proceed at their own discretion. This is due to the recognition that such bodies deserve some autonomy - they should be able to enact laws which represent values the state wishes its citizens to adhere to.
Marriage today is less a spiritual institution than it is a legal contract between 2 people and the state they live in (and optionally, a religious organization). Most states recognize that healthy family units stabilize their communities; people in those units generally use less resources, end up producing more (in terms of work) and require less state intervention.
Marriage is also an endorsement by the gov't (and/or the religious institution) of that unit's lifestyle. It agrees to grant such couples rights not conferred to single people, in part due to the recognition described above and the endorsement of state values.
In other words, although I'll freely admit that love is core to the success of any marriage, the institution is primarily a legal one. And as such, states have the right to advocate certain lifestyles if that's what they want to do.
If marriage were nothing but a spiritual bond between people, I wouldn't feel this way. That not being the case, the bodies conferring benefits due to the union have a right to define standards for that union.
I'm sure it's going to be ignored, so I'll say it again: any state that doesn't wish homosexuials to be married needs to craft another seperate-but-equal institution. When you get right down to it, 2 people in a committed relationship are a benefit to the state, regardless of their sexuality. And I like to think that we (as a society) are openminded enough to realize the difference between non-endorsement and discrimination. Preventing a parallel institution would be discrimination.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 10:22 AM
That's possible. It might also be that they think gayness spreads like an infection. One of these shitheads once told me to my face that I was gay because I had been molested as a child. (I was not.)
Posted by: wazza | August 15, 2008 10:22 AM
Michelle: Down here in New Zealand, any couple which lives together and presents themselves as a couple in society for three years (which is about how long the average couple is together before marrying, I guess) becomes what we call De Facto, after the legal term. After that, the partner has the same rights as if they were married and tax is measured the same way. And it applies for gay or straight relationships. No word on what happens if there are more than two of them, but it'd have to be a pretty special group of three to last more than a couple of years; older people aren't that liberal and younger people aren't that patient.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 10:23 AM
And no, I didn't punch him. :(
Posted by: Interrobang | August 15, 2008 10:24 AM
Janine, if you're going to jump all over Clinteas, be sure you do it in a completely gay way...
The point of getting married is basically the bennies, at least from any practical point of view. In the US, at least, getting married scores you about a thousand rights and privileges that non-married couples don't have. So it's a big, big deal.
I'm Canadian and we not only have same-sex marriage, but common-law marriage as well, so the picture here is slightly more complex.
Posted by: Wowbagger | August 15, 2008 10:24 AM
Mike put it so very well in #3:
One of the best, happiest, most stable and - dare I say it - enviable relationships (I'm one of few atheists I know who is the sort of grumpy, uncharismatic loner Nisbet derided in his blog; I just prefer being on my own) of the people in my life is the one between two of my gay friends. It is beyond ridiculous for members of a civilised society to consider those relationships any less valid than those of 'straight' people - or that recognising gay marriage is going to have any impact at all on anyone other than the gays who want to get married.
It gets applied to abortion and can apply here: if you don't like gay marriage, don't get married to someone of the same gender.
Posted by: Whateverman | August 15, 2008 10:25 AM
A follow-up: if I had the power to run my own "state" (and thus be in a position to endorse certain lifestyles), I would very likely allow homosexuals get married. However, I'd expect other states not disagree - and they should have the right to endorse as they see fit.
Posted by: SteveM | August 15, 2008 10:25 AM
If wishes were wings then frogs wouldn't bump ass on the ground.
Yes, but I don't think that is quite what the fear is. I think that the fear is that the number of "the gays" is only as small as it is because just about everyone is raised by a heterosexual couple. That is, that while 10% (or so) may be gay no matter how they are are raised, the fear is that most kids will tend to assume the sexuality of their parents, kind of like how they acquire the language of their parents. It is not "recruitment", just imitation, "nurture" not "nature" that sets ones sexuality. So the fear is that if we let gays marry and raise kids, the percentage of gays in the population will increase and then (duh, duh, duhhh [scary music cue]) disaster.
Posted by: Michelle | August 15, 2008 10:26 AM
@Wazza: frankly it works that way where I live too, but why do I have the feeling it does not swing like that in the US?
But 3 years's a bit long for me. With just one year I think it's pretty evident that something good is going on between two people.
It's still a bit unfair mind you, cuz two people that met a week ago will have all the rights if they marry the next.
So if there's a time constraint for unmarried couples to gain rights I think it needs to apply to married people too. It's matter of equality, see.
Posted by: Andrew N.P. | August 15, 2008 10:27 AM
I suspect that many more people would support gay marriage if it had a fanciful name like bashibouzouk. Heck, I might get gay-married myself if that's what it was called. (Bonus points if the ceremony is like something out of Borat's Kazakhstan.)Posted by: qbsmd | August 15, 2008 10:27 AM
I like "Ratzi the Nazi" myself.
negentropyeater, #40, I know the visa system needs improvement too. I don't know if allowing spouses in automatically is a good idea either. I've heard of people making money off of marrying and divorcing immigrants to get them into the country. I'm sure terrorists are trying to exploit the same system.
In the end, I would agree with BaldApe. The government should set whatever laws apply to people registered in civil unions. Anyone who wants to get married can start a religion to do so, with no legal recognition.
Posted by: JoshS | August 15, 2008 10:28 AM
Whateverman, #88, wrote:
"Now then, I oppose gay marriage to some extent, but my reasons are philosophical rather than ethical/moral/whatever."
Pray tell what are your philosophical reasons? You gave none aside from the evasive "if the state wants to advocate lifestyles, it can," which you also left unpacked.
You also wrote:
"I'm sure it's going to be ignored, so I'll say it again: any state that doesn't wish homosexuials to be married needs to craft another seperate-but-equal institution"
I'm not ignoring it, I'm just perplexed. *Why* should there be "separate but equal" institution? Why should it be separate at all? What possible societal justification can be given for such a set-up? And, don't you realize how oxymoronic the term "separate but equal" is? By *definition,* something separate cannot be equal.
You may have done some deep thinking about this, and you may have come up with a good rationale. If so, please share it with the rest of us, as it's not at all apparent.
Posted by: wazza | August 15, 2008 10:29 AM
Actually, cutting the breeding population is probably a good idea, a la The Forever War...
and there's technology to let two women make babies...
face it, guys, we're surplus to requirements.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 10:29 AM
Whateverman, give us an example of some time in history when "separate but equal" was actually equal.
When you fail to do so, tell us why you just know it's going to be different this time.
Posted by: Ada | August 15, 2008 10:31 AM
My spouse and I are citizens of different countries, and we wouldn't be able to live on the same continent if we didn't get married. I don't see an easy way to get rid of marriage altogether and still deal with the myriad issues that are affected by it, such as immigration. I'm not sure all the anti-all-marriage-altogether folks have really considered all the ramifications of what they're promoting. OTOH, the committed gay couples who want to get married tend to know exactly what they are missing out on.
Posted by: SteveM | August 15, 2008 10:31 AM
"seperate-but-equal" is a contradiction in terms. And they tried that back in the fifties with education. If it is seperate then it is not equal.
Posted by: Zeno | August 15, 2008 10:31 AM
I'm here in California where the battle over Proposition 8 is simmering. Recent polls have shown the anti-gay measure lagging and a small majority now in favor of same-sex marriage, so anti-gay religious and right-wing forces are going nuts. That makes it harder for them to "play nice" and pretend they simply love "traditional marriage" rather than hate "faggots and queers." I need to get a "No on 8" bumper-sticker before visiting my home town in the Central Valley, just to shock the locals. Maybe some of my excessively religious family members will vote against it because of my out cousin, because it would be okay for him to marry because he's nice and not like those other people. We'll see.
One good thing: Obama has declared himself opposed to Proposition 8. That's not as good as endorsing same-sex marriage, but the enemy of my enemy can be a helpful ally. Sen. Obama will carry California by a wide margin and we can use all the support we can get from his campaign.
One bad thing: It seems unfair to make a fuss over Ratzinger's membership in the Hitler Youth. Did any young German even have a choice in the matter? It's a historical footnote that neither proves nor disproves anything. Apart from that, I don't hesitate for even an instant in calling out the old bastard for his medieval views. Those are his responsibility and fair game.
Posted by: wazza | August 15, 2008 10:33 AM
@Michelle: Here, a year's relationship means you like each other. Two years means you like each other and you can stand being around each other. Three years means you like each other and can stand being around each other for extended periods of time.
I mean, six months together is nothing more than an extended courtship. I've been more than a month with a girl and we haven't even decided if it counts as a relationship yet.
(*sigh...*)
Posted by: Ethan Obie | August 15, 2008 10:33 AM
What's that, secrets, gays, mafia, TOMATOES. I want to come! So when is this secret meeting?
Posted by: JoshS | August 15, 2008 10:34 AM
Whateverman, #94, wrote:
"A follow-up: if I had the power to run my own "state" (and thus be in a position to endorse certain lifestyles), I would very likely allow homosexuals get married. However, I'd expect other states not disagree - and they should have the right to endorse as they see fit."
I just get more and more perplexed. First, how very gracious of you that you'd likely allow us gay folk to marry. Very big of you.
What I cannot understand is why you seem to believe the whim of "other states" to decide who does, and who does not, have basic civil rights trumps those rights. This tells me you value state autonomy, no matter how dictatorial, over the rights of citizens to be treated fairly and equally. That's disturbing. I'm one of those old-fashioned liberals who believes in the concept of universal human rights. I do think they're self-evident. I do think they're inalienable. I don't think any state has the right to abridge them.
What am I missing?
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 15, 2008 10:35 AM
Michelle,
you're not thinking very much are you ?
that document today is called "wedding certificate". Change the name to "partnership certificate" if you want, they'll still need a paper to certify that these two aren't just two citizens who don't know each other.
Correct, but if you want to move together accross borders, because you're a couple and that's your choice of life and one gets a job and a visa, and the other one not, or not yet, you're going to need a document that attests that this relationship is solid so that you can both move together. Today, it's called a "wedding certificate", as I said you could call it a "bashibouzouk certificate" if you want, doesn't change the fact that you're going to need a paper.
Single people can get in the country, but there are a lot of pre-requsites, I'm not going to go for a list long on immgration legislation, that'll take a long long time. Study it if you're interested. For instance if you have an expatrate posting, you get a Visa to work and reside there. What if your partner wants to move with you, but can't get such a job because doesn't have the required qualificatons? No, finding just a normal job in the USA beforehand for your parner won't work, he/she won't get a visa just like that. So he/she just stays home, and you can't live together as a couple ?
Posted by: Erp | August 15, 2008 10:35 AM
As negentropyeater points out it is the legal recognition of a new family bond which enables far fewer quibbles about hospital visits, immigration, tax deductions (especially if one partner is ill and unable to work or is staying home to take care of children) etc. Mixed sex couples have the choice (barring being married to someone else) whether to marry or not in the eyes of the law. Same sex couples generally do not.
I'll note that some religious people are in favor of same sex marriage (many Californian Unitarian Universalist ministers are more than willing to perform marriages and some dioceses of the Episcopal Church allow blessings of same-sex unions [this has included the blessing of a civil partnership where one partner is a bishop] though not yet full fledged weddings). The Mormon church and the Roman Catholic Church are mobilizing for prop 8 in California unfortunately.
Posted by: Michelle | August 15, 2008 10:36 AM
@Wazza: *Pats on back* There there. Don't give up. X_o;
Anyway, I just think that the most important part of my point is that if it takes unmarried couples 3 years to get rights it should take married couples 3 years to get rights as well.
Posted by: Wowbagger | August 15, 2008 10:36 AM
At first I thought that 'gay marriage' meant 'married in a church' - and that puzzled me, because I find the idea of gay christians to be very strange indeed. Then again, there are the Log Cabin Republicans; I guess some people deal better with cognitive dissonance than others.
Posted by: SC | August 15, 2008 10:36 AM
That's interesting, SC. Anything in particular you can think of that gave you that impression?
That you've written with such erudition, empathy, and passion about abortion, primarily. (One thread in particular, in which you were debating the issue with Walton, stands out. I can't find it right now, which is annoying since I have an excellent conversational memory, but I'm not at my sharpest in the morning.) I don't often come across men who can do that, or would bother to. But I really shouldn't say that, because I've been delighted to find several such men on this blog. And there may be more than I think, given that you're one and I didn't know it...
Anyway, I've appreciated your posts.
Posted by: Rob the Lurker FCD BMWCCA | August 15, 2008 10:37 AM
Great post, MAJeff. Straight to the point. Though, I think your being too kind to McCain's party. Living in the South, I figured out long ago that the Republican party is just the KKK minus the "N" word. I can only hope that, in my lifetime, they can be made to tolerate gays the same way they now tolerate the Jews.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 15, 2008 10:37 AM
No link to this story yet?
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28970
Ten years old, but still a goodie.
-jcr
Posted by: Pablo | August 15, 2008 10:38 AM
I think what amphiox is saying is that "separate but equal" is never equal
Posted by: Jason Failes | August 15, 2008 10:39 AM
Completely, completely off topic:
Jason knows not how to blockquote.
(on the internet is that similar to admitting you are illiterate?)
Help.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 10:42 AM
[blockquote]some words[/blockquote]
But with the lesser- and greater-than signs on the comma and period.
Posted by: AwesomeRobot | August 15, 2008 10:42 AM
Another reason homosexual couples would want to get married, If one of them is in the US on a work VISA and it expires. Heterosexuals can get married to stay together, but not homosexuals.
Just imagine being in the situation where immigration law separates you from the person you love.
Posted by: Michelle | August 15, 2008 10:43 AM
@negentropyeater: If you don't stop taking me for a moron I'll start getting offended.
I could start saying that just because you have a piece of paper saying "Yea we're married" doesn't mean you wanna live forever together. Haven't you heard of people that get into countries by marrying some tool and then they ditch them? I have. I actually knew someone that got tricked that way. MAJeff seems to know one too.
I absolutely say that marriage is a bad reason for letting someone in the country due to such simple trickeries. Prerequisites are a good thing.
For recognition when moving abroad, I think that a simple tax report made together should do the job. See the convo I'm having with Wazza up there? After 3 years in his country people are recognized as a team and get the rights automatically. I don't mean that it WORKS RIGHT NOW but that's how it SHOULD BE.
Posted by: Mongo Moon | August 15, 2008 10:43 AM
Trying to figure out how a gay rights piece got on a science blog....
Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 15, 2008 10:43 AM
I'm against it! Not against same sex marriage exclusively, but against marriage as a whole.
I can't quite fathom why, if you've chosen not to marry, you should care if anyone else does.
-jcr
Posted by: B.Dewhirst | August 15, 2008 10:43 AM
Barack Obama can't be for 'gay marriage' because he can't say 'gay' (or lesbian, or bisexual, etc.)
Posted by: Ada | August 15, 2008 10:44 AM
How do you reckon people are going to live together for three years to get rights, if they don't HAVE the right to live together yet?
Posted by: Jason Failes testing | August 15, 2008 10:45 AM
But with the lesser- and greater-than signs on the comma and period.>[/blockquote]>
Posted by: Jackal | August 15, 2008 10:46 AM
[mocking]I'm against Christian marriage. It's not that I'm anti-Christians, thought I don't approve of their chosen lifestyle, but if we allow them to marry, they'll recruit their children into the Christian lifestyle.[/mocking]
OMG! How can they say they're not anti-gay, yet use the recruitment argument? If they're not anti-gay, then they shouldn't care if children are "recruited" into the "gay lifestyle." Jeebus Crisps!
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 15, 2008 10:46 AM
blockquote:
{blockquote}blah blah blah{/blockquote}
except that use have to replace the { and the } with the pointy ones
(if I type with the pointy ones, it won't appear)
Posted by: Stwriley | August 15, 2008 10:47 AM
Michelle @ #13,
I'm going to have to call you to task on a few things about the history of marriage. It's a rather important set of points for the whole same-sex marriage debate too, so bear with as this will be a bit long.
First, there's still a great deal of debate on the idea of whether marriage was religious or secular in origin, at least if we're talking about going back to the roots of human civilization. In prehistory, any idea of marriage must have been inherently less formal (and probably ruled by our natural human tendencies to pairing and infidelity) and the small-scale nature of most prehistoric cultures. Certainly the first civilization's marriage laws were religious, but so were all other Sumerian laws, since they were a collectivist theocracy. But later, if we look at the Code of Hammurabi or the Middle Assyrian Law we find marriage treated as a secular matter, governed by the same principles as property law (wife and children both are the property of the husband/father in this kind of patriarchal system, a common pattern globally in ancient civilizations.)
So the ancient world isn't much help to us, both religious and non-religious patterns are there from the beginning. It's also good to remember that our marriage laws have obviously left both ancient patterns behind a good century or more in the past (at least in the west, but we're talking about our marriage laws, after all.)
So where does our marriage law come from? From the Roman republic right on through to us the over-riding concerns of marriage law in the west were secular; property control (inheritance) and legal responsibility. When the Romans instituted the laws authorizing "free marriage" (and thus formalized what the Roman plebeians had been doing for centuries) they set up these two ideas, and they've never left the stage since. Essentially, it involves the clearing the legal path for two things that are of concern to the state; the control of property and it's transfer between related individuals and the definition of legal responsibility to/over other individuals (spouse and children or dependents.) That is why marriage survives as an institution.
Think of it this way: Your significant other(s) are in critical condition and someone needs to decide what is to be done by the doctors. Who decides? The parents, you, another friend, the doctors? Our laws have a ready answer: the spouse first, then parents, then outwards along the chain of familial relations, all traceable by the state because it is a matter of formal and legal record (i.e., marriage.) Thus we had the actually quite clear legal situation in the Schivo case, where the husband's legal responsibility trumped the parents and where, despite all the right-wing whining, there was never a real legal issue. That's the secular basis of our marriage laws, the need for clear lines of legal responsibility in these kinds of matters, and that's an idea that goes directly back to the origins of our system (in legal and cultural terms.)
So how did religion get into it? That was a bit of a power-play by the Roman church in the late 11th century. It had become a fairly powerful institution by that time and was locked in a battle with secular lords over the question of legal authority and supremacy. Seeking religious control of marriage was a means of keeping the both the legal and moral high ground on their opponents, since they required the institution to ensure their own dynastic continuation (and of course, they found they needed the church for other reasons.) Marriage law, which had been governed by relatively simple secular law, was wound into canon law by the church and stayed there for a good while. But eventually, that became inconvenient for the newer nation-states to tolerate (one of the first things all nation-states do is seek to unify the law.) By the 17th century marriage law in Britain and many other places in Europe was back to being secular, though marriage practice retained it's religious trappings, just as early medieval religious marriage still retained older elements of secular practice (like the "bedding", where the couple were bedded down publicly for consummation, which was the pre-religious standard for making a marriage.)
With the evolution of women's rights and a society more oriented to individual freedom than ever, we've left behind some of the worst aspects of marriage in a legal sense and kept what always made it useful. That is a concept that should obviously cover all citizens and couples (and indeed, I'd say groups too, though we'd have to do some fancy footwork to make the legal responsibility issues clear again.) That's really why I had to call you to task on this Michelle; it was the idea that somehow marriage is only about a wedding when it is in fact a useful tool to help organize society. As for the idea that the unmarried are discriminated against, that's just silly. Marriage certainly carries rights that the unmarried do not have (spousal visitation and automatic power-of-attorney come to mind) but they are largely a consequence of the very legal responsibility that is the object of the institution. And, of course, an institution (in a legal sense) that is freely available to you without any need to come into contact with religion of any kind, or the need to spend lavishly on a wedding (or even have one at all, in the usual sense; here in Pennsylvania you can get a "Quaker" license that is official the moment the couple, the clerk who issues it and two witnesses sign it.)
Never give in to the nonsense that marriage is the exclusive province of religion.
Posted by: SteveM | August 15, 2008 10:47 AM
Exactly. Regardless of the legal aspects of the two terms, even if the privileges granted were exactly the same, there is a huge difference in the conotation of "marriage" versus "civil union". "Marriage" emphasizes the "two becomes one" and love and family and all that, while "civil union" is like "just doing it for the tax break". It denies that a same sex couple can feel the same kind of emotional commitment to each other that a hetero couple can.
Posted by: Katkinkate | August 15, 2008 10:47 AM
What about polyandrous marriages? And group marriages? I could do with a few husbands: one to go to work and earn a good wage, one to do the housework and cooking and one for games and witty repartee. ;)
I heard a news report lately about some man marrying a goat in india. It's a wonder we haven't heard about any New Zealanders wanting to marry their favourite sheep.
Actually, I like the idea of separating the religious marriage from the state benefits and allow the tax and other benefits to go to all committed couples.
Posted by: Michelle | August 15, 2008 10:47 AM
@JCR: Surprisingly enough, I don't. I mean, good for them if they wanna go through it but I won't go to the ceremony (if it's religious) and will skip the party unless I'm allowed to be there wearing jeans.
Though... I'm not sure I wanna. Sure there's cake and all but there's grandmas and aunts and cheesy music... oh god, wedding parties are so boring! And here in Quebec they always always play La Compagnie Créole songs or L'incendie à Rio.
I... I just can't stand it anymore! Marriage parties are cheesy and BORING!!!
Posted by: Jason Failes testing | August 15, 2008 10:48 AM
[blockquote][/blockquote]
Posted by: Carlie | August 15, 2008 10:48 AM
Jason - carrot brackets enclosing blockquote and /blockquote, on either end of the quote.
I'll admit that it took me a long time to understand exactly why "civil parnerships" were not equal enough. I'm really not sure what the mindblock was, perhaps residual Baptist neural pathways in my brain or something. But yeah. For those who think it's a good "compromise" to use another word for gays getting married, why? What is it that keeps you from wanting to use the word "marriage"? What exactly is it that you're granting to the people who don't want that word to be used? I'd encourage anyone advocating for "separate but equal" to really search out what the sticking point is for them that makes them not want to call it marriage.
Posted by: windy | August 15, 2008 10:50 AM
"otherwise, unable to procreate themselves, they would have no way to replenish their numbers"
What, no Catholic priest jokes yet?
Zeno:
Yes, they did. I agree that it's not historically very remarkable that R joined the Hitler Youth, but it's interesting that God has such low standards ;)
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 10:50 AM
Sorry Jason, I'm really bad at explaining this today. Carlie makes more sense.
This page has an example:
http://www.w3schools.com/TAGS/tag_blockquote.asp
Posted by: Bryn | August 15, 2008 10:51 AM
I'm still waiting for someone to explain this whole, "protect the institution of marriage" bullshit. The fact that someone else gets married has precisely zero effect on my own marriage. Even the fact that that Defender of the Family and the American Way, Newt Gingrich, heterosexual that he is, got married, served wife #1 with divorce papers while she was in the hospital recovering from surgery for uterine cancer, divorced wife #2 under less than ideal circumstances and cheated on wives 1 & 2 (no word on wife #3 to the best of my knowledge), has bupkiss to do with my marriage. Love is a rare enough commodity that we ought not try to stamp it out just because someone doesn't "like" the idea of gay marriage.
Posted by: heddle | August 15, 2008 10:52 AM
negentropyeater,
Sure they will if you do it right. Here's one: < and here's the other: >
So a blockquote is like this:
<blockquote>BillBuckner's Quote of Interest</blockquote>
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 15, 2008 10:53 AM
Actually, I like the idea of separating the religious marriage from the state benefits and allow the tax and other benefits to go to all committed couples.
It's basically separate. You don't need a minister at all. A JoP can preside. Here in MA, you can file an application for your best friend to be certified as a marriage officiant (I had forgotten about that, but am going through newspaper articles from the MA campaign and came across one dealing with that.)
I'm not a fan of requiring a ceremony for legal recognition. My pref would be, go to the appropriate office, file the paperwork, and you're hitched. Then go throw your ceremony or party or whatever.
Then again, I ain't the marrying type, so all of it is theoretical to me.
Posted by: Ada | August 15, 2008 10:54 AM
Am I the only one that thought "carrot brackets" was funny?
Posted by: Whateverman | August 15, 2008 10:54 AM
My rationale is exactly as I wrote: states should be given the ability to endorse lifestyles they feel represent State Values. If those values lean towards "Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman", then that's what marriage should be.
Marriage is *more* than an endorsement, however, and confers humanistic rights (ie. the ability of the parter to make health decisions in an emergency, etc). As such, any union between committed adults (regardless of whether it's called "marriage" or something else) should be conferred the same rights.
As for "seperate-but-equal" not working in the past, who cares. It's what I'm advocating (as the only viable alternative) here/now/today. Society is different, and other that historic examples of where it hasn't worked, there's no other reason to assume it wouldn't work in the 21st century.
Simply put, I reject binary solutions. Life is almost never simple enough such that there are only two answers to social issues (yes/no, allowed/prohibited, etc). I've attempted to craft a third 'answer" that lets the conservatives claim they're not advocating a lifestyle they disagree, with while granting basic human rights to groups that have been denied such rights in the past.
As yes, it would be big of me...
Posted by: True Bob | August 15, 2008 10:55 AM
Because marriage gets Federal recognition in the USA, the states should have to follow a single scheme (well, so should the fed, and any pair of adults ought to be able to get legal recognition of paired status*).
In VA,the populace recently voted NO to gay marriage, friggin bigots I live among. But we also don't have common law marriage. A friend of mine lived with a woman and her kids for 16+ years, and then she cheated on him. Boom, he's out of there, with the only paper annoyance the dual ownership/indenture for a home. So he's go that going for him.
But really, marriage has evolved into a relationship built on caring and love, and that gay couples love each other and are as committed to each other as any straight couple, is unarguable.
*Not going to get into polygamy, for simplicity's sake
Posted by: SteveM | August 15, 2008 10:55 AM
There is a difference between regulating the number of people that can marry and regulating the sexes of the people who can marry. Just as the state can regulate the age of who can get a driver's license but they can't say only males can get a license. It is resonable to say that only 2 people can marry, but unreasonable to say they must be of opposite sex.
Posted by: Sven DiLitella | August 15, 2008 10:56 AM
I too am sick and tired of having the gay agenda shoved down my throat. Look, I'm no bigot; some of my best friends are gay! And I do not condone any form of discrimination or prejudice. But jeez, all the time with the gay this and gay that. I think it's time to retire this tired and tiresome tirade and move on to one with much less media hype.
I refer, of course, to the melancholy agenda. Why must the morose among us always take a back seat to the more cheerful? Really, the melancholy lifestyle is not a choice! I bet McCain wouldn't pick a sad running mate either (look at what happened to Eagleton! Google him!).
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 15, 2008 10:56 AM
Did someone mention humor and carrots?
Have fun all, I'm off to a dissertation-related lunch meeting.
Posted by: Jason Failes testing | August 15, 2008 11:01 AM
[blockquote]blah blah blah[/blockquote]
Posted by: Zeno | August 15, 2008 11:01 AM
I expect to be single forever, but I say, "Bring it on!" Competent adults should be able to consent to whatever marital arrangement they wish: opposite sex, same sex, multiple partners, whatever. Go nuts. Sure, there'll be legal complications, but it's not as though we lack lawyers to address them.
Posted by: SteveM | August 15, 2008 11:02 AM
heddle, how nice of you to demonstrate that you know how to use < and > without explaining how. makes you feel so superior I'm sure.
...
to get angle brackets use the & followed by either "lt" (for "less than") or "gt" (for "greater than") without the quotes. And if you preview, be sure to re-enter them in the text box as the preview will convert them to the brackets and posting will eat them.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 11:02 AM
My rationale is exactly as I wrote: states should be given the ability to endorse lifestyles they feel represent State Values. If those values lean towards "Marriage is defined as the union between a white man and a white woman", then that's what marriage should be.
Posted by: SC | August 15, 2008 11:05 AM
Jason, you are aptly named. :)
Posted by: Jason Failes testing | August 15, 2008 11:06 AM
Posted by: SC | August 15, 2008 11:08 AM
Jason Succeedes!
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 15, 2008 11:09 AM
Michelle,
but most countries know that already, they don't just take a wedding certificate with a few weeks antiquity and that's it, there are many other things that you have to file nowadays with your wedding certificate to authentify the relationship.
as a couple, to be able to file jointly your taxes you also need a certificate beforehand, don't you ? How do you call that ? Can 2 homosexuals do that ?
You're looking at the word "marriage" and you want to do away with it, I really don't care. I'm happy with whatever you call it, but you need a way to show to the authorities that your relationship is a real one.
Of course one can change everything, and make completely new laws, but whatever it is, you're still going to need a way to authentify the existence of a real couple, and this one should be able to be heterosexual or homosexual.
Posted by: Louis | August 15, 2008 11:11 AM
Wait, MAJeff, are you GAY?
Whoa, I hadn't noticed!
I am massively in favour of gay people have identical rights to non-gay people. I'm massively in favour of people having identical rights. The gay part is superfluous to me. Anyway, why the bloody hell should you get away without mothers-in law when we have to suffer? ;-)
As for polygamy/polyandry/polygyny/group shenannigans: bring it all on! As another poster said, competent adults should be allowed to run their own affairs. This includes who they have sex with. The usual caveats about ability to give consent and do no (unwanted lasting) harm apply. The only real downside is: EXTRA MOTHERS-IN-LAW!
Seriously, why don't people think of the consequences? Mothers-in-law are everywhere, ruining lives and generally not being dead.
Tongue firmly in cheek (except on the issue of equality for all and polymarriages)
Louis
Posted by: llewelly | August 15, 2008 11:11 AM
'<' is the xhtml entity for <
'>' is the xhtml entity for >
'&' is the xhtml entity for &
Full table here .
But most importantly: scienceblogs preview is horribly buggy with respect to html entities. If you use preview, scienceblogs will replace your carefully coded html character entity references with the actual characters in the text submission box! and you will need to click in the text submission box, carefully edit the text there, put all of your html character entity references back, and click 'post' and not 'preview'. This is the long way of saying that scienceblogs preview simply does not work for html character entity references.
Posted by: N.C. | August 15, 2008 11:11 AM
One of the factors that I've noticed has opened some people's eyes up to acceptance, or at least tolerance of homosexuality, is the evidence that we are "hard-wired" for hetero/homo. rather than someone "choosing" to be gay. (Maybe because they can't think it's as wrong because God made them that way!) I don't think it matters either way as far as rights are concerned, but perhaps it would be good for the discussion here to address, or at least point to good articles on the science of "the gay brain"?
Posted by: Whateverman | August 15, 2008 11:12 AM
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you implying that's how radical white conservatives view marriage today? Well, I guess it's possible, and was definitely true in the past.
Beyond that, however, I don't understand your point...
Posted by: Hedgefundguy | August 15, 2008 11:12 AM
Can anyone tell me why fundies focus on gays and not shellfish as the most feared thing in life? Don't forget the bible is the originator of all the hate towards gays. I'm just happy I live in San Francisco and cast my vote.
Posted by: Jason Failes | August 15, 2008 11:13 AM
If you've never failed, it means you've never even tried.
(And did anyone else notice the various, confusing, often mutually-contradicting instructions I was getting? Thank you, Grammar RWA and w3schools!)
Posted by: MarkW | August 15, 2008 11:13 AM
http://www.spunk.org/texts/cartoons/wildcat/sp000585.gif
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 15, 2008 11:15 AM
Janine ID
Excuse me, I was just trying to clarify my position. I brought up the subject because the opposition against polygamy and gay marriage is manifest of the same fundamental problem: self-righteous and narcissistic assholes trying to impose their will upon the rest of the society. In this case, they claim that a specific social contract to receive privileged benefits are somehow exclusive to two, and only two, parties of opposing gender. The fact that these people are not in the very minority is due to a patent lack of liberalism in this nation.
Posted by: Andrew N.P. | August 15, 2008 11:16 AM
Consequently, I would argue that the state shouldn't be in the business of marriages. A marriage is a private contract between two persons (and, where applicable, the imaginary friend of their choice) which is about love and family and oversized novelty cakes. A civil union is a public contract between two persons and the state which addresses financial and legal benefits. Let gays have "civil unions," and rename "marriages" under the law to that same name. Everyone wins. Followed by a semicolon. Don't forget that.Thus: > = > and < =
Posted by: Jason Failes | August 15, 2008 11:18 AM
MarkW just wiped all of the Concern Trolls off the face of the planet...
...and if you'd left more in your comment besides the link, I totally would have blockquoted it.
Posted by: Ray S. | August 15, 2008 11:18 AM
I've seen the recruitment meetings for religious indoctrination, but I seem to have missed the presence of the recruitment events for homosexuality. Where are these happening? Given the hatred often shown to homosexuals, what else must they be promising to get new converts? I can't imagine a rational person making a choice to be hated and reviled.
Having grown up in the southern US, I've seen firsthand the change in racial relations. That's not to claim that everything is perfectly tolerant here at this point, but there has been dramatic change. Though I have no studies or statistics to show it, I think most of the bigotry comes from older persons* who were brought up in an era that accepted it. I know I've made an effort to not thrust that onto my own children. Hopefully I've raised them to be tolerant and respectful of all persons.
*to most contributors here, I am an older person. When I was young, there was a word that started with 'n' that could be said with impunity, though now it must not be uttered. It's just one example of social progress. Though incomplete, progress marches on.
Posted by: SC | August 15, 2008 11:18 AM
If you've never failed, it means you've never even tried.
Jason, I was teasing - sorry if I struck a nerve. And I got it right on the very first try, I'll have you know. :)
Posted by: Drew | August 15, 2008 11:19 AM
@ Michelle:
Good grief NO!!! Save the term marriage for religious folk if you like, call it civil union or whatever for everyone else (gay, straight, who ever don't want a religious ceremony). But there has to be SOMETHING that enables couple's rights, and seperates those people over just two people dating, or even living together.
There needs to be a conscious act between two people, and not an automatic trigger from the government.
It isn't just rights, but responsibilities (such as debt) as well as entitlements after seperation. Otherwise some sweet young thing could shack up with an older geek for 6 months and then get his house etc...
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 11:20 AM
The point is that under your rationale, it is acceptable for racist states to have miscegenation laws on the books.
It is not acceptable.
So your rationale is wrong.
Posted by: JoshS | August 15, 2008 11:20 AM
Whateverman, #139:
So I was correct - you think the dictat of the state outweighs human and civil rights. How deeply disturbing (as is the fact that now "state values" is elevated to capitals). This is a totalitarian - not a humanitarian - point of view.
So then, if I were running a state, it would be gracious and big of me to allow you to marry, or to have any of the other rights some other group already takes for granted? What an ugly place to live that would be. I reject your philosophy of state supremacy, and I reject yours or anyone else's arrogation of power to confer upon or deny me civil rights. They're mine, they're yours, they're everyone's. It's not within your purview or any state's to dictate them. Whether the state in practice decides on those rights is not at issue. That move is invalid on its face, and will be fought - bitterly, if necessary.
Posted by: SC | August 15, 2008 11:22 AM
(And did anyone else notice the various, confusing, often mutually-contradicting instructions I was getting?
Where were they mutually-contradicting?
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | August 15, 2008 11:23 AM
Well, I live in the Eternal Glory And Paradise that is Southern California, MAJeff, so I'll be voting against #8.
Actually, there's an even more fundamental argument against it. A state constitution should not contain anything that sets a limit to *individual* rights. One of the fairly unique things about the U.S. Constitution is that it describes the limits of the *government*, and any state constitution should follow suit.
Posted by: Equisteum | August 15, 2008 11:25 AM
I don't like the pope or the Catholic church, but fair is fair. And it's not fair to ascribe beliefs or motivations to people that they don't hold, and don't seem to have ever held. The pope is the highest official in an organization that has spread misery and ignorance for centuries, and continues to do so. As such, he is responsible for much of that misery and ignorance. I consider him an evil person. I'm certain there is sufficient cause to criticize him in keeping with the topic of the post, given the stance of the catholic church regarding homosexuality, but the criticisms must be honest. All indications are that he was not a nazi, and it is unfair to characterize him as such. The term Nazinger is simply an ad hominem attack.
The two quotes below come from wikipedia. Emphasis added. Add salt as needed.
(Also, I have information from my wife, who is German and whose mother was an unwilling member of Bund Deutscher Mädel, the girls equivalent of the Hitler Youth)
"By December 1936, HJ membership stood at just over five million. That same month, HJ membership became mandatory, under the Gesetz über die Hitlerjugend law. This legal obligation was re-affirmed in 1939 with the Jugenddienstpflicht and HJ membership was required even when it was opposed by the member's parents. From then on, most of Germany's teenagers belonged to the HJ"
"Following his fourteenth birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was enrolled in the Hitler Youth -- as membership was required for all 14-year old German boys after December 1939 -- but was an unenthusiastic member and refused to attend meetings.
Posted by: windy | August 15, 2008 11:25 AM
Thanks for the nice overview of the history of marriage, Stwriley!
A historical tidbit from Northern Europe: A church wedding wasn't legally required in Sweden until 1734. The requirement was removed in 1908 (1917 in Finland). Marriage was an exclusively religious institution for less than 200 years!
Posted by: Carlie | August 15, 2008 11:26 AM
What about polyandrous marriages? And group marriages?
Easy - the way all our insurance and tax benefit systems are set up, it would break the bank for everyone to have multiple legal partners, ergo it's in the best interest to only allow one legal partner (at least, only one who gets the benefits).
I heard a news report lately about some man marrying a goat in india.
Yeah, because it's impossible to distinguish between people who have the ability to make their own decisions and make those decisions clearly known, and an animal, which has no ability to consent. Gay=bestiality is an old, tired, wrong argument.
Posted by: wÒÓ† | August 15, 2008 11:29 AM
(.)(.)
Posted by: Michelle | August 15, 2008 11:29 AM
@Drew: Make it optional then. After three years you have the RIGHT to make the same tax report. And to go into the hospital to see your lover.
@negentropyeater: Ohoh. I don't want to get rid of the word marriage.
I want to get rid of the unions. The automatic civil rights 3 years thing is a compromise I accept to live with. But I think that unions as a whole do not make you special. I think that you should make tax reports SEPARATE all the time, and I think that a government does not have to recognize any union at all.
Have problems with succession? When you die where does the children go? I think it's easy to solve... Sensibilize people to make testaments as soon as they reach adulthood and keep it updated as they wish.
Kids are the only reason to have an "union" certificate of any kind. A certificate stating who the legal providers are (gender does not matter of course). So if parent #1 dies kid goes to parent #2.
Simple isn't it.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | August 15, 2008 11:29 AM
A better solution is to end state sponsorship of ALL marriage... because that's really what all this debate is about. It's not about "rights" to marry, it's about getting state sponsorship of the relationship.
A better solution would be for the state to be completely hands-off. Let people have whatever ceremony they like to declare their relationship to the public. Let marriage go back to being a personal thing without the interference of the state.
If they want some kind of state recognition, the "relationship" can be treated more-or-less like a corporation without regard to gender or number of participants. From the state's point of view, it doesn't have to be called marriage... maybe "domestic corporation" or whatever bullshit term placates the most people.
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | August 15, 2008 11:30 AM
So I was correct - you think the dictat of the state outweighs human and civil rights. How deeply disturbing (as is the fact that now "state values" is elevated to capitals). This is a totalitarian - not a humanitarian - point of view.
Well, one presumes that the POV of "the state" is that of the majority, so it's more pure hardcore democracy, which sucks as badly as totalitarianism, of course. ;-) It doesn't matter all that much to me if it's government thugs or a gang of my fellow citizens kicking me.
Definition of marriage is just one thing (out of many dozens) out of which the government should remove it's big, bloated nose.
Posted by: Michelle | August 15, 2008 11:31 AM
@Whateverman: That's the Penn Jillette rationale, eh? I remember listening back to that exact show where he spoke about that not long ago
Posted by: Jason Failes | August 15, 2008 11:37 AM
I think it got off to a bad start here:
This left me not only looking for the nonexistant comma and period, but led me to believe that the "" were to be added to the [blockquote] either enclosing the text or enclosing the whole rather than replacing "[" and "]" Various other proxies used for the "" didn't make things much better, since I was starting from that initial assumption.
Anyway, sorted now. Thanks all.
It's ok, I knew you were teasing, but I did give you my standard reply from when it did bug me back in grade 2.
Surprisingly, this is the first time anyone has mentioned my unfortunate last name since I've started commenting online.
Can you believe that I'm actually the son of a Victor Never Failes, and he *didn't* pass along his middle name?
Posted by: penn | August 15, 2008 11:38 AM
If gays quit asking for special rights then we wouldn't have these problems. I may want to go out and marry my pet goat, but I don't have the right to do that. It's EXACTLY the same for two consenting adults who love each other and happen to have the same genitalia to want to marry. It's NO DIFFERENT than me wanting to marry a sexy, sexy, goat.
Posted by: Jason Failes | August 15, 2008 11:39 AM
all those places with empty "" = carrot quotes.
Posted by: Michelle | August 15, 2008 11:40 AM
@Jason Failes: That's cruel from your father! He sure believes a lot in his son! ;P
Heehee... Your dad has an awesome name.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 11:41 AM
We have an inequality RIGHT NOW, today.
We can fix that inequality today, by including gay couples in state sponsored marriage.
We cannot get rid of state sponsored marriage today.
Why is it everyone who thinks this is a clever new idea is so willing to throw gay people under the bus?
"Yes, you could have equality today, but I'm not going to lift a finger to help you, because I have this harebrained scheme for equality that may or may not pan out in about two hundred years."
This is homophobia in practice, if not in theory.
Posted by: Andrew N.P. | August 15, 2008 11:42 AM
Wouldn't it be possible to modify the system so that each marriage, rather than each person, gets the same benefits?
Honestly, I think the biggest problem with polyamory is graph-theoretic, rather than financial. Like, say you have A married to B, and C married to D. What if B wants to marry C? Do they all have to marry each other and form a 4-clique? What if A hates D's guts? And how the hell would divorce work?
Posted by: Natalie | August 15, 2008 11:42 AM
Whateverman said "Marriage is also an endorsement by the gov't (and/or the religious institution) of that unit's lifestyle. It agrees to grant such couples rights not conferred to single people, in part due to the recognition described above and the endorsement of state values."
If the state is trying to endorse a lifestyle, then they are failing. The only lifestyle being endorsed by legal marriage right now is being straight and not too closely related. No other aspect of "lifestyle" is considered when granting people a marriage license - not even whether said opposite sex couple is completely shitfaced.
At this point, because there are no other considerations the state takes into account, they are, by your logic, making a value judgment of hetero and homosexuality. And their judgment is that same sex couples are less worthy.
Posted by: chuckberto | August 15, 2008 11:43 AM
Re: Hitler youth ...
I see, so it's OK for us (Dawkins et al) to criticise the religious use of "Christian child", "Muslim child" etc, but with the other hand use teenage membership of the Hitler Youth as a stick to beat an adult with.
By all means criticise Schitzlinger for his pitiful adherence to questionable orthodoxy and dogma, but leave out the cheap Nazi jibes.
Posted by: Carlie | August 15, 2008 11:44 AM
This left me not only looking for the nonexistant comma and period,
I had trouble reading that too, then realized it meant the comma and period keys on the keyboard. I personally just use italics for quotes, because it's easier to type an i than blockquote, and I'm lazy.
At least you didn't get the middle name "always". ;)
(runs away and hides if that is your middle name)
Posted by: Jason Failes | August 15, 2008 11:45 AM
Actually, I guess he was a born shop kid and struggled with the academics, so he always felt a huge amount of stress over the demands of his last name. Still, "Failes" will have that effect any which way and I would have rather had "Never" than "James"
Yeah, there have actually been songs written about him. I'll try to find them online and post the links if I do.
Posted by: Qwerty | August 15, 2008 11:47 AM
My favorite anti-gay marriage reason is the don't let them marry as they'll set a bad example because their relationships don't last as long.
So, we set a better example by shacking up? Fundies, they don't always think things through.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 11:48 AM
That was me, misleading you from the beginning! I guess subconsciously I was still in troll-mode.
Posted by: MarkW | August 15, 2008 11:48 AM
Jason @ #161:
Why thanks. That was my intention. :) To give proper attribution, the image is from "Wildcat" by Donald Rooum.Posted by: SC | August 15, 2008 11:49 AM
I think it got off to a bad start here:
I never suggested that the advice wasn't at times confusing (though the period and comma keys certainly exist; are the greater-than and less-than signs not over the period and comma on your keyboard?), just that people's instructions weren't mutually-contradicting. This remark struck me as a bit ungrateful, after people had taken the time to try to help you.
Sorry again - the "Jason Failes testing" at the top of several unsuccessful attempts was just too much to resist.
Can you believe that I'm actually the son of a Victor Never Failes, and he *didn't* pass along his middle name?
That is unfortunate. And in the spirit of kindness I'll say no more. :)
Posted by: Hairhead | August 15, 2008 11:50 AM
Whateverman, you said, " . . .states have the right to advocate certain lifestyles if that's what they want to do . . ." But that statement directly contravenes the " . . there shall be no religious test . . ." of the Constitution. And that's not the only problem.
Exactly how do you determine which level of government gets to determine your basic human rights? Say Wisconsin advocates black people crawling on their hands and knees when in the presence of a white person? Because the state endorses that lifestyle, y'know, as promoting respect for the wonderful European heritage of the white people, and the great appreciation modern blacks have for their ancestors having been brought over here to slaves.
Say New York State advocates the "lifestyle" of mandatory adult nudity during the summer months? Better yet, what if New York City enacts statutes advocating their lifestyle, that all gentiles wear a button labelled, "I'm a goy". NYC has 8 - 12 million people, depending on where you draw the boundaries, which would make it many times larger than, say, Nebraska -- why shouldn't it have "state's rights" to enforce certain "lifestyles".
And just saying "Nope" to the separate-but-equal DOESN'T ADDRESS THE FACT THAT EVERY SEPARATE-BUT-EQUAL STATUS EVER NEGOTIATED HAS ALWAYS BEEN SEPARATE-BUT-UNEQUAL!
Basically, though, you are an authoritarian who believes that some level of government should decide the value of how I live my private life.
And to put one last point on it, just substitute "interracial" for "gay", and you are back to the explicitly bigoted justifications for "state's rights".
Posted by: Falyne, FCD | August 15, 2008 11:53 AM
Mmmmm, gay porn.
Seriously, one of the best things about living in Chelsea is that there's gay-male-focused ads EVERYWHERE. And male images in the windows of any and all sex shops.
As a straight chick, I approve of this development.
^_________________^
(Although this comic is relevant: http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp07032008.shtml )
Posted by: ndt | August 15, 2008 11:56 AM
It's pretty clear to me that Grammar RWA is taking the piss, and quite skillfully too.
Posted by: Andrew N.P. | August 15, 2008 11:57 AM
Well, it certainly won't pan out with that attitude. I understand that you don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Unfortunately, there are enough bigoted kooks in this country that, IMO at least, you'd probably have a better shot going straight for the perfect than trying to settle for the good. Unless you'd rather wait for the conservative Christian voting bloc to die off. (Hey, I can wait; difference is, I already have my full complement of civil rights.)Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 12:02 PM
There is nothing in this reasoning that would prevent a court from reaffirming the finding of Naim v. Naim:
Posted by: Falyne, FCD | August 15, 2008 12:04 PM
Er, not to imply in any way shape or form that my approval of homosexuality is only dependent on how it arouses me (a la stereotypical fratboy approval of lesbians). I like to think of myself as a decent human being; part and parcel of that is being perfectly damn fine with human freedom of (adult, noncoercive) sexuality and sexual expression. I mean, I was raised heteronormative, so it's an ongoing process and probably always will be, but, yeah...
It's just really, really nice to have the gender I'm interested in be the objectified one for a change.
Posted by: Qwerty | August 15, 2008 12:05 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Alan_G._Rogers#National_media_coverage_of_Rogers.27s_funeral
A good example of Jeff's contention that there are those who don't want us to exist is the treatment over the death of Alan G. Rogers. Rogers was an Army officer who was killed while in the line of duty in Iraq. He was out to friends while stationed in Washington, DC. Also, during his education, he wrote a paper on why gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly. (A risky thing to do considering he was still serving in the Army.)
Anyhow, upon death his friends tried to convince the Washington Post to mention his sexual orientation in his obituary as it was important to him, but the Army convinced the Post that the family didn't want this.
So, even in death, the Army kept him in the closet. I think part of this is that if you go to the Arlington National Cemetary website (where he is buried) there are links of the recently deceased to their obituaries. So, the Army wanted to keep him closeted even after his death.
Also, someone tried to take mention of his sexual orientation out of the Wikipedia article about him. (See link above.)
I met this man twice. He was a very impressive person.
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 15, 2008 12:07 PM
Michelle 173
you're not addressing the fundamental issue of imigration/emigration.
f you change entirely the system in the USA, and the rest of the world doesn't ths will not work.
I'm always for better and simpler systems, but keep in mnd that you'd need the whole planet to change.
Meanwhile, there are real concrete problems for Gays (as showed in my personal example) and if we have to wait until the whole planet has changed everything before we can live our lives with the same liberties as heterosexuals, I'd rather just change small things before.
Posted by: BMcP | August 15, 2008 12:11 PM
Pope Nazinger
Mann.. I was fine with your article until that point. Lame. Being forced into the Hitler Youth as a teenage kid while members of your family are hassled by the regime isn't the same as being a committed Nazi who joined the party out of desire. He was 14 and it wasn't voluntary, sure he could have somehow "resisted" but truthfully, how many of us would be so brave at 14 in front of Gestapo agents?
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 12:12 PM
But we already have gay marriage in the USA. This isn't a matter of two hypotheticals that are equidistant from the present. Failure to support gay marriage is failure to support the actually-existing marriages of gay couples in America today. That's homophobia in practice.
The legal precedent that will force the Supreme Court's hand in this matter is Loving v. Virginia. It's already on the books. There is nothing on the books that will move us toward abolition of state sponsored marriage. So to pretend that both routes are viable, when there are real people suffering right now and one route has already returned positive results, is to say it's preferable that those real couples keep suffering.
Posted by: Qwerty | August 15, 2008 12:15 PM
More on "don't ask, don't tell."
The whole point of the policy is really to keep gays and lesbians in the closet. The rationale "unit cohesion" is nothing less than an excuse to continue prejudice.
If we must have a standing Army, it shouldn't discrimate against any group in a pluralistic society like ours. That said, the democrats are putting in a plank of their platform calling for the repeal of the policy by changing it to allow for open homosexuality in the armed forces.
Posted by: wikihead | August 15, 2008 12:16 PM
Incidents like this may be reported to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies
Posted by: Mike | August 15, 2008 12:16 PM
@93
I'm reminded of Jon Stewart's line from 'The Daily Show' a few years back (and I'm paraphrasing):
"I'm completely opposed to these manditory gay marriage laws"
Posted by: John Bisceglia | August 15, 2008 12:17 PM
It is criminal how LGBT familes, with and without children, have to "wait patiently" for the SAME legal protections that are handed out LIKE CANDY to heterosexuals. For many in the LGBT community, we have lost all patience with both voters and politicians when it comes to JUSTICE and COMMON DECENCY concerning our families, so we are doing what we CAN do - withholding tax until we are treated EQUALLY. Those interested in joining this fight can GOOGLE "Gay Tax Protest".
Posted by: Jams | August 15, 2008 12:19 PM
"Barack Obama's one and only concern is getting elected, without regard to who he has to throw under the bus in the process. This statement is just an appeal to moderate conservatives, and may or may not have anything at all to do with what he actually believes -- which appears to change from moment to moment." - TX CHL Instructor
This delusion has to end. There's nothing to indicate Obama is pandering when he invokes his religious beliefs. Quite the opposite. By every indication his pandering goes exactly the other way. Or do you believe he's such a calculating liar that he's devoted two entire books to themes of religious awakening? Wow, that's some seriously professional grade pandering.
But even if we grant this epic leap over all evidence, why does one assume that Obama is "just" pandering while assuming McCain is not? Are Republicans suddenly so flawlessly honest that they're incapable of pandering?
Come on, Obama's success will only put the lid on the prospect of a non-religious party in America folks.
P.S. My favourite part is "I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views [but I just can't help myself!]" What a disingenuous turd.
Posted by: Kobra | August 15, 2008 12:22 PM
God, what a bunch of empty phrases. "Gay lifestyle?" You mean fucking each other in the ass is a separate lifestyle now? (Not to exclude lesbians, bisexuals, or transgenders.)
And what exactly is the "gay agenda?" Do these people think it looks something like this?
1. Event at town hall on the 16th.
2. Buy new boots (to knock).
3. Parade in Obscuresville on the 17th.
4. Parade in MadeUpLocation on the 22nd.
5. Meet together and coalesce with Satan to degrade the moral Christian fiber of our nation, indoctrinate the children, outlaw religion, and lobby to legalize abortion and stem-cell research.
6. Parade in DC on the 23rd.
The only agenda I've seen the gays promote is something along the lines of "Read the damn Constitution!"
Posted by: Gavel Down | August 15, 2008 12:24 PM
Whateverman -
So, you're advocating a point of view that's directly in opposition to the constitution as per the Supreme Court decisions of Brown vs. the Board of Education (separate but equal is not sufficient, it is inherently unequal), and Loving v. Virginia (state cannot discriminate against a protected category (race in this case, but gender is also protected) with restrictions on marriage.)
may I be the first to call you unAmerican, and a traitor to our great country?
Posted by: Qwerty | August 15, 2008 12:24 PM
Posted by: wikihead | August 15, 2008 12:16 PM
"Also, someone tried to take mention of his sexual orientation out of the Wikipedia article about him. (See link above.) "
Incidents like this may be reported to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies
FYI, the removed information from the article has been restored. A trace was done on the culprit who removed the information. It led to an office in the Pentagon. Gosh, our brass has nothing better to do than to censure wikipedia. Homophobia, it's everywhere.
Posted by: SteveM | August 15, 2008 12:25 PM
The SCOTUS has already ruled that Loving is not applicable. In that case Virginia had made interacial marriages a criminal offense. It was not an issue of the definition of marriage.
from the wikipedia article on the Loving case:
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 12:29 PM
And McCain's won't?
Do you think Obama was lying when he said, "Whatever we once were, we're no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers. We should acknowledge this and realize that when we're formulating policies from the state house to the Senate floor to the White House, we've got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community."?
He's the first presidential candidate I know of who's acknowledged the existence of atheists. That's not exactly the end of secularism.
Or are you talking about a political party for atheists only? Fuck that shit.
Posted by: Kobra | August 15, 2008 12:29 PM
I have an unspoken agreement with the few gay people I know: Respect my space, I'll respect yours. Now that I think about it, I have the same agreement with everyone. If someone tries to put their hand down my pants I'll dislocate their shoulder; be they gay, straight, man, or woman.
Posted by: uncle frogy | August 15, 2008 12:29 PM
the conservative religionists and other anti-gay marriage people are correct. gay rights does spell the beginning of the end to "society". Is that a bad thing? how can a new organization of society, a new agreement between the members of the population be accomplished with out the end of the old arrangement?
Integration has begun to show some positive results. This sure does not look like the 1900's.
It is a matter of endurance, there is no such thing as once and for all. We have been pushing forward out of the dark ages with democracy for only a few hundred years. There is no other option but to continue pushing forward it is our nature.
Posted by: Gavel Down | August 15, 2008 12:33 PM
SteveM,
Baker v. Nelson was not decided on the merits, it was refused by the court for want of a "federal question." Wiki is not always your friend. If it had been controlling, MA and CA supreme courts could not have decided as they did. If it ever does come to the Supremes, Scalia will have to wiggle like a worm on a hook to get out of it. The precedents are clear - gender is a protected class, and we're discriminating against men by not allowing them to marry men, and likewise with women. They may still decide otherwise, but if so, it'll be blatantly contrary to precedent.
Posted by: Kobra | August 15, 2008 12:34 PM
#210:
Exactly! He said, "Listen to the evangelicals" while speaking to evangelicals; and he didn't mean "submit to the evangelicals," he meant what he said.
We should listen to the evangelicals. Don't let them be ignored. However, we should also listen to atheists, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Pastafarians, etc. He just didn't mention that part at the conference. :P
Posted by: SC | August 15, 2008 12:36 PM
Grammar RWA - Just want to make sure that my response to your question @ #112 didn't get lost in the shuffle.
And my appreciation continues. Carry on.
Posted by: Gavel Down | August 15, 2008 12:37 PM
Kobra
I have an unspoken agreement with the few gay people I know: Respect my space, I'll respect yours.
You're impressively paranoid about gay people. Given that everyone has the same "unspoken no sexual assault" policy, what the heck was the point of your comment? You really think you're like catnip to gay people or something, and they'll suddenly lunge for your pants? Keep dreaming.
Posted by: dubiquiabs | August 15, 2008 12:46 PM
@ Grammar RWA #11
and llewelly # 57
Poe or no Poe, life is pornographic, and should you so believe, god is the pornographer (Matthew 10:29,30).
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | August 15, 2008 12:49 PM
I emphatically renounce and repudiate this false dichotomy between truthfulness and smartassery! Speaking from Greater Hartford, which proudly boasts the Mark Twain House as one if its most important historical sites, I say with confidence that many of the truest things ever said have been said by unrepentant smartasses!
But seriously, folks... to those of you who have expressed support for gay rights but are dubious about the whole concept of civil marriage, I'm right there with you in theory. I would love to see our current system of civil marriage replaced (for everyone) with a domestic partnership model that made no reference whatsoever to anyone's sexuality or sexual behavior... but in practice, I fear we're stuck with the concept of civil marriage for the foreseeable future. That being the case, the only reasonable position is passionate advocacy for marriage equality.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 12:49 PM
Baker v. Nelson was in 1972. The Supreme Court can easily give a different ruling 40 years later.
Before you assume that these cases have strong arguments behind them, decided on the merits, it's important to read exactly what these cases say. Here's Baker, citing Loving:
It's just "commonsense", see? Earlier the judge says "The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis."
Good old common sense.
Good old special pleading.
Give us a serious court in the twenty-first century, and a couple's same-sex status will be as "unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes".
Posted by: Kobra | August 15, 2008 12:55 PM
[You're impressively paranoid about gay people.]
Not really. I said, if you read the rest of my post, that I actually have the same policy with everyone. It was a poorly-executed attempt at a joke.
Posted by: Michelle | August 15, 2008 12:55 PM
@negentropyeater: I know that and I stated so at the end of one of my comments. It's not how it works but it's how it should be.
Posted by: James Crooks | August 15, 2008 12:59 PM
While I disagree with Whateverman's stance on the issue, I do not believe this is in any way a reasonable comment. Holding an opinion you disagree with does not make the holder a traitor. And I thought we'd all have learned how useless "unamerican" is from the talking heads by now.
On the topic of Gay Rights: I've never understood how a rational person can say that it's fair to deny rights (any rights, marriage or otherwise) to a person based on what they do in their bedroom, or who they choose to share their living space and life with. In particular though, I don't understand why there's this fear that allowing gays to marry will promote the spread of the "gay lifestyle". Even if it does, so what? Doesn't hurt me. And letting gay couples marry and adopt children is pretty much the best idea ever, not only is said couple not contributing to world overpopulation, but they're also helping the problem by giving children a home.
Of course, from the completely selfish perspective of a straight male, I also must admit that I like the idea of there being more gay men around, it's that much less competition for women!
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 1:00 PM
I did miss it earlier, SC, thanks. And the thread you're thinking of was "I'm voting Republican." Coincidentally it was already open in my Firefox tabs today because I was cribbing for the same thread, different day, over at Pandagon.
And yay! I was really hoping you'd say it was my rabid defense of women's reproductive rights! That is a compliment, so thanks.
Posted by: lytefoot | August 15, 2008 1:04 PM
As a long-time conscientious objector to marriage who recently gave it up and got married after 9 years together (so the SO can get on my insurance, and for linguistic convenience, though I still can't really say 'husband'), I've got some thoughts on marriage. I've been thinking a lot about the subject lately.
What is it? I like MAJeff's definition of marriage as a contract between three parties, the couple and the state. By recognizing marriage, the state is saying: We support pair bonding. We recognize that human beings have a need to bond. We therefore choose to give a special status to bonded pairs. There are two issues here: bonding, and the "pair" distinction.
Why does the state support bonding? One solid (external) reason for it to do so is to support multi-parent child rearing, which it has been clearly shown to be a benefit to the child and thus to the state. But if this is the only justification, it should support bonding only among families with children. Beyond that... one must reason that the state supports bonding because the state is built to serve men (in the classical non-gendered sense) and men bond. I think that the burden here--and I realize this is a classical fallacy--must be on those who suggest that the state should not support bonding. What social good would be served by abolishing this institution?
The "pair" distinction is trickier. Why should pairs get special treatment? (Look--here's someone arguing against discrimination against polygamy!) There are some legalistic reasons--if I were an insurance company, for instance, I would want to restructure my rates for family plans if large tuples were allowed to marry. And it would be a system more subject to abuse, say, people marrying to acquire a green card. But these are merely arguments that such a situation should be closely circumscribed.
A more existential question is why we feel that the proper definition of a bonded pair is a couple that has sex on a regular basis. This is, I think, a relic of the child-rearing root of the tradition, and of our cultural feelings about sex. Yet under the current system it is entirely possible for two people, male and female, who have no desire nor tendency to have sex with one another, but a strong joint nesting impulse, to marry, and very few people will call the marriage invalid.
Finally, I'd like to address this sentiment:
At what point would you refer to two people as a 'couple'? How long would one have to be a couple to be recognized as such? Perhaps there could be some document one could file with the state, declaring one's intention to be a couple now and in the future. Or there could be statutes describing how long two people might live together as a couple before being recognized, and there would be controversy over whether such a system has potential for abuse because of the rights it gives one person over another without a formal declaration of intent to do so.
What could we call these things? Err... what about a marriage license, or common-law marriage (still recognized in 11 US states and the DC, iirc)? Hmm.
Dear, what do you think marriage is?
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 1:04 PM
It probably sounds great, until you realize that lesbians exist at about the same rate as gay men in the population, and you're in competition with them for bisexual women.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | August 15, 2008 1:05 PM
MAJeff (@OP):
Gee, you know that can't be true: Everybody knows that gay men are much more fashionable than their hairy, smelly hetero brethren. And everybody knows how expensive it is to be fashionable. Ergo, you gay guys must all be rich; it's simple logic!
..
..
...for the Poe-impaired, it's a joke! "I kid because I love!" ;^)
Posted by: kermit | August 15, 2008 1:16 PM
Carlie@84
A female acquaintance moved in with me and my wife for a few months some 25 years back. She had a newborn son, and seemed terrified that he might turn out to be gay. (She often expressed those fears.) I have no idea where that fear came from. But my honey and I thought that he would likely grow up to be straight, but afraid to show any "gay" tendencies. I would be surprised if he is now a poetry major in college, or even a classical violinist. Probably a longshoreman who chews tobacco. Or a miserable gay. But yes, I can see folks who are 99% straight still being anxious about it. This roommate mom, BTW, vehemently denied being a feminist, but as one of the first female train engineers in the US she complained frequently about being unfairly treated by the men at work...
Sigh.
Posted by: Steve | August 15, 2008 1:17 PM
Word
Posted by: dubiquiabs | August 15, 2008 1:22 PM
Sorry, should have said "llewelly #52" instead of #57.
Posted by: Gary | August 15, 2008 1:25 PM
Regarding recruitment, as a heterosexual male, I couldn't imagine a homosexual being able to convince me to be attracted to men. This makes me wonder if the conservatives that espouse the recruitment argument are themselves closeted homosexuals who have been taught that homosexuality is evil. They are attracted to their own sex, but reject this attraction as an evil temptation. They fear that "weaker" people with the same urges could be recruited, as they themselves aren't far from stepping out of the closet.
Posted by: Anne | August 15, 2008 1:25 PM
Nice post. I made a donation.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | August 15, 2008 1:27 PM
The government has no business being in the marriage business.
Government is not a moral tool, it is a tool for functionality.
The federal goverment ESPECIALLY has no business dictating who can or can't get married.
The whole "marriage license" thing is unnecessary.
Why do we allow this kind of nonsense to happen to ourselves?
Posted by: mandrake | August 15, 2008 1:29 PM
I personally know 3 of the 5 people who were involved in a 5-person relationship. They all lived on a small plot of land, three different (small) houses. One was sexually involved with only one other in the group; another was with three, etc. The relationships involved were 1-30 years in length, and were both straight & gay. They were "married" as a pagan household.
The 5-way relationship lasted several years, and the ending was brought about by the youngest leaving & setting up a bad series of events.
They were all intelligent, friendly, and respected personal space. They were emotionally far more responsible than most monogamous couples I've met. Honestly, I can't see any reason why the state shouldn't allow them to "marry." It would harm no one, and wouldn't be any more legally complicated than a family with adult offspring, half-brothers, adopted sisters, etc.
I have no problem advocating this *and* advocating the eventual disuse of traditional "marriage" as an outdated paradigm based on wives & children being treated as property and/or bargaining chips.
And yes, I recognize that many will find this statement a radical one.
Posted by: SC | August 15, 2008 1:33 PM
Grammar RWA,
Yes, that's the thread I was thinking of (vaguely remembered it being "the one with that video," but too early in the day for me to find the link). And you're welcome!
Posted by: limes | August 15, 2008 1:34 PM
I am at once intrigued yet weirded out by this fantasy that some straights have that they are unresistably attractive to gays and lesbians everywhere and they will be sexually harassed in locker rooms and YMCAs across the nation if we let those homosexuals out of the closet. And these are some of the same people (usually men) who complain about their inability to get laid because women judge men's physical attractiveness OH NOES but they should totaly get to date Angelina Jolie clones. It must be difficult to live in a world so full of doublethink.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 1:35 PM
Yawn.
Tell us in more detail why gay people are so unimportant that you're going to let the fundies take our marriage rights away from us.
Posted by: Michelle | August 15, 2008 1:35 PM
Some cheesy ceremony where the girl parades in a weird dress and is spoiled all evening supposedly for love? Well, at least, that's what most girls I spoke with thinks.
Like I said in a comment underneat that, hon, I'm against all kind of state recognized unions. And I'm pretty sure you don't need a paper at all. (and they cost money, dammit.)
The 3 years thing seems more like a compromise to me. It's not one I'm happy with but it's better than the dumb ceremony.
Just keep reading, hon. Sometimes people update what they write.
Posted by: Michael | August 15, 2008 1:40 PM
How difficult can it be to find some families with gay/lesbian parents? Mix in some proud grand parents if available. Put a face on the issue. Make some billboards and confront the voters point blank with the people who's families their Yes vote would destroy.
Putting the kids up there asking to protect their families is hard to ridicule away, just like it was unsuccessful to ridicule Michael J Fox asking for stem cell research.
As it is it seems these bigots are getting away with framing their hate for homosexuals as "love of families" etc. This should be trivial to destroy if you have the truth on your side.
Regarding the Pope. Even if he had been an enthusiastic Nazi supporter nothing he did at that time could have been as bad as his AIDS genocide in Africa. Using the (easily refuted) Nazi reference only distracts from how dangerous the man really is right now.
Posted by: Andrew N.P. | August 15, 2008 1:40 PM
Quoted for truth. Traditional marriage was designed for societies organized as sets of patriarchal clans. Modern societies, however, are organized as sets of equal individuals. The institution is obsolete in a very real sense, and trying to modernize it for gays is like strapping a jet engine to a horse and buggy so it can keep up on the highways.Posted by: Scott from Oregon | August 15, 2008 1:45 PM
"Tell us in more detail why gay people are so unimportant that you're going to let the fundies take our marriage rights away from us".
And how are the fundies going to take those rights if they can't use the apparatus known as government to do so?
The government has no right dictating who can and can't get married. PERIOD. (That should read-- SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT)
These new "on the books" laws are just an acceptance that government gets to dictate morality to "the people".
REducing government intrusion into everyone's life will remove the apparatus that limits the rights of gay men and women to be "equal".
It is the apparatus that is doing the unequaling, driven by the fundies. Take away their apparatus and the fundies have to go back to street corners and bullhorns.
Yawn...
Posted by: Rick R | August 15, 2008 1:46 PM
#230- I think it's a bit simplistic to say that the "gay is a (tempting) choice" crowd are all closeted gays themselves. The religious aren't just homophobic, they are vehemently sexophobic. The very idea that sexuality is a normal human trait without values attached to it, that it is a component of one's self that can picked up and examined closely without a crippling amount of fear and guilt, in the interest of self-knowledge, is just alien to these people.
After all, if you could come to accept your own sexuality based on self-examination, why, you just might come to think for yourself on most ANY old issue!!
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 1:47 PM
Again, Andrew, failure to support state sponsored gay marriage is failure to support the actually-existing marriages of gay couples in America today. That's homophobia in practice.
There are states where gay people have marriage rights today, and our rights are in danger in those states. There are other states where our campaigns for marriage rights are likely to bring success within the next decade, and we need support there.
To pretend that both routes are viable, when there are real people suffering right now and one route has already returned positive results, is to say it's preferable that those real couples keep suffering.
That is a homophobic position, so I have no qualms about saying this: you, Andrew N.P, are a homophobe.
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 15, 2008 1:47 PM
@mandrake #233
You are in good company. Eventually, the government should annul the whole man-and-woman "marriage" farce.
Posted by: Danio | August 15, 2008 1:49 PM
Stephen Colbert, in the aftermath of the 2006 mid-term elections:
A fairly apt summary of the stupefying breadth of conservative paranoia, isn't it?
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | August 15, 2008 1:53 PM
"Again, Andrew, failure to support state sponsored gay marriage is failure to support the actually-existing marriages of gay couples in America today. That's homophobia in practice".
AS long as you keep supporting the government's "institutional" right to dictate ANY aspect of marriage, you are supporting the apparatus that is used to limit your rights.
I would recomment all gay people to stop financially supporting the government until the issue is taken away from government altogether.
Posted by: Andrew N.P. | August 15, 2008 1:54 PM
Technically correct, but misleading. I don't hate gays any more than I hate everyone else. A more accurate term would be "misanthrope." Seriously, though, if one group has an unfair advantage, the correct solution is not to give that advantage to another group. Your complaints are of the same vein as "Clinton did it too."Posted by: gdlchmst | August 15, 2008 1:56 PM
Curious choice. Why not go to the root of the problem and eliminate the fundies? This is like saying that since technology gave us more efficient means of killing people, we should therefore remove technology.
Posted by: Matt | August 15, 2008 1:57 PM
"and it's obvious that same-sex couples who married would "recruit" their children toward homosexuality because otherwise, unable to procreate themselves, they would have no way to replenish their numbers."
That's the most hilarious thing I've read today.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 2:02 PM
Scott the Practicing Homophobe from Oregon translated:
And how are the fundies going to take those rights if they can't use the apparatus known as government to do so?
"I live in a parallel universe where there has never been a successful campaign for gay people's marriage rights, but we are only a couple of years away from a complete rewrite of the United States Constitution."
The government has no right dictating who can and can't get married. PERIOD. (That should read-- SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT)
"Sorry, freedom is a little late to the party. Looks like gay people are already being denied rights that straight people have. Too bad! You'll have to wait for that complete rewrite of the Constitution. It would be horribly wrong for us to extend you those same rights in the meantime."
These new "on the books" laws are just an acceptance that government gets to dictate morality to "the people".
"It's not like there are hundreds of rights and privileges being withheld from gay people, and it's not like I could do anything to change it even if there were! This is just about legislating morality. There are no real families who will be hurt while I stand idly by."
REducing government intrusion into everyone's life will remove the apparatus that limits the rights of gay men and women to be "equal".
It is the apparatus that is doing the unequaling, driven by the fundies. Take away their apparatus and the fundies have to go back to street corners and bullhorns.
"Can't you see I'm driving us toward a Greater Good For All? You gay folks can go sit at the back of the bus and shut up until we get there. Sheesh."
Posted by: Ferin | August 15, 2008 2:03 PM
Thanks for the post. This is the fact that I wish people would really bring up more often. So many opponents of Gay rights seem to think that the idea "Why can't you all just not mention this stuff!" somehow != "Why can't you all just go die?". We have as much right to exist and live and love as any heterosexual.
On another, lighter note:
@Aaron
"We're all humans. As Henry Rollins once said (paraphrased) "Straight or gay, guys are all into parking their pee-pee in tight warm places, and ejaculating like fucking GOD; We should be slapping each other on the back and celebrating this!""
O_O
While I applaud the sentiment, I find your proposed method of demonstrating solidarity to be... kinda creepy. I just have these horrible visions of some straight guy barging into the bedroom after a potential bf and I have just finished having some fun and wanting to high five and chest bump or something. :-)
Posted by: Gavel Down | August 15, 2008 2:04 PM
James Crooks -
Sense of humor. You do not haz it.
Kobra -
I did read the rest of it, it's why I was confused. I gotcha now.
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | August 15, 2008 2:05 PM
For Jason Failes from another slow learner.
Try Googling HTML
Also there is a HTML for Dummies book.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 2:05 PM
On that reasoning, you should be calling for the repeal of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Imbecile.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 15, 2008 2:06 PM
Of course it is.
A number of European countries no longer prevent openly gay people from serving in the military and there is no evidence that any have suffered as a result.
Here in the UK gay military personal are allowed to take part in gay pride events in uniform, and the military has realised that there are potential recruits attending such events.
Posted by: Gavel Down | August 15, 2008 2:06 PM
I would recomment all gay people to stop financially supporting the government until the issue is taken away from government altogether.
Good flippin' christ you're an idiot. You should also probably be reported for tax evasion. And poor spelling.
Posted by: Ferin | August 15, 2008 2:09 PM
@Scott from Oregon
"I would recomment all gay people to stop financially supporting the government until the issue is taken away from government altogether."
I keep trying that, but the IRS seems to consider it a problem.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | August 15, 2008 2:09 PM
"Curious choice. Why not go to the root of the problem and eliminate the fundies? This is like saying that since technology gave us more efficient means of killing people, we should therefore remove technology".
Ummm, odd analogy and not even close to being apt.
You want to "eliminate" fundies?
And how do you go about doing that?
Lobotomies? Waterboarding? Gas shower units?
It is far more pragmatic to simply say "government has no business in the marriage business" and remove the power to dictate morality from government. Simply stop funding the apparatus that is attempting to control you and everyone else.
The government should not be used as a means to dictate morality.
(And by morality, I mean "those things that hurt no other that are moral judgements". I am not talking about the morality of animal abuse, child molestation, thievery... etc...
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 15, 2008 2:12 PM
@Scott from Oregon
"I would recomment all gay people to stop financially supporting the government until the issue is taken away from government altogether."
You are either very stupid or an insidious tool.
Posted by: Gavel Down | August 15, 2008 2:12 PM
It is far more pragmatic to simply say "government has no business in the marriage business" and remove the power to dictate morality from government. Simply stop funding the apparatus that is attempting to control you and everyone else.
While you're at it, I could totally go for a pony.
Posted by: Stwriley | August 15, 2008 2:13 PM
SteveM @ #209
You're right enough about Baker v. Nelson, though I still think that one wrongly decided. Still it's already been rendered a moot point by the rights now defined in the MA and CA constitutions by their state courts. The full faith and credit clause is now going to be invoked in short order (just as soon as someone cares to test it, which someone probably already is.) That's the trump, because the way it has always been interpreted in case after case is that Congress can determine the ways in which the acts of states are mutually recognized, but not prevent that recognition. States, of course, have no power to refuse recognition whether they like it or not and also no matter what their own constitution might say. That means that while Kentucky, say, might still refuse to allow same-sex marriages to take place within their borders, they'll still have to recognize those performed elsewhere.
And that will be the real end of the general opposition to same-sex marriage. Once most people see same-sex couples living like they do (and eventually most people will) then the idea will get slowly accepted and become mainstream. But it takes the push of the law, the Constitution, and the progressive states to get it there.
Thankfully, it's started at last.
Posted by: D | August 15, 2008 2:14 PM
I'm convinced, murder shouldn't be illegal.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | August 15, 2008 2:17 PM
Scott from Oregon (@232):
I'm mindful of the probable futility of trying to talk across the ideological gulf that separates us, but quixotically, here I go:
The government has no business being in the
marriageregulating private sexuality business. There; fixed it for you.I'm not at all sure I buy the definition of "moral" that's implicit in your formulation. Is not, for instance, "the right not to be killed" (as The Clash would put it) a moral concern? And is government not an appropriate tool (even in the eyes of a Libertarian) for defending that right?
But leaving that quibble aside, I agree with the second clause of your sentence. The thing is, though, encouraging people to organize themselves into households (and defending their rights and privileges once they've done so) is a functional good in society, and hence (IMHO) a proper function of government. Enforcing arbitrary standards of private sexual behavior as a prerequisite for forming a household, OTOH, is antifunctional, and is therefore (again, IMHO) not only not a proper function of government, but clearly opposed to the proper functions of government.
It does not follow, as some have mistakenly assumed, that my passionate interest in keeping my neighbors (in the person of the government) out of my bedroom — well, out of Jeff's bedroom, actually; nobody's much interested in what's going on in mine — means that I'm generally sympathetic to radically anti-government postitions.
Posted by: Jams | August 15, 2008 2:18 PM
"And McCain's won't?" - Grammar RWA
Oh right, I totally forgot. I'm not allowed to criticize Obama except in contrast to McCain.
Anyway, the answer to your question is no, McCain will not once and for all crush the notion of an American party that isn't hell bent for religion. In fact, he may pull the Republicans slightly away from that garbage, but more importantly, a religious precedent will not be set for Democrats. That precedent will read "Democrats are now an openly religious party". What do you think Obama means when he talks about being "able to cross the floor"? He means he can cross the floor to meet his fellow religious nuts.
'Do you think Obama was lying when he said, "Whatever we once were, we're no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers. We should acknowledge this and realize that when we're formulating policies from the state house to the Senate floor to the White House, we've got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community."?' - Grammar RWA
No, I don't think he was lying. Thank you for reinforcing my point.
"He's the first presidential candidate I know of who's acknowledged the existence of atheists. That's not exactly the end of secularism." - Grammar RWA
Wow, he acknowledged your existence. Did it bring you to tears?
Ok, seriously though, what do we have here? Obama doesn't like it when his religious convictions override his reason, but he can't help himself. So, he needs to translate his religious convictions into "values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own [Christian] faith community".
Yeah, I'm about to cry. How beautiful. Apparently, the only problem with a Christian nation is that it doesn't translate its values into language that non-Christians understand. Because, if it was worded in a way they understood, everyone would be against gay-marriage... right? I'm guessing the translation would look a lot like "hope, change, believe, faith, change, hope-change, bomb Pakistan, hope, blah blah blah".
What a load of garbage.
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 15, 2008 2:19 PM
Funny how these are the first places you go to. How about education and shifting the social paradigm?
It is "far more pragmatic" to instate anarchy? What are you on?
No one said it should be. Keep attacking that straw-man, attaboy.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | August 15, 2008 2:20 PM
You know who shouldn't be allowed to get married? The dopey assholes who, despite having taken the same elevator every day for the last six years, still greet the sudden appearance of the lobby with the same deer-in-headlights mystification as the australopithecines who encountered the monolith in 2001. You pressed the fucking 'L' button; what the hell did you think would happen?! Yeah, I know, it's a real quandary to figure out whether you're facing East or West, but do you have to figure it out while wedged between the elevator doors like some kind of human clot? Next time, get the fuck off the elevator so the rest of us can get off, and then get your bearings. Besides, from the look of that ass, a few extra steps in the wrong direction might do you a world of good.
You know who else shouldn't get married? People who make sure they're first in line to get on the bus just so they can ask the bus driver which bus will take them closest to Dave's house and is it acceptable to pay in Tuvan postage stamps and Bing cherry pits while those of us with bus passes wait outside in the fucking rain.
Oh, and I almost forgot to mention three-abreast sidewalk shufflers....
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | August 15, 2008 2:21 PM
"You'll have to wait for that complete rewrite of the Constitution".
Ummm, dumb argument. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that government should control marriage.
It does grant you the same rights as all, however.
"'Scott the Practicing Homophobe from Oregon translated:""
Whatever. Here I am showing you a way to crumble the injustice completely, and you resort to name calling.
But, it seems, you would rather keep handing out corn cobs and letting the government reem you with them. To each his own, I guess.
"Good flippin' christ you're an idiot. You should also probably be reported for tax evasion. And poor spelling".
Hey, if you don't have the courage of your convictions, what have you got?
I look at the heroes in the Civil Rights era and I wonder where the heroes are now?
Posted by: Azdak | August 15, 2008 2:23 PM
I'm going to have to ask you all to stop commenting until I have time to catch up. Thanks!
Seriously, though, a fantastic read, Jeff.
I'm only 200 or so comments in, but I can't wait to see if anyone has played the "homosexuality doesn't occur in nature, therefore it's unnatural" card. That's always a fun one to tear to pieces...
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | August 15, 2008 2:26 PM
"It is "far more pragmatic" to instate anarchy? What are you on"?
Who said anything about anarchy? What are you on? How does anarchy arrive if the state got out of dictating who can or cannot get married?
Educating fundies is, of course, a viable alternative. How's it been working out for ya lately?
The right to hold whatever belief you hold is a fundamental right. Fundies have a right to be stupid.
The government, however, should not hold the power of your personal choices, as long as you are not inflicting on others.
Posted by: Andrew N.P. | August 15, 2008 2:27 PM
Yeah, not really. The Equal Protection clause strips unfair advantages rather than making them universal. Before it, whites could violate the rights of blacks with impunity. After it, well, whites could STILL violate the rights of blacks with impunity, but now it made baby Washington cry. The difference, and this is critical, is that state-sponsored marriage is not a "right," assumed to exist prior to the state. State-sponsored anything is, pretty much by definition, not a right. It is a privilege, granted by the state; that's why it's called a marriage "license." And right now, that privilege is only given to distinct heterosexual pairs of individuals. If I wanted to get married to a dude, two chicks, or myself, I couldn't. Your plan is to allow only the first of those three options. You're every bit as bigoted as the fundies, except that your bigotry conveniently excludes yourself. (So you're a selfish bigot.)Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 2:27 PM
Well stated, Bill. I'd like to see government let go of this marriage business too. No sane person thinks that will happen within the next two decades. But during that same timeframe, marriage rights can fairly easily be extended to gay people in many states.
I've got tools in my hands that I know can grant gay people more equality, because I've seen these tools work elsewhere. Why not use those tools? Only one answer makes sense: gay people just aren't worth it.
Posted by: Julian | August 15, 2008 2:28 PM
Jams: Or, Obama realizes that by openly defending the idea that the queer-identifying have the same rights as the rest of us he will definitely lose votes in key battleground states. I agree with you that it would be nice to see a dem running for Pres issue such a ringing call to arms on the issue and force this nation to really confront these views, but unfortunately winning the Presidential election is about numbers, and there are some key constituencies out there who will not support a candidate who is an open and unabashed defender of all of his fellow citizens.
It's an unpalatable truth, but Obama needs the votes of some bigots if he's going to win.
As to the government and marriage, marriage is a social institution. It is an organizing principle of society, likely invented as a way to prevent inter-societal violence. The earliest law codes that mention marriage even cast it as a property issue. The government most certainly has a right to regulate marriage in some respect; after all it is a civic, not a religious, institution, despite what some might try to lead you to believe. Having said that, there is no federal law banning homosexual marriage, nor is there one in most states which is the reason behind the rush to pass :marriage protection amendments. Homosexuals have simply been refused marriage licenses throughout history, in other words, refused civic recognition for their union. The ruling in California simply said stated this fact; "our state constitution says a citizen has the right to marry, and sexual preference does not preclude citizenship, therefore homosexuals can marry." The issue of homosexual marriage is as clear cut as that of segregation; the Constitution does not recognize a difference between whites and blacks, therefore they must be allowed to use the same facilities.
Polygamy is more problematic. The reason it is banned, ans has been for a very long time in our specific branch of the Indo-European language group, is again one of social cohesion. If you allow strict polygamy then there will be individuals in your society resentful over a lack of sexual options and they will cause problems. This is one of the reasons why the kind of polygamy practiced by fundamentalist Mormon sects is a problem; it leads males in power to eject younger males in order to maintain their sexual monopoly and those orphans are highly likely to either become criminals or wards of the state.
The sort of polygamy that is becoming popular these days, where membership is fluid and open as long as certain rules of mutual respect are observed, avoids these flaws, but it's a difficult question of defining something so amorphous in such a way that the government could recognize it with certificates and the like. I say the best way to approach marriage is the as the Celts and Gauls did: allow instant, simple divorce, treat matters of abuse as civil assault cases, attach property to the individual, not the couple, and (to modernize it a bit) give tax deductions by the dependent, instead of a marriage tax break.
This is all just off the top of my head, so feel free to point out any holes you see in it.
Posted by: Gavel Down | August 15, 2008 2:28 PM
Hey, if you don't have the courage of your convictions, what have you got?
Ideally a workable plan for change. Realistically, impotent snark. I'm kinda with you there. I'm not a terrible fan of the government either (although I think devolving it to the level you seem to prefer would lead to, well, present day Iraq.)
I look at the heroes in the Civil Rights era and I wonder where the heroes are now?
Damn old by now. They have better things to worry about, like whether the Senior Center is serving pears today. I keed, I keed. But yes, our government is in a horrible mess. I assure you, however, it will fix itself after a short(ish) depression and possibly a few more desperate wars as we economically implode. Their days are numbered. It's best to try to make life as painless as possible for the poor shmucks who have to live here till then. I.E., gay marriage, abortion rights, etc.
Posted by: Benjamin | August 15, 2008 2:30 PM
Ironically in a repressive society like Iran which, (according to it's president) has no out LGBT citizens, forces LGBT people to act heterosexually. Consequently they are much more likely to have children and whatever genetic factors that contribute to LGBT are spread around the gene pool. In an open and tolerant society, LGBT are more likely to have homosexual relationships (BLG anyway) and are more likely to adopt and so their genes will diminish.
It seems this sort of intolerance correlates with an ignorance of biology so I don't think they will ever realise this.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 15, 2008 2:30 PM
Yeah, let's talk about those assholes! And their kin, the fat-assed family shuffling slooowly four- or even five-abreast through the freakin airport!!! while dragging their giant wheeled "carry-ons" behind them. I am more and more convinced that: 1) stupid people have no concept that anything exists behind them, and 2) stupid people are at their very stupidest in airports.Posted by: Hypatia's Girl | August 15, 2008 2:30 PM
Cheers Jeff for a great post!
@ Lytefoot #224 -- I agree with you and Jeff that the role of the state with regard to personal relationships ought to be one of contractual obligations (i.e. in terms of medical and financial decision making, as well as in terms of legally recognized parental responsibilities [not being particularly enamored by the idea of marriage myself, I would however insist that my partner and I were legally bound to one another before I risked the economic and professional dangers of being a woman with children]) I don't know that "pair bonding" is really the aim of legally recognized partnership contracts. I see no reason we could not develop some form of contractual relationship which was not predicated on some form of nuclear family. Why shouldn't Jay and Silent Bob achieve the same legal recognition as a couple which engaged in sexual acts with one another? This notion that marriage = family is just one of the ways in which the LGBT community is set outside of (to refer back to Sastra's excellent post) the full complement of human rights.
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 15, 2008 2:31 PM
What self-preening arrogance--especially for someone who has such poor grammar and spelling.
Oh yeah, tax evasion is so heroic. You are exactly like Rosa Parks.
Posted by: ennui | August 15, 2008 2:34 PM
Kudos to The God of Biscuits for this post. I fully support his recipe for secular social progress without substitutions, as well as its place at PZany's blog.
FWIW: Last night I made vegetable croquettes using a can of pre-made biscuits. Is this a blasphemy?
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 15, 2008 2:38 PM
Michelle, Scott from Oregon, and all other marriage abolitionsts,
fine, let's change everything. In the meantime, and as long as we haven't (probably for the next couple of centuries), can we all agree that homosexual couples should be enttled to the same rights as heterosexual couples as far as marriage is concerned ?
Posted by: rarus.vir | August 15, 2008 2:40 PM
There are probably quite a few perks to marriage in the legal benefits department. Taxes and insurance come to mind right off. I think that is where the focus should lie. Whether two or more people love each other and want to marry isnt the issue except in fundie circles.
Taking irrelevant things into consideration seems to contribute to sweeping generalizations.
Those who wish to be conservative will never be comfortable with differences like these. I remember when women were all up in arms about male only clubs. This issue has some similarity.
Perhaps those that wish to remain in the 1950's should be the ones forced to make a case for marriage, not the progressives. Life is all about change, which is why conservatism is mental and political mastrubation.
Posted by: Falyne, FCD | August 15, 2008 2:40 PM
If you wish to enter into a binding legal contract with another adult capable of consent (and, obviously, is consenting), it shouldn't matter to the government what gender that other party is.
Frankly, I'm in the "civil unions for EVERYbody" camp, which gets the government out of the religiously-charged word "marriage", which I think is in the American secular spirit and would partly mollify folks like my old boss in PA who was a vaguely-libertarian type who didn't mind gays, so long as they "don't call it marriage". Stupidest thing I ever heard, but there's a lot like him. I'm NOT in favor of any separate-and-unequal deal, of course.... which is what he MEANT, but, yeah.
I'm very much sympathetic, of course, to wanting this resolved on the side of justice ASAP. If the ERA got passed, I think we could make a case of gender discrimination (ie, my first paragraph), which would probably be faster than an all marriage -> all civil union solution. But IANAL, and of course the necessary precondition hasn't been met.
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 15, 2008 2:42 PM
You did when you said, "Simply stop funding the apparatus that is attempting to control you and everyone else."
Quite well actually. Look at the US of A in 1958 in comparison with its current state, see how far we've come? Plus, what's your plan?
Again, straw-man. No one said they couldn't be stupid, but they shouldn't, and they certainly cannot infringe upon my rights.
Okay, and this equates to not giving gays the right to marry how?
Posted by: Falyne, FCD | August 15, 2008 2:44 PM
Negentropyeater- Definitely
Posted by: SC | August 15, 2008 2:45 PM
Pragmatic to instate [!] in the short term, no. Possible, and desirable, to construct in the long term, absolutely. :)
I beg of you, please don't associate this libertarian silliness with anarchists, who have a long and proud history of engaging in struggles for more immediately-realizable goals and human rights within state systems while being aware of the complexities involved wrt to long-term ambitions.
That said, I again bring you Voltairine de Cleyre on marriage:
http://praxeology.net/VC-MDI.htm
Oh, don't even get me started - "Form of: an oblivious human wall!"
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | August 15, 2008 2:47 PM
"can we all agree that homosexual couples should be enttled to the same rights as heterosexual couples as far as marriage is concerned "?
Well, I for one, certainly agree.
I just disagree with the whole notion of granting any governmental agency (especially federal) the right to dictate what those rights are.
You should already be in possession of that right.
The trouble is, so many have been brought up to fear government as something outside of their own pervue and don't accept responsibility for "being" government, as in "we the people" and all that silly founding shit...
Posted by: Gavel Down | August 15, 2008 2:48 PM
It seems this sort of intolerance correlates with an ignorance of biology so I don't think they will ever realise this.
Your ignorance of biology is worse, i'm afraid. If there was at all a correlation between sexuality of the parent and sexuality of the child, gay people would have gone extinct ages ago. Yet the proportion has remained roughly constant (to our best estimates) throughout recorded history. You can't breed gay. It's theorized that homosexuality is an unwanted side effect (unwanted in the sense of not being great for breeding purposes) of an evolutionarily valuable trait. So, one copy of the gene and you have X totally awesome trait. Two and you're gay, but that works (evolutionarily) in the long run since you and your partner can help raise the kids in the rest of the family, who are likely to have the X trait and also produce offspring.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 2:49 PM
Poor assumption on your part. I also support the extension of marriage rights to polys. I have no idea what it could mean to marry yourself, but if you can explain it for me, I'm predisposed to support it.
I'm not taking a stance that says "we must only arrive at the destination via this approved route." I just want the fastest route.
Blatantly, blatantly false. I'm quite sure you have a reading comprehension problem. You refer to the first section:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That isn't taking anything away from anyone. It's building up the people who'd previously been denied the full protection of the law. It's giving citizenship to people who'd been denied citizenship. "Citizenship" and "equal protection of the laws" are the advantages that whites had. Your argument was that advantages should be taken away. Instead these advantages were granted to people who'd not had them before.
In fact the long history of liberalism is the recognition that wider and wider spheres of persons should be afforded the same advantages that the elite once had. Never have the elite been torn down, though.
Slow? Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government may not control marriage. If the Tenth devolves that power to the states (as it does by default), then you'll still need a Constitutional Amendment to strip that power from both the states and the fed.
No, Scott. Here you are telling me why gay people don't deserve to have equality until your privileged ass gets to ride your Libertarian Party hobbyhorse over the finish line.
Posted by: misterbowen | August 15, 2008 2:50 PM
rather than Nazinger, may i humbly submit "Herr Oberpapstbahnfurher Ratzinger"?
:-)
Posted by: Gavel Down | August 15, 2008 2:53 PM
don't accept responsibility for "being" government, as in "we the people" and all that silly founding shit...
Well, Scott, I'd have to say they're being realistic. We don't control government. The corporations do. No sooner do we elect new politicians, brimming with promise, than they are either bought or threatened into falling into lockstep with the military contractors and international corporations who have final say in how our government is run. The only shit we are allowed to effect is the stuff that our masters in washington don't really care about. Gay marriage is one of them. They try to placate the fundies, but if it came right down to it, they don't really care. And no, they don't NEED our votes. What alternative have we got?
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | August 15, 2008 2:54 PM
"Michelle, Scott from Oregon, and all other marriage abolitionsts..."
I am not an abolitionist. I just claim that the government should not control how people choose to group themselves.
I was told (but unresearched) that the government got in to the marriage business (and licences) as a means to control certain health issues.
Then, once the income tax was instated, it was used as a tool of government to reward marriage over non-marriage.
Who granted government this perogative?
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 15, 2008 2:59 PM
@SC #283
I know there are different types of anarchists. I, myself, am partial to anarchy in the Marxist sense. But what is desirable aside, it is not "pragmatic" to install anarchy, not within the next few centuries. Meanwhile, Scott wants to deny another group equal rights simply because they have a different sexual orientation.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 2:59 PM
"If there was at all a correlation between type 1 diabetes in the parent and metabolism of the child, diabetics would have gone extinct ages ago."
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | August 15, 2008 3:01 PM
"No, Scott. Here you are telling me why gay people don't deserve to have equality until your privileged ass gets to ride your Libertarian Party hobbyhorse over the finish line".
Yawn...
Methinks you have a chip so big it would make the cows proud.
Keep giving government things to meddle with, and they will meddle.
Your right to marry belongs to you and not the government.
Posted by: Gavel Down | August 15, 2008 3:02 PM
Um... GrammarRWA, I don't understand.
My point was, that if sexuality is directly a function of whether your parents are gay or not, then since gay people have fewer children on average, the "gay gene" would have died out. Since that hasn't happened, that's clearly not how it works.
Your comment makes zero sense. Do you think i'm somehow not in favor of full rights for homosexuals, in contravention of every post i've made here? Read more better, please.
Posted by: Carlie | August 15, 2008 3:04 PM
Scott's comments read much better now that my happy greasemonkey has blocked them.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | August 15, 2008 3:05 PM
"Meanwhile, Scott wants to deny another group equal rights simply because they have a different sexual orientation".
Yep. Keep believing that nonsense.
Posted by: Gavel Down | August 15, 2008 3:05 PM
Your right to marry belongs to you and not the government.
My right to drive also belongs to me, but I get in deep doo-doo if I do it without being licensed by the government. Libertarians don't seem to live in the real world so much as paint a picture of what they'd like the world to be like and then spend all their time looking at it.
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 15, 2008 3:06 PM
Scott,
Sure, I've chosen to group myself with my lifelong partner, another homosexual man, from Malaysia. I've got a work+residence visa to come and work in the USA for some time. He hasn't. You tell me how he can come and live together with me in the USA ?
Real problem, real life issue, just a pragmatic solution will do...
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 3:06 PM
I second that request.
SC, have you any accessible resources on anarchism for the noob? I usually point people toward http://anarchismfaq.org but it isn't exactly light reading.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 3:13 PM
Whoa! I'm not suggesting anything about your politics. We're on the same side.
It seems you're assuming that "gay genes" have 100% penetrance. I'm just trying to point out that like type 1 diabetes, there can be a genetic factor that is not always expressed, so even if it contributes to reduced fitness, it can persist in the genome indefinitely.
Posted by: Andrew N.P. | August 15, 2008 3:16 PM
Well, all right then. I have no idea what autogamy would mean either, but I'm sure the sex is amazing. I probably should have been more clear in the distinction between "positive" and "negative" rights. If someone's being unfairly denied his (negative) rights to life, liberty, and property, then yes, he should get them back. But if someone's being unfairly given the (positive) right to infringe on others' life, liberty, and property, then that should be taken away.But now that I think about it, the rights of marriage are pretty much all negative: tax breaks (i.e. keeping more of your own money) and private contracts (wills, medical visits, whatever). In which case they should be extended as quickly as possible, and I apologize for being a jerk.
Posted by: Lana | August 15, 2008 3:16 PM
I'm sorry I haven't read all the comments but I wanted to add my support to the post. I'm a straight women and recently took a female friend to a hospital for what could have been life-altering surgery. I think the surgeon thought my friend and I were partners but I didn't disabuse her of that notion, figuring I could get more information that way.
Fortunately, the surgery ended happily but I feel a little funny that the surgeon may have been misled. I don't care if the surgeon thinks I'm a lesbian but I don't like misleading people.
Anyway, I support MAJeff and hope he's happy.
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 15, 2008 3:16 PM
@Grammar RWA #297
Please refrain from calling people noob. It makes you sound condescending. I shall refer you to my post #290.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | August 15, 2008 3:17 PM
"My right to drive also belongs to me, but I get in deep doo-doo if I do it without being licensed by the government. Libertarians don't seem to live in the real world so much as paint a picture of what they'd like the world to be like and then spend all their time looking at it".
Your right to drive is not comparable. There is no "moral" issue here. Society, through government, created the roads, and the privalege to drive on them is granted with safety in mind.
Marriage, was originally a safety issue. Blood test... license, off you go...
But like all things "governmental" it grew to include societal "conditioning" in the form of rewards to married people, which, as an effect, created an unequal situation in regards to those who tried to choose same sex marriage.
I am not a Libertarian, and have never been a Libertarian.
I simply take an "its broke, let's fix it" view of government.
Most of why it is broke is because it tries to do way more than is necessary. Marriage is just one place where this is readily apparent.
Posted by: Andrew N.P. | August 15, 2008 3:18 PM
There's an offensive joke somewhere in there, but I'm too lazy to think it up.Posted by: SC | August 15, 2008 3:20 PM
I'll point out that the 14th Amendment also created the modern corporation and granted it its "rights":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SuUzmqBewg
But the libertarians seem to want to believe that corps sprung fully-formed from the earth or evolved or something, completely separate from the state. It's just nuts.
gdlchmst @ #290 - Did you actually read my comment? I'm not sure what you're arguing with, and your reference to "anarchy in the Marxist sense" is simply bizarre. Bakunin is spinning in his grave.
Posted by: GH | August 15, 2008 3:20 PM
No marriage was originally a property issue.
Posted by: az | August 15, 2008 3:20 PM
Isn't it possible that decoupling the civil bit of marriage from the religious bit is going to be the fastest route for some segments of America?
step 1: civil unions available for all
step 2: civil unions are what confer the package of rights, you can have a religious marriage _as_well_ as you want (cf France)
step 3: (ideally) "marriage" slowly stops being referred to in legislation
[FWIW: I'm a conscientious objector from marriage as currently constructed in the US - with the massive visa costs in time and money and stress to prove it]
Posted by: Benjamin | August 15, 2008 3:21 PM
Re: Gavel Down
I agree with your point that "You can't breed gay" and if that was true you wouldn't have any examples in natural breeding species. It would have died out.
How much does natural selection play a part in human populations though? Having "totally awesome trait X" is probably not as important as cultural or economical factors. Orthodox Judaism is far more influential on your number of offspring for example than most biological traits.
You cannot treat human populations based on some sort of "natural" model.
In the case where trait X is background noise compared to other factors I wouldn't expect gay to be breed out but I would expect that it's occurrence to be lower in tolerant society's.
I also note that I have no data nor any sort of model to support my post so it is just a hunch and yes completely ignorant.
Ps do you have any links to the idea that homosexuality is a side affect?
Posted by: Hairhead | August 15, 2008 3:22 PM
And on Brownian's topic: WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO TAKE ONE STEP OFF THE ESCALATOR AND STOP. JUST STOP. AND LOOK AROUND WHILE PEOPLE MOVE DOWN UPON THEM.
Aargh!
(And then when you push by them, they give you a dirty look!)
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | August 15, 2008 3:23 PM
"Sure, I've chosen to group myself with my lifelong partner, another homosexual man, from Malaysia. I've got a work+residence visa to come and work in the USA for some time. He hasn't. You tell me how he can come and live together with me in the USA "?
If it were up to me, I'd say bring your guy.
But it isn't. So, no. I have no idea, unnless he can wrangle his own Visa.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 3:25 PM
I'm impressed, Andrew. I retract everything bad I said about you (and just so it doesn't go to waste, I lay it all upon Scott ;)
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 3:28 PM
I reread my words and I see what you mean. For the record, I meant "for the noob" in the same sense one might say "for the layman." It was not intended to be directed at any particular person here. Mea culpa.
Posted by: sublunary | August 15, 2008 3:35 PM
I always thought that was sort of curious. What exactly were they testing for? Anyone know?
Scott, I've been following your conversation with interest. I'm just kind of curious, if you want government out of marriage, how do you define marriage? I'm confused because I see marriage as the government granting privledges to a relationship. If you take the government out of that, you seem to take the privledges out of it too, don't you?
Posted by: SC | August 15, 2008 3:36 PM
Grammar RWA,
I just posted this yesterday:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/08/atheism_symbol.php#comment-1048134
Probably not as helpful as the FAQ, but I'm not a huge fan of lengthy FAQs and I hadn't realized Anarchismwas available online. I'm always linking - much to some people's annoyance, I'm sure - to individual topical pieces by Kropotkin or Goldman or others. I have no idea whether or not anyone actually reads them. Incidentally, I think some of the best contemporary journalistic writing by anarchists, to give people an indication of what anarchists are up to these days, is at
http://www.zabalaza.net/index02.htm
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 15, 2008 3:38 PM
Scott, and others
But you see, that's the problem. Many people have these discussions about gays, marriage, etc... but they don't seem to understand the nature of the real concrete problems that exist.
It's fine to have these kinds of discussions, but meanwhile, there are real people who have real difficulties, and it'd be nice if commenters here could be more compassionate and pragmatic when they think about these issues.
Posted by: Ann | August 15, 2008 3:41 PM
I sort-of rejected the institution of marriage ("Why should the state control my personal relationships?") until I took a course on marriage and family in law school and saw all the legal complications that ensue when people don't register the relationships in which they share property and life decisions. So I understand the value of marriage as a legal institution, and fully support equality of marriage rights for all. Plus, y'know, "some of my best friends..."!
But since this thread has wandered over many topics, including the finer points of block quotes, I'd like to respond to something Christopher Waldrop said near the beginning: "The logical counter-argument [to 'homosexuality is a choice'] is, 'Who would willingly choose to subject themselves to so much hatred and discrimination?'"
I don't agree that this is a logical counter-argument, because people in fact do choose activities that subject them to hatred, disapproval, and even criminal penalties. To convict someone of a crime, for example, the state must demonstrate that the behavior was deliberate, i.e., chosen. Mind you, I'm NOT equating homosexuality with crime. I'm trying to point out that this particular argument is a nonstarter.
On the other hand, religion, in our culture, is considered to be a choice, and yet it's the basis of a protected category. Pointing out this fact would be a better response to the "homosexuality is a choice" argument.
Actually, the entire "choice" issue is a red herring. People do get to make choices, and many of those choice categories should be protected. Sexual orientation will eventually be one of them, because it's not logically related to the issues of property, next-of-kin decisions, child-rearing, insurance, and other rights affected by marriage.
Having said that, I'd like to raise a strenuous objection to the discrimination faced by single people regarding employer-provided insurance. My married (straight and gay) co-workers receive many thousands of dollars worth of benefits because their partners are insured by my employer. Why should we single people receive less compensation? Of course insurance shouldn't be related to employment in the first place, but this is still blatant discrimination on the basis of marital status!
Posted by: Tercel | August 15, 2008 3:41 PM
When people say things like "I don't hate gay people, I just don't want gay marriage" or "being against the gay lifestyle doesn't make me a bigot" I think they are (sometimes) truly in denial. They don't want to be bigots. They probably don't feel like they imagine a bigot feels. What they don't realize is that saying "I'm not a bigot" doesn't make it true.
I've gotten some really satisfying stunned silence from some of these people by explaining that you don't get to avoid being a bigot simply by wanting to; you have to actually not be a bigot! Furthermore, they often don't realize that the reasoning behind their bigotry doesn't make a bit of difference. Religion is one of the biggest offenders in this area, and personal discomfort is another. Sure, your bible may tell you that homosexuality is bad, or you may be uncomfortable around gay people or not particularly like the idea, but using that to deny equality to a whole group of people is still bigotry.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | August 15, 2008 3:42 PM
"Scott, I've been following your conversation with interest. I'm just kind of curious, if you want government out of marriage, how do you define marriage"?
In the context of this discussion, Marriage-- an agreement between people to share their "business" together until the death of one, or until a formal agreement to dissolve the agreement occurs.
That's off the top of my head. (I originally wrote "between two people", but then realized I don't mean that either. Three, or four, or six... people can agree to operate as one unit. I mean, why not?)
Posted by: Rob the Lurker FCD BMWCCA | August 15, 2008 3:51 PM
Carlie said...
Me too! I just wished everybody had them blocked. It sort of defeats the purpose of the "kill" button when others decide to extensively quote them.
Posted by: Sili | August 15, 2008 3:52 PM
I hope you win the referendum. Well, we win I guess.
In other news: Copenhagen Pride is gonna be bigger than ever: More than a thousand's signed up, the leader of the Social Democrats is gonna be there (she's straight, though) and
And yes, that's military officers, not police. (Though, they're likely there as well. Participating too.)
Posted by: Lowell | August 15, 2008 3:54 PM
Hey, Bownian @ 265
What about the sheep-people who go throught the revolving door in front of you, take like a half-a-step, stop dead in their tracks, and then look at you like you're the asshole when the door nicks the back of their feet?
It's a revolving door, jackoff! If it's too complicated for you, go press the button for disabled assistance.
Posted by: sublunary | August 15, 2008 3:54 PM
Thanks Scott, that clears things up a bit for me. I have more questions but unfortunatly wouldn't be around to read the answers.
And thanks to everyone for some very interesting afternoon reading.
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 15, 2008 3:56 PM
I'm not arguing with you, just stating that I'm not confusing Scott for an anarchist. Sorry for the Marxist thing. I couldn't remember Bakunin's name, but Marx had argued for a collectivist stateless society. I know Bakunin did not approve of Marxism but the final stage of communism is anarchy, in every sense of the word.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 3:58 PM
Yes, that is possible. It's an open question. I think it's unlikely, for a few reasons.
Among them: 1. there is just so much legal infrastructure around state sanctioned marriage that can already be put to good use (see Stwriley, comment 260).
2. People intuitively understand what it means to extend their own rights to a wider sphere of people, and many are comfortable with this theme as the "saga" of American freedom. It's not as obvious how the law would be structured if civil marriage were abolished, so the first concept is easier to "sell", as evidenced by its adoption in some states already.
3. You'll find plenty of civil marriage hangers-on who'll say "I already PAID for my marriage license, and you aren't taking that away from me." Others will argue from other feelings of "investment" besides monetary. This will be a surprisingly strong barrier, I think.
Obviously there are barriers on the route to civil marriage for gay people, as well. But we're already having success crossing those.
Sure, we can discuss this as a practical question. What ticks me off is the people who say "route 1 is wrong in principle" even though it's already bringing victories for real families in need.
Posted by: SC | August 15, 2008 4:01 PM
I have to say, I'm fascinated by this whole killfile phenomenon, but also a bit, I don't know, saddened or concerned (and that's not just because my computer's too old to install it, or because more than one person this month nominated me "...or greasemonkey with killfile" for a Molly :)). It changes the social dynamic somewhat - it's like people aren't sharing entirely in the same conversation. Anyway, just an observation. I completely understand why people who can use it do. I'm not really sure if I would if I could, though, or how happy I am about it.
Posted by: Patricia | August 15, 2008 4:02 PM
#313 - Sublunary - When I got married 33 years ago in Oregon blood tests were still required. They tested to see if you had syphilis or gonorrhea, and it took two weeks to get the results back from the lab.
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 15, 2008 4:04 PM
SC,
do you know of any good international anarchist blogs, that discuss issues in a similar way as on Pharyngula ?
Posted by: Grammar RWA | August 15, 2008 4:07 PM
Posted by: SC | August 15, 2008 3:36 PM
Bookmarked! Thanks. I'm out of here for a while now. This is one of those threads I'll have to tear myself away from to get anything done.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 15, 2008 4:12 PM
Grammar RWA (#299):
Also, it is within the range of human ability to have sexual intercourse with somebody you're not that attracted to (particularly if social pressures forbid you from your preferred sexual outlet). As PZ once said,
Posted by: SteveM | August 15, 2008 4:13 PM
I thought that was what the "Defense of Marriage Act" specifically addressed, in that it allows each state to choose whether or not to recognize marriages in other states. Before the DOMA, a marriage in any state had to be recognized in every other state (one of the reasons behind Virginia making inter-racial marriages criminal, leading to the Loving decision). Not that I support the DOMA, not at all, I think it is unconstitutional and hope that it can be challenged and overturned sometime soon.
---
I think it was "Scott from Oregon" who noted that the Constitution does not give the government the power to regulate (define) marriage. True enough, maybe that's why the federal government does not define marriage, it is left to the states.
"Grammer RWA", I don't buy the argument "the Constitution doesn't say the gov. can't define marriage". The point of a constitution is to define what a government can do. Any powers not specifically granted to the government are supposed to be forbidden. I know it hasn't completely worked out that way, but that was the original idea.
Posted by: Scott | August 15, 2008 4:16 PM
Rep. Barney Frank on the 'radical homosexual agenda':
"I acknowledge that this is an agenda, but I do not think any self-respecting radical in history would have considered advocating people's rights to get married, join the army, and earn a living as a terribly inspiring revolutionary platform."
Posted by: SC | August 15, 2008 4:19 PM
I guess I was kind of jumping on "instate anarchy" and wanted to make the distinction between US-"libertarianism" and historical and contemporary anarchism. Didn't mean to imply that you were confusing them - just wanted to rid anyone reading of that association. But some of what you said seemed to be restating my point while presenting it as an argument with me. I wasn't agreeing with Scott, and wanted that to be clear.
You should definitely read more of Bakunin's and Kropotkin's critical writings on Marx and the Marxist political philosophy and project. I hope that doesn't sound condescending. They were simply two of the most insightful and prescient analysts of Marxism, and said a lot that's important to keep in mind when focusing on the "young Marx" or the post-statist "final stage" of Marxism.
Posted by: SteveM | August 15, 2008 4:24 PM
For all those advocating abolishing all the privileges associated with marriage across the board, imagine trying to eliminate the tax deduction for home mortgage interest. Abolishing marriage privileges, I think, will be an order of magnitude more difficult.
Even though you may be right, it just ain't gonna happen. So the more practical course is to extend those benefits to same sex couples. If the government is going to provide this benefit, then it should do so without regard to the sex of the beneficiaries. For example, even if you think that the income tax should be abolished, if there is going to be a tax, it should not tax men more than women.
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 15, 2008 4:29 PM
Will do.
I have not read any of Bakunin's writings firsthand. I probably should. Thanks for the heads up.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | August 15, 2008 4:38 PM
Yup. To them too, I say:
"No marriage for you!"
Posted by: SC | August 15, 2008 4:43 PM
gdlchmst:
Will do.
Cool! Sorry again for any confusion.
negentropyeater:
do you know of any good international anarchist blogs, that discuss issues in a similar way as on Pharyngula ?
That's a great question. No, I don't! (Of course, there's nothing like Pharyngula.:)) I'm on some listservs, but I haven't really looked for anything like that. Not sure why. I guess I enjoy being around people with a lot of different views - not that anarchists are monolithic, but you know what I mean - and this and the other Scienceblogs offer a good mix (and, of course, there's the science). I did come across this several months ago:
http://anarchoblogs.protest.net/
It's a really mixed bag and requires some patience - especially since the links don't come out well - but I've found some very interesting articles/blogs through it. I'll let you know if I ever come across something like what you're asking about.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 15, 2008 4:48 PM
Concern troll!! Actually, it's quite flexible. Nothing goes away, it just gets hidden. I've only killfiled 3 commenters ever, and if you feel like reading what they wrote in any specific comment there's a "read this comment" to click. You can also hide individual comments from those who are not killed (if you want to, but why?), and it's easy to unkill someone if you start feeling bad about it.Posted by: SC | August 15, 2008 4:56 PM
I'll let you know if I ever come across something like what you're asking about.
To which I should add: or start it myself. :)
Actually, it's quite flexible.
I was asking the other day, but I don't think anyone responded: Does it kill by name or something related to the commenter's address? In other words, if a troll shows up with a new pseudonym, do you have to rekill it?
Posted by: Maria | August 15, 2008 4:59 PM
Jeff, that was a great post.
To most commenters: This thread is just amazingly civilized. Why, there's more than one instance of people actually recognizing their mistakes. So refreshing!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 15, 2008 4:59 PM
I...don't know. Would need a cooperative troll to test it.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | August 15, 2008 5:02 PM
"Abolishing marriage privileges, I think, will be an order of magnitude more difficult. Even though you may be right, it just ain't gonna happen. So the more practical course is to extend those benefits to same sex couples. If the government is going to provide this benefit, then it should do so without regard to the sex of the beneficiaries".
Ummm, the more I read, the more George W Bush makes ironic sense for this country.
Ever wonder why the Republicans tried to change the Constitution to dictate that "marriage is between a man and a woman"?
Because they think government HAS THAT RIGHT.
Liberals keep trying to use government as a tool for social change, and then they get miffed when it is used against them.
IT IS THE VERY NOTION that government is supposed to "control" the morality of society that sets up these problems to begin with.
I am reminded of the patient who complains to his doctor "It hurts when I go like this..." and the doctor says "well, don't go like that."
Sometimes, you have to look at simply not having the problem rather than fighting to "fix" what doesn't need to exist to begin with.
Take away government's role in the marriage business (other than granting your right to contractual agreements) and you have solved this problem.
Posted by: SC | August 15, 2008 5:07 PM
I...don't know. Would need a cooperative troll to test it.
Ah, it seems from what PZ writes on the "Dungeon" page under "morphing" that it's by name. Too bad. If it weren't it would be a good way to catch morphers, since you would know that they had to be one of the people you had already blocked.
Posted by: jobguru@intergate.ca | August 15, 2008 5:07 PM
To sublunary @#313, you asked "why blood tests", and you were answered, "for gonorrhea and syphilis", which is the correct answer. What is MOST significant about the "blood tests" laws are that their existence PROVED that in the much-fantasized-about-right-wing-good-old-days unmarried people were fucking so much that NOBODY could be taken at their word (that they were virginal or chaste) and syphilis and gonorrhea were such a PUBLIC HEALTH MENACE that significant portions of the population (ie. everyone who wanted to get married) had to be medically examined to stop said diseases from becoming EPIDEMIC.
Sorry for the caps, but they are necessary, what with the stupid nostalgia and outright lying about the past which exists. Now if any of you are having an argument with a "good old days" conservative, throw the "mandatory blood tests" at 'em. It works.
Posted by: B-Dogg the Sacrificial Killfile Troll, OM | August 15, 2008 5:11 PM
Okay, I've already posted as Brownian a number of times on this thread. I'm posting this at same computer (ostensibly with the same IP), with the same email and URL, so killfile scientists can killfile me on earlier comments and see whether this sockpuppet comment still shows up.
Word up!
Posted by: B-Dogg the Sacrificial Killfile Troll, OM | August 15, 2008 5:14 PM
No dice. You can kennel the B-Dogg but the Brownie flies free.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 15, 2008 5:17 PM
killfile = cotton in ears
Posted by: Qwerty | August 15, 2008 5:20 PM
https://store.afa.net/pc-10000122-5-theyre-coming-to-your-town-dvd.aspx
If you want a laugh at over-the-top homophobia, check out the trailer from the American Family Association for "They're Coming to Your Town."
It details what you can do if, god forbid, homosexuals invade your home town.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | August 15, 2008 5:21 PM
Sorry Kseniya, but what did you write? You see, I've got this killfile thingy on my browser....
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 15, 2008 5:25 PM
Thanks, B-Dogg, you are a very cooperative troll.
K, what's that? I couldn't quite
hearread you--I've got cotton in myearseyes. And it itches!!!What we really need is a killfile that only flags Brownian's Inner 14-year-old.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | August 15, 2008 5:32 PM
Notice that rather than price, they list the 'suggested donation'? Unfortunately, there's no way to alter the amount of the donation, so you have no choice but to donate what they 'suggest'.
Apparently the American Family Association doesn't take too kindly to having people not follow their 'suggestions'.
What a bunch of lying shitbags.
Posted by: SC | August 15, 2008 5:32 PM
Thanks, Brownian! It was bothering me not to know.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | August 15, 2008 5:34 PM
You'd probably find that it would work the same as killfiling me entirely.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 15, 2008 5:36 PM
I just didn't have the guts to killfile myself. What if???
Posted by: Roberta Morris | August 15, 2008 5:38 PM
Just had to comment ;) I always thought that the blood tests were to find out in advance if the couple's blood might be imcompatable (RH factors?) causing an increase in the danger of their baby being born with cyanosis (blue baby syndrome).
The fact that two loving people can be kept from marriage because of out-dated superstition is a crime. And their argument that gays can't marry because marriage is for the purpose of raising kids, doesn't hold water because then people who can't have kids, or don't want kids wouldn't be allowed to marry. And married couples would be forced to get divorced once they are past the age of child bearing.
Marriage may have began as a way of controlling economic goods, but it has devolved into a way of controlling sexuality.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 15, 2008 5:44 PM
Malkovich!
Malkovich! Malkovich! Malkovich!
Malkovich! Malkovich! Malkovich! Malkovich! Malkovich! Malkovich! Malkovich!
Malkovich! Malkovich! Malkovich! Malkovich!
Malkovich!
Posted by: Natalie | August 15, 2008 5:46 PM
I've heard that theory before, but I think premarital blood tests were required before the whole Rh issue was understood. The Straight Dope also pinpoints STDs, although it should be noted that contrary to what an above commentator said very low numbers of people tested positive for STDs. That's actually why these tests were discontinued in the mid-90s - the cost per STD found was staggering because so few people were testing positive.