Against Gay Marriage? Come Out of the Closet!
For many decades, state and local governments did not simply allow racial discrimination by private businesses — they required it. The landmark case Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which declared “separate but equal” constitutional, involved a Louisiana statute that required railroad companies to segregate — with fines for the railroad and the officers of the corporation for failure to do so. Similar state laws requiring interstate bus companies to segregate passengers persisted until 1946, when the Supreme Court struck them down.
State legislatures passed these laws requiring racial discrimination because they knew that without government intervention into the marketplace there was a very real possibility that some greedy entrepreneur who lacked sufficient white pride would look at the only color that really mattered: green. There were similar state laws requiring discrimination in employment based on sex — upheld, amusingly enough, by the Supreme Court after Roosevelt’s threat to pack the court took it down a more liberal road.
I am under no illusion that the absence of these laws requiring discrimination was enough to break all vestiges of the old system. These laws reinforced social pressure for discrimination — and the repeal of those laws wasn’t enough to wipe out those attitudes overnight. I grudgingly accepted the need for laws prohibiting discrimination when they were first passed, at least with respect to race, where many governments had a long history of requiring and encouraging discrimination against blacks. The need for them becomes less obvious as each year passes.
However, the analogy between homosexuality and race simply doesn’t work. If you walk into a store, your race is immediately obvious. Short of wearing a hood and covering your hands, it will be immediately obvious if you are black or white. Unless you choose to be open about your sexuality while in the establishment, no one is going to know what your preferences are. The case for anti-discrimination laws based on homosexuality just isn’t that strong, and the case for a business owner having the right to choose with whom to do business is very strong.
When I was young, I was actually pretty liberal. Homosexuals argued that what consenting adults did in private was none of the government’s business, and that seemed like a pretty compelling argument to me. You don’t want the government telling you what you can do with another adult? Fine. Now the tide has turned, and homosexuals are having the government tell other adults: “You must photograph my same-sex civil union, or pay a huge fine.” I am flabbergasted that two law professors are coming up with ways to require business owners to declare their disapproval of homosexuality on the front of the store to avoid lawsuits.
Many years ago, a business owner that I knew was very supportive of the Libertarian Party, but she was reluctant to put any campaign posters on the front of her store. This was a very liberal area, and she was understandably afraid of vandalism, broken glass, and so on. The proposal of Culhane and Carpenter will doubtless result in a lot of broken glass — or as it would have been said by the same crowd some decades back: “Kristallnacht.”
Anyone who does any real research into the supposed “gay marriage” movement will find nothing be leftwing hatred and classic leftwing tactics right out of the playbooks from hitler and stalin. The whole movement has nothing to due with equal rights… or even rights at all.
It is simply about oppressing and suppressing any form of dissent and expanding the power of government to the point where it can dictate how you should think and act. The way the kali courts have rewritten enter law books and decided that the state constitution is but a mere set of annoying guidelines that should only be followed when they are to the benefit of the leftwing goals is a complete joke.
The greatest irony of this whole mess is the fact that these commie/nazis are the first ones to cry about how “democracy” should rule and be respected…. unless of course that “democracy” aka the majority doesn’t vote the way the leftist want… then it oppression by the majority oppressing the poor defenseless minority…. or if the majority votes the “right way” aka the leftwing way then it “we must respect democracy”.
These bigots talk out both sides of they’re mouths and use any means illegal often to reach they’re leftist utopia of complete government control of everything and revoking any safe guard to stop it… most of all safe guards like the state constitutions and the US constitution.
Wow your really into the wonky conspiracy theories …
Heaven forbid that someone would actually want to get married!
Why not just have gay-friendly businesses post something on THEIR storefronts, voluntarily. Would seem to serve the same purpose without the strong arm of the government getting involved.
It’s moronic statements by the Professor that is the true culprit.
Rather than letting society come to a median, it’s the supposed ‘educators’ or politicians who know what’s best for us and to make nice.
What a farce.
I’d like to see businesses in Compton, Florence, Inglewood, Hawthorne, etc., have the aforementioned signs. hahaha
Unfortunately, Professor – the ethnicities from those communities is FACT (something which Professors have a difficult time in supporting, accepting or explaining) why Prop 8 in CA resulted the way it did. Sure you and other like minded indivduals can blame the ‘homophobic’ white man, but that record’s needle broke the player a LONG time ago. Sell empathy, fear tactics someplace else..
I think you err in conflating (de rigueur term) religious and legalistic views of gay marriage. In this you aid your opponents in keeping the issue confused and obscure.
The issue has been about gaining government imprimatur for gay marriage. It shouldn’t be as government involvement should be limited to the right of contract. I support a right to contract and would support gay marriage only in that light. The right to contract confers no privilege to coerce.
I believe that all else you brought to the argument fall within my simple construct.
The fact remains, one who engages in homosexuality is not banned from marriage. Example: Gov McGreevy married twice before he abandoned both families in order to be with his lover.
I have no more right to change the definition of homosexual to mean “sex between two people” since obviously this would ultimately negate the existence of homosexuality than Marxist lawyers and law professors have the right to change the definition of marriage to mean “union between two people”.
I’ve had my fill of Marxist lawyers, law professor and Darwinian apes dress in robes undermining the meaning of Justice.
The only thing worse than internet kiddies porn pedophile addicts are the Marxist lawyers, law professors and Darwinian apes wearing robes.
PS: Those who today attend Harvard and Yale are evil twisted MFers.
Considering the pressing problems facing this country, the strident gay marriage movement is nothing if not ludicrous. On a recent episode of ‘Top Chef’, one of the competitors, and angry, unattractive lesbian chef expressed her displeasure, multiple times, at having to participate in an event at a bachelor/bachelorette party.
She felt that it was unfair that she could not enjoy such an affair herself. Ignoring the fact that she was a poor chef, her angry repetition of the ‘unfairness of it all’ bordered on the surreal. The more strident the advocats of gay marriage become, the more they will lose support.
The issue has been about gaining government imprimatur for gay marriage. It shouldn’t be as government involvement should be limited to the right of contract. I support a right to contract and would support gay marriage only in that light. The right to contract confers no privilege to coerce.
Two people are free to contract right now; with the exception of tax status (which is a pretty negligible advantage if both persons are working full-time, as is typical with gay couples) and Social Security benefits, every advantage that a straight married couple is available with a small amount of paperwork to a gay couple.
I will believe that the plight of the gays is a “Civil Rights” issue when I see a sign on a drinking fountain that says “Heteros Only”. Or “Gays to the back of the bus”.
To compare Gay issues to those of Blacks is an insult.
Here I am, a gay conservative. Yup, it’s true. I exist. First, why is it patriotic for folks to show up at Tea Parties or Town Hall meetings, screaming for their rights – when gays congregate to fight for ours, (according to ‘carla’) the more strident we become, the more we’ll lose support? Are you suggesting we silently protest? Tell that to the Town Hall and Tea Party folks, carla. Additionally, ‘clayton e. cramer’, you seem to have missed a huge exception to your paperwork comment: estate and gift tax benefits. What form do I fill out for that?
You know, fellow conservatives, I pay alot of taxes, and I’d like the exact same level of representation from government and law. It’s quite simple.
To compare Gay issues to those of Blacks is an insult.
Which is one of the reasons that this comparison seems to persuade white people more than it persuades blacks (who overwhelmingly voted to define marriage as “one man, one woman” in California last year). It has been a source of considerable irritation to gay activists to see black civil rights activists refuse to buy into the comparison.
Additionally, ‘clayton e. cramer’, you seem to have missed a huge exception to your paperwork comment: estate and gift tax benefits.
I just looked it up, and indeed, the gift tax and estate tax do have a specific benefit for a spouse. I am very supportive of eliminating both gift taxes and estate taxes, and not just to achieve equality for you, but because estate taxes encourage medium sized businesses to be sold to pay the estate tax–and gift tax exists only to deal with the attempt to avoid the estate tax.
Mr. Cramer:
“However, the analogy between homosexuality and race simply doesn’t work.”
Especially since the jury is still out on whether homosexuality is, (like race), genetically determined or, (like politics), a function of environment and preference.
I actually think it might do us all, black and white, straight and gay, a world of good if we made college professors wear dunce caps for identification purposes every minute that they are outside of a private residence.
To swipe Sinead O’Connor’s line:
“Fight the REAL Enemy!”
Here I am, a gay conservative. Yup, it’s true. I exist.
I know that there are gay conservatives–more of them than either gay activists or the news media want to admit. In my experience, most gay conservatives tend to have the good sense to be discrete about their preferences. What you and consenting adults do in private I wouldn’t consider an appropriate governmental concern–and I would hope that you would be prepared to accept that what other consenting adults do in private isn’t the government’s concern, either.
Especially since the jury is still out on whether homosexuality is, (like race), genetically determined or, (like politics), a function of environment and preference.
Even those scientists prepared to claim that there is some genetic aspect to homosexuality are usually pretty careful to state that it is, at most, a predisposition, and there is likely some environmental factor or choice is at play as well. About half of monozygotic twins where one is homosexual, other is heterosexual. If this were a genetically determined behavior, it wouldn’t be 50/50.
Pretty clearly, homosexuality has some non-biological component to it. About half of homosexuals who make a serious effort at change (through a variety of therapies, some secular, some religious) succeed in changing their sexual orientation (not just behavior). This argues strongly against genetic determinism.
I sometimes wonder if the focus on seeking a single cause for homosexuality may be a core error. Psychiatry couldn’t find any hormonal explanation; the Freudian “weak or absent father, strong domineering mother” theory only fit some homosexuals (including some that I have known); so eventually, as a result of continual screeching at APA conventions, they decided that since they couldn’t explain it, and couldn’t cure it, it wasn’t a problem! There is a very disproportionate number of homosexuals who were sexually abused as children, although certainly not a majority. (If you can’t figure out why prematurely sexualizing a child might cause some adult sexual confusion, you aren’t thinking very hard.)
‘not just to achieve equality for you’ – Achieving equality would be my ideal, without regard to the resulting, equal state.
‘What you and consenting adults do in private I wouldn’t consider an appropriate governmental concern’ – Doing what in private? Our short dialogue here makes clear that this is important to you, not me. None of my assertions for equality has anything to do with what anybody does in private. Stick with equal treatment under the law, clayton.
Help businesses refuse services to gays . . . wow! Great idea! What else can we do in the name of equal rights? How about separate drinking fountains? Separate restaurants? Hotels? How about we make all TV shows in black and white? Maybe make some more of those new-fangled cars, what do you call them, convertibles. Then go down to the Five ‘n’ Dime and have a sody. Check out the comic book rack. Go home and watch mom go quietly insane cooking one more chicken fried steak. It’s a wonderful world, if we just make it so.
Er, isn’t this exactly the sort of anti-religious discrimination they keep assuring us WON’T happen if gay marriage is legalized?
ren’t we constantly being told that, “Oh, no, no, no, you’re just being paranoid! There won’t be any persecution, or discrimination, against those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds. You won’t be forced to “out” yourself, or face criticism, or legal sanctions, for your stand, or be pressured to give in, and go along! No siree! Nosirrreeeee! NorsirrrreeeBob!”
Yah. Right.
Men are different than women. This is the case because there is more involved than men and women.
This is one way to make sure that government does not get too big for its britches.
Government does not belong in the marriage business. It should not be approving or disapproving people’s personal arrangements. You don’t need a license to have children. You shouldn’t need one to get married.
Second point – Treat all taxpayers as individuals rather than offering the option to be treated as a married pair. That will also bring more fairness to the tax code.
#19. Free Quark, you can already opt to file as a couple or as individuals. See form 1040.
#19: Good point, but why not just abolish the income tax?
If I hear anymore whingeing about the “marriage penalty” I’m going to upchuck. When I got divorced, my taxes did not exactly go down.
Income should be income, even if you’re Charlie Rangel…. But seriously, a system which taxes ‘married’ income at one rate and ‘single’ income at another – ??? – doesn’t this violate the equal protection clause in the Constitution?
There are more single people than married people in the US, by the way. I think we deserve some credit for subsidizing the lifestyle choices of the married folk.
Those two professors need to remove their heads from their rectums.
There is an existing easy way for businesses that are pro-homosexuality and anti-homosexuality to conduct their business and serve the people they choose to without getting government involved.
Its a magical and mysterious thing called advertising. *GASP*
Businesses that desire homosexual clientele will advertise in homosexually oriented publications as well as mainstream publications. Businesses that don’t desire homosexual clientele will not advertise in homosexually oriented publications but rather advertise in Christian publications and mainstream publications. This includes TV and location based advertising as well.
Wow! Problem solved with 0 government intervention…imagine that!
The government has no business being involved in the definition of marriage or being involved in saying who should be allowed to marry whom.
Social conservatives who claim to believe in freedom and limited government need to stop trying to use the government to shove their views down other people’s throats. Liberals need to do the same thing.
Is it any surprise that after 8 years of having social conservatives trying to ram their view down everyone’s throats that liberals would attempt to reverse that now that they’re in power? Tit for tat. Push me, shove you.
Speak up for freedom and liberty and get the government out of the picture.
Wait I’m confused…in #15 bdaniel says: “Doing what in private? Our short dialogue here makes clear that this is important to you, not me. None of my assertions for equality has anything to do with what anybody does in private. Stick with equal treatment under the law, clayton.”
What you “do in private” does matter, because it is what defines you as different. If it did not you’d be the same and since you’d be the same as the majority your grievance would not exist. You’d be exactly the same as everyone else and thus equal under the law, correct?
Also you are treated the same under the law, you’re treated exactly the same as every other individual who tries to marry another individual of the same sex in your state. However, if you married an individual of the opposite sex you’d be treated exactly the same as every other heterosexual couple getting married. Equal treatment under the law. Am I wrong?
If homosexuality is genetic and the markers can be discovered before birth, what will we do if there is some kind of genetic repair, or abortion to select against having a homosexual child?
Pro-choice means…?
More sissies hiding behind the Nazi skirt. Oh, they’re all Nazis. We are such victims. You make me embarrassed to be American.
Gay marriage is just more Cloward-Piven crap to clog up the system (imho).
Give a mouse a cookie…
Calvin, whether or not black voters recognize it–and I don’t believe that the California experience represents the views of all African Americans throughout the nation–its still a civil rights issue. The idea that African Americans–or your constructed view of their opinions–should define what civil rights issues are and aren’t, is simply stupid. African American males for the most part, rejected civil rights for African American females. Their “oppression” did not make them the expert on the oppression of others, obviously. You’re looking for simple ways of proving your views. And they will only appeal to the simple minded.
Paul Indiana;
You can file as having a spouse on the 1040. If the state denies you the option of having a spouse of the same sex (or indeed, multiple spouses if your preferences lean that way), then you technically do not have a spouse and cannot file as a couple and recieve associated benefits.
The government ought to stop approving or disapproving of who marries whom and social conservatives need to stop demanding that the govermment stick its nose into the romantic arrangements of functional adults.
This world would be a much happier place if we all stopped trying to manage each other’s lives.
25. Richard Aubrey: “If homosexuality is genetic and the markers can be discovered before birth, what will we do if there is some kind of genetic repair, or abortion to select against having a homosexual child?
Pro-choice means…?”
Clearly, the abortion debate would end as religious right-wingers line up in droves to abort their gay fetuses.
Scott: Yes, you are wrong. Just like there are many straight, sexless marriages, perhaps there are sexless, same-sex arrangements as well. You do not need to have sex to be in any type of relationship. It’s the relationship that creates the issue, not the sex.
The government ought to stop approving or disapproving of who marries whom and social conservatives need to stop demanding that the govermment stick its nose into the romantic arrangements of functional adults.
This world would be a much happier place if we all stopped trying to manage each other’s lives.
It would help if the gay activists shared that opinion. They clearly don’t.
Scott: Yes, you are wrong. Just like there are many straight, sexless marriages, perhaps there are sexless, same-sex arrangements as well. You do not need to have sex to be in any type of relationship. It’s the relationship that creates the issue, not the sex.
Except that the only good reason remaining that the government cares about relationships like marriage is because of child custody and support issues. Those aren’t issues for homosexuals, who, by definition, can’t have any children as the result of their relationships, sexless or sexual.
Clayton E Cramer;
Child custody and support cases occur in non-married relationships as well.
Marriage and children aren’t correlated anymore.
“32. bdaniel:
Scott: Yes, you are wrong. Just like there are many straight, sexless marriages, perhaps there are sexless, same-sex arrangements as well. You do not need to have sex to be in any type of relationship. It’s the relationship that creates the issue, not the sex.”
Sexless marriage? Are you kidding me? Marriage is explicitly a romantic/sexual institution, even in arranged or political marriages the idea was/is to produce offspring. This requires sex to be a component. Yes, you’re going to drag out the elderly who get married and the people who cannot or decide not to have children but despite them not producing children they are well within the norm for marriage. That is because married couples eventually pass childbearing age, some people cannot have kids, but they still serve as examples of the social norm for subsequent generations and all the other necessities of a marriage such as companionship, love, teamwork, etc. Too many people undervalue the importance of social examples, 30 years ago children whose parents were divorced were rare, now as an adult people whose parents have actually stayed married are the unusual ones.
They have words to relationships that don’t involve sex or romance. Friendship, roommates, business partners, brotherhood, sisterhood, to name a few.
@2. DC:
“Why not just have gay-friendly businesses post something on THEIR storefronts, voluntarily.”
Are you really suggesting that a business owner do something proactive to help the business? Would that work?
@26. Moho:
“You make me embarrassed to be American.”
And yet, you’re fine with the President calling out his union thugs to attack people.
So… Let me get this straight…(pun intended)… The government has created much of the inequities the homosexual community experiances by it’s tax code social engineering?
By a marriage rate of tax…
By estate taxes…
By tax treatment of family insurance premiums…
I see the Flat Tax or Fair Tax as a great step in equal protection and treatment under the law…
What else has the liberal government done to separate people from one another in the name of pandering to a constituency?
Whether it’s legal or not it’s the wrong way to go about getting what they want, and I wish they could see that, because I fear that they’re going to undo all the progress they’ve made so far.
Scott – Whatever – go tell that all the straight folks who don’t have and don’t want kids. What’s their societal justification for marriage? Perhaps we should tell them they cannot get married? At any rate, my sex life is no business of the government, nor is my choice of partner. If they want kids, they’ve already got loads more than can be cared for already. For the record, it is the straight conservatives who seem to be so interested in what goes on in my bedroom – you and clayton can’t let it go. So, you keep being a busybody, and I’ll keep fighting for equal rights.
Widener Law School in Delaware was founded in the 1970s as a conservative alternative to the leftest bias of most of the other U.S. law schools. That did not last long.
To 34. Clayton E. Cramer
Thats not wholly true. The government has many many reasons for it to “manage” relationships. Control, “record keeping”, being able to overturn/rewrite laws to fit what they want them to say because they couldn’t get that law passed by vote in they’re houses/senates.
Same sex “marriage” is a great way to handle many “problems” that would be very hard to deal with under the current system of government where were suppose to have checks and balances. By being able to basically rewritten any law for any select group of ppl because they are some how “being oppressed” gives the courts the ability to write whole volumes of new laws changing and shaping society as they see fit. All they need to do now to pass a “proper” law is to have some person who claims to be oppressed and then sue, the court can simply rewrite or create a new law to “stop the oppression”.
This is exactly the same tactic used by hitler and other leftwingers to quietly and quickly label the jews or any other problem group to the leftwing cause as evil and law breakers and give the “state” an excuse to imprison them.
The same sex marriage debate is a frame work and test platform for a system of lawsuits which would hit every state and the federal government in which leftwingers can create any number of new laws, programs, entitlements and force other groups to obey them and pay for them or be thrown in jail.
The leftwing goal is to create a strong central government that controls every aspect of your life. Part of that process is to destroy any “competing” idea systems… by forcing schools and religions to teach “different” life styles as accepted and anyone who doesn’t agree with those life styles as a evil racist/bigot/hate-monger you can quickly create a mob that is easy to control and easy to use against your competing ideas. Its text book propaganda style from hitler and others as they label anyone who doesn’t support they’re “noble and righteous” goals as being sub-human thus making it ok for the mob to attack them and punish them for they’re racism/bigotry/hate.
We already saw how the media gave out right approval to the way the anti-prop 8 mobs attacked the pro-prop 8 supporters… those attacks were no different from the way the germans attacked the jews in the 30s and the way the KKK and other groups attacked the blacks post civil war.
To 38. Texas Tom
Thats what its all about… if the kali judges had followed the rule of law and really believe that gay marriage is a “right”. Instead of rewriting marriage laws they would have revoked the current marriage laws and demanded the house/senate of the state write new ones.
But if they did something like that they knew
1. The chance of new marriage laws being passed to include gays was near zero.
2. By defacto that meant that no marriage laws would be passed… which meant that a huge section of the government control, social engineering, jobs and government “regulation”(also lawyers… without marriage laws you’d have millions of lawyers out of jobs) would disappear…
No leftwinger ever wants to see the size of government reduced. So instead of revoking marriage laws which they knew would be that government size and control would be reduced… they choose instead to rewrite the law how they as leftwing elites deemed it should have been written.
In the end the whole movement is a shame and the ppl in it are the very same ppl that caused the problems in the first places…. Leftwingers never reduce the size of government even when clearly the government is the problem… they simply throw more government at the problem.
MediaCurves.com just conducted a study with 851 viewers of an ad by Truth and Hope supporting gay marriages. The results showed that Democrats and Independents reported ‘happiness’ and ‘inspiration’ as the emotions they felt most during the ad while Republicans reported ‘disturbed’ and ‘happiness’ as the emotions they felt most while viewing the ad. The study also found that 83% of Democrats, 77% of Independents, and 58% of Republicans indicated that the ad was effective. For more in-depth results, please visit http://www.mediacurves.com/Culture/J7517-Truth-and-Hope/Index.cfm
Thanks,
Ben
40. bdaniel:
“Scott – Whatever – go tell that all the straight folks who don’t have and don’t want kids. What’s their societal justification for marriage? Perhaps we should tell them they cannot get married?”
I already addressed this since I knew you’d bring it up. Its a shaky defense at best and easily rebutted.
“At any rate, my sex life is no business of the government, nor is my choice of partner. If they want kids, they’ve already got loads more than can be cared for already. For the record, it is the straight conservatives who seem to be so interested in what goes on in my bedroom – you and clayton can’t let it go. So, you keep being a busybody, and I’ll keep fighting for equal rights.”
I agree that how consenting adults choose to practice their sexuality in private is not the business of government, never said it was. Your arguments just don’t make sense. If you remove sexual preference from the equation completely then your “rights” and protection under the law are no different than mine, thus your fight for “equal rights” makes no sense if separated from your sexuality. In fact your rights are no different than any other “single” individual in your state.
What your and most “homosexual rights” activists problem seems to be is one of validation rather than equality under the law. I’m sorry but you cannot legislate social validation. Civil unions and other contracts provide the same legal coverage and rights as does the marriage contract. In fact you’re merely giving the lawyers an expanded client base for income from divorce, have fun with that one.
Pass the Fair Tax and the argument about tax brackets and inheritance becomes moot. As for abortion, Christians will always oppose abortion, regardless of the victim.
And yet, you’re fine with the President calling out his union thugs to attack people.
Thanks for the laugh. Absolutely no one but the inbred idiots that believe the things they read here believes that. No. One. Even your ambulance chasing “victim” disappeared off the map after his embarrassing performance with his rental wheelchair and neck brace. Keep it up, you only hurt yourselves with this crap.
@30 : ditto…
@45: How do you reconcile the following:
If you remove sexual preference from the equation completely then your “rights” and protection under the law are no different than mine.
A man and a woman have the right to marry under the law. A man and another man do not. Marriage isn’t an individual right, it is a right given to 2 individuals.
I say get the government out of deciding what is and is not a marriage. Create a civil union, giving the same privileges marriage has under current law, to any consenting, competent adults.
I know gay couples that have been together longer then some hetero couples have married. In fact, I know 1 guy who’s been married 3 times in 15 years. And I know of at least 1 gay couple who’ve been together for 20 years. That’s the kind of commitment and stability that society needs, not the former example.
#35 Free Quark:
“Child custody and support cases occur in non-married relationships as well.
Marriage and children aren’t correlated anymore.”
And THAT is where we went horribly wrong.
“We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and
between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend
any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends.”-Orwell, “Nineteen Eighty-Four”
Keith_Indy
All rights are individual rights, just as the right to enter into a contract is an individual right, not a dual one. You don’t know what you’re talking about. The reality of what you’re describing is equivalent to a court ruling that black people can attend certain church services, but can be banned from others simply because of their race.
Hmm… Moho’s talking to people who haven’t commented. Voices in your head? Careful what they tell you to do. You may be sorry.
Richard’s the only one who got it right. Get the government out of marriage, completely. Period.
The time has come to call what is right wrong, and what is wrong right.
A sick world wanting to be as G-d. To find G-d within themselves. It is the oldest lie on record.
That’s incredible how the libs can sell this “equal rights” ideas to the homosexual communities. There is NOT A SINGLE LEFTY COUNTRY that allows gay marriages. More than that. I have never heard of one where the homosexuality itself wouldn’t be a crime. People go to jail simply for MAKING LOVE being two guys, from Cuba to North Korea. Who would speak about MARRIAGES there? But the Left in the West says: dear gays, we’re on your side, the bad conservatives want to bind you to a horse (… etc. … all the ugly stuff from the Brokeback Mountain), vote for us and we’ll give you equal rights. Yeah, right.
Dear gays, just ask your friends from Cuba what Comandante Che Guevarra really did to the people like you! Or ask your friends from the former Soviet Uninon about their experiences! Ask ANY run-away-gay from a socialist / communist country and he’ll tell you the same story: THE LEFT HATES GAY PEOPLE.
They use gay people to fight religion. But when religion is INSTITUTIONALLY finished, gays will be the next to be thrown under the bus. Because “gay” means “different” and “socialism” means “all people are the same”. The more diffrent you are, the more dangerous you are for the socialist state of total equality. So, good luck with the “post-gender-ous” lefties in charge…
Child custody and support cases occur in non-married relationships as well.
Marriage and children aren’t correlated anymore.
They aren’t perfectly correlated, but they are still correlated; most children come from married couples. And the government used to encourage this correlation, not only for moral reasons, but also because it simplifies holding men accountable for their obligations to their children.
Scott – Whatever – go tell that all the straight folks who don’t have and don’t want kids. What’s their societal justification for marriage? Perhaps we should tell them they cannot get married?
And increasingly, large numbers of straight people don’t bother to get married, sometimes not even bothering to do so when having kids. It seems to be important to homosexuals precisely because they are looking for governmental stamp of approval on their relationship. Few other people think governmental authorization much matters. It certainly doesn’t matter any to me.
At any rate, my sex life is no business of the government, nor is my choice of partner.
So why do you want the government’s approval of your choice?
If they want kids, they’ve already got loads more than can be cared for already.
“They”? Who’s this “they” you are talking about? My wife and I have two kids. Most couples we know have two or three kids. That’s not too many to care for. Are you going to call me a “breeder” next?
For the record, it is the straight conservatives who seem to be so interested in what goes on in my bedroom – you and clayton can’t let it go. So, you keep being a busybody, and I’ll keep fighting for equal rights.
I’m not the one defending having the government order businesses around. You are. Some conservative.
I know gay couples that have been together longer then some hetero couples have married. In fact, I know 1 guy who’s been married 3 times in 15 years. And I know of at least 1 gay couple who’ve been together for 20 years. That’s the kind of commitment and stability that society needs, not the former example.
Hmmmm. Those unstable hetero couples you know had marriage available to them. The stable gay couples didn’t have marriage available to them. So much for the claim that marriage will stabilize gay relationships!
Hey, why not. That way I will know that is a place with owners that think sanely. Or better yet post a sign on the ones that support it. That would make it easier to bypass stupid thinking. Gay marriage? What an absurd idea. Can they have kids without a test tube? They already have as many or more rights in most states than my wife and I do. They don’t commit a hate crime if they disagree with us do they? How utterly ridiculous our society has gotten.
moho @ 50: So marriage “a contract right” is restricted between two adults of opposite sex.
The reality of what you’re describing is equivalent to a court ruling that black people can attend certain church services, but can be banned from others simply because of their race.
How so??
What I am describing is equality under the law, the only thing that government today should deal with.
Government is in no position to dictate morals.
Clayton: I also know a couple (M/F) that have been together for over 25 years.
Marriage under the law, marriage under God, and the bonding of two peoples hearts, are all separate issues. I saw call the first a civil union, and let the government keep their hands out of the rest. They have no business there.
Clayton–great article and discussion. I think you have it exactly right. Society has an interest in supporting children. That is the purpose of marriage. It is not about the couple, it is about their kids.
Yes, you’re going to drag out the elderly who get married and the people who cannot or decide not to have children but despite them not producing children they are well within the norm for marriage.
The formal term is “free rider.” People who get married but can’t, or won’t have children are getting benefits primarily intended for those who have children. If the costs to the society of the free riders were terribly high, there might be a case for restricting free riders from getting governmental acknowledgment of their marriage. But I rather doubt that the governmental costs of free riders is terribly high.
Of course, how would the government determine who the free riders? Require everyone who applied for a marriage license to demonstrate that they were fertile, and sign a contract to have kids? This reminds of some of the royal marriages of the Renaissance period, where to demonstrate that the royal wife and the royal husband were fulfilling their diplomatic duties, witnesses (often priests) would put their hands under the covers to verify… task completion. Talk about the world’s least satisfying honeymoon!
If this ever passed it would backfire on them, because me and a majority of the population would go to the store that states it is for Heteros only.
This is such a modest proposal that only unreasonable folks would oppose.
Until endorsing and participating in same sex unions is mandatory, these wedding suppliers who will only serve marriages of diverse sex (the institution formerly called “marriage”)
should be happy to post a large sign reading:
Just
Uniting the
Diverse
Externally,
Now.
J.U.D.E.N., for short.
If those who want marriage between members of the same sex to be accepted then shouldn’t marriage between members of the same family also be accepted?
“Er, isn’t this exactly the sort of anti-religious discrimination they keep assuring us WON’T happen if gay marriage is legalized?
ren’t we constantly being told that, “Oh, no, no, no, you’re just being paranoid! There won’t be any persecution, or discrimination, against those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds. You won’t be forced to “out” yourself, or face criticism, or legal sanctions, for your stand, or be pressured to give in, and go along! No siree! Nosirrreeeee! NorsirrrreeeBob!”
Yah. Right.”
IMHO comment of the day.
If those who want marriage between members of the same sex to be accepted then shouldn’t marriage between members of the same family also be accepted?
A couple of years back, some law professor was testifying before the New Zealand Parliament in favor of repealing the incest laws. And the ACLU has stated that they are planning to sue at some point to protect the Constitutional right to polygamy.
Clayton: I also know a couple (M/F) that have been together for over 25 years.
My wife and I will be celebrating our 30th anniversary next March. We know other couples that are happily married for similar lengths of time. But I confess, when we lived in California, we felt like the last two trees in a forest full of stumps.
To 64. Aaron
Yes along with being able to contract more then 2 ppl in the social contract…. the simple fact is its amounts to gays trying to changes the rules to let them in the “club” but at the same time prevent muslims(which out number them by 1000 to 1) and other groups from getting they’re “special contracts”.
Which is why the whole thing has nothing to due with equal rights.
The whole movement is if compared to the civil rights movement would read like this.
We blacks demand the right to marry whites and have whites marry blacks… but we also demand that neither whites nor blacks be allowed to marry asians, hispanics or arabs because they are dirty and evil and were special and it should be ok for us to marry whites but not ok for asians, hispanics or arbs to marry whites…
That is basically the direct translation of what the gay marriage movement wants if taken from the civil rights movement.
Keith_Indy–How so? Because partial rights are no rights at all. Equal protection under the law means just what it says it does. If a state is unwilling to grant such protections, the federal government has a right and duty to step in to protect the citizens of the republic. As it did do to varying effect in the mid 19th century, and mid 20th…
If those who want marriage between members of the same sex to be accepted then shouldn’t marriage between members of the same family also be accepted?
Aaron. I wouldn’t oppose such a thing. I think your parents had every right to marry.
I’m a gay conservative as well… Aaron, your comment is uncalled for. What does loving another man vs a relative have in common? Grow up, people like you are the reason why so many gay people strive for equality… because many people think of gay people as inferior.
I liked the idea of advertising homosexual friendly places. Singling out those who don’t support isn’t right as in the American way even though the act of opposing is wrong in my opinion.
For the gay marriage issue… if two humans love each other, why is it good for it to be opposite sex, but wrong for same sex? Because of kids? Gay couples should be able to raise kids. Would you rather have a kid raised in foster care, or with 2 loving parents?
Only leatherneck had the cojones to respond to my posting. It just goes to show how little room is accorded to C.S. Lewis, and how much room is handed over to Antonio Gramsci.
There is such a thing as objective reality communicated via ethics. Anything else is simply items of the timeless universal norm, wrenched out of the norm.
What is at stake is simply this: objective truths are more than sentimentality.
One other thing, those who say that no one, or nothing has the right to tell people how to live,
they are guilty of implicitly communicating how
to live.
I have no real problems with Gays of either sex but I wish they would get over their all consuming jealousy of heterosexuals. Marriage is for heterosexuals to commit to each other and bond to provide a secure family environment to raise children. Gays and Lesbians are incapable of producing children NATURALLY and should not be allowed to artificially inseminate nor adopt children as children are complete alien to their lifestyle. By all means allow Gays and Lesbians to have a civil union and therefore equality of taxation. But Gays and Lesbians give up on the jealousy of heterosexuals and live your own lives and stop whining.
Camile Paglia sums it up as ‘the problem with gay activists is they have forgotten the primary function of the sex organs is for procreation’
That said; almost 50 years have past since gay came out of the closet and the result has been the creation of the most exclusive identity group in America, GLBT. I’m a former Liberal FH in NYC who for the last twenty years played the fool, all that time gay never let anyone not-gay get past their exclusive club’s door. So gay should stop whining oppression when gay operates from an exclusive and protect position.
Let’s talk discrimination, like walking into LIPS only to find The Mens Room or The Other Room; no where is offered a place for the female. How about going into nightclubs, I got fed up with with being told that my self could not come in BUT my gay friend could.
Just as government has no right to intrude upon what gay does in the bedroom, gay has no right to intrude upon the meaning of marriage.
It is not discrimination to defend the meaning of ‘union between a man and a woman’
And by that same logic, no form of government segregation is wrong.
Ice Cream anyone? We have some Ben and Jerry’s Hubby Hubby ice cream and some Ben and Jerry’s Wifey Wifey ice cream and then we have the bland boring same old same old yada yada yada since the beginning of time
Yawn…Hubby Wifey…
I like to try different combinations. It’s fun. The possibilities are endless! One scoop or two.
Well, if civil unions are NOT MARRIAGE then you should be allowed to have unions with whomever you choose, such as your relatives.
You can have a union with your child or sibling and thus avoid estate taxes and such.
This could get very interesting …
Clayton;
The formal term is “free rider.” People who get married but can’t, or won’t have children are getting benefits primarily intended for those who have children
The government should be treating everyone equally. No special benefits accorded to certain lifestyles. Are we equal before our government or are we not?
Polygamy has been around just as long as monogamy. It would be accurate to say that the polygamists have a stronger case than the gay folks.
Let’s just get the government out of marriage. The Founding Fathers got married without a marriage license. Modern Americans can do the same.
Gay marriage rights is an absurd notion trying to protect a biological aberration – yet, relentless left-wing campaigning and conservative negligence allowed this absurdity bloom into what nowday is an authentic cancer threatening the tissue of this society.
That the same-sex marriage notion is an aberration is not difficult to prove – all evolutionary biology’s tenets and proven unfolding show beyond doubt that homosexuality is a biological (self)destructive “cul-de-sac”, species that acquire and cozy it (homosexuality) dissipating.
Yet this simple and correct line of reasoning which places homosexuality under science’s lens is studiously avoided, and conservatives and all who attempt to preserve society’s normalcy and its prospects have been outmanoevred and attracted in unwarranted and obfuscating discussions about “religion & homosexuality” or “justice & homosexuality”, both domains domains which are vague and subjective par excellence – while biology is not.
Homosexuality as an evolutionary biology aberration is the right categorization under which any discussion regarding this “rights” thing should occur – and this is the line on which the left’s attempts at atomizing further this society should be-counter-attacked.
Misanthopicus:
Aren’t people who don’t want to have children also an evolutionary aberration? A cancer threatening this society?
Are the conservatives also negligent in not demanding that everyone have children?
The government should be treating everyone equally. No special benefits accorded to certain lifestyles. Are we equal before our government or are we not?
There are multiple areas where the government treats certain lifestyles differently than others. Members of the rape lifestyle get treated special. Ditto for the drug addict lifestyle. Ditto for the zoophilia lifestyle (in most states). Take a look at equal protection law, and you will discover that “equal protection” doesn’t mean quite what you think it does.
Polygamy has been around just as long as monogamy. It would be accurate to say that the polygamists have a stronger case than the gay folks.
Indeed, polygamy does have a stronger case than the gay folks. Even incestuous marriage has more of a tradition to it (Hawaiian royal family, Egyptian royal family) than gay marriage. But most gay activists get all indignant when you ask, “So, why are those illegal but gay marriage is constitutionally protected?”
Aren’t people who don’t want to have children also an evolutionary aberration? A cancer threatening this society?
Are the conservatives also negligent in not demanding that everyone have children?
I cringe at the sort of parents that someone forced to have children would be. “Every child wanted.”
all evolutionary biology’s tenets and proven unfolding show beyond doubt that homosexuality is a biological (self)destructive “cul-de-sac”, species that acquire and cozy it (homosexuality) dissipating.
Maybe, but no means certain. There could be advantages that are linked to a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality. For example, schizophrenia appears to survive in the gene pool, even though it is a definite disadvantage for reproduction, because female siblings of schizophrenics tend to have higher numbers of children than the general population. In addition, the recent article in Nature shows that the approximately 10,000 to 15,000 individual mutations associated with schizophrenia are also associated with bipolar disorder–which in its milder expressions, is a definitely genetic advantage.
I don’t necessarily agree that homosexuality predisposition is genetic–but it is possible that there could be a genetic predisposition that survives, nonetheless.
Gay couples should be able to raise kids. Would you rather have a kid raised in foster care, or with 2 loving parents?
I’m hard pressed to see how gay marriage is required to provide a stable home for an adopted kid.
scott and cramer – maybe you guys don’t realize it, but the republicans actually need more votes for your opinions to count. keep up the petty bickering about other peoples rights and (to quote scott) “see how that works out for you”. thanks for the enlightening chat, gentlemen.
scott and cramer – maybe you guys don’t realize it, but the republicans actually need more votes for your opinions to count. keep up the petty bickering about other peoples rights
How about the rights of other people to disagree with you about homosexuality? The proposals I reference above effectively demolish those rights.
When homosexuals start showing some willingness to allow disagreement, we can talk.
71. Mark:
“I’m a gay conservative as well… Aaron, your comment is uncalled for. What does loving another man vs a relative have in common? Grow up, people like you are the reason why so many gay people strive for equality… because many people think of gay people as inferior.”
Ummmm I think the only people who think homosexuals are “inferior” are perhaps homosexuals, see Perez Hilton for an example. Sure some people may think gays are strange or abnormal and are disgusted/repulsed by the idea of homosexual sex acts, but that doesn’t exactly denote “inferiority”. Homosexuals do not face the institutionalized “inferiority” that blacks faced from slavery to even today. Notice homosexuals haven’t made the Affirmative Action list.
“I liked the idea of advertising homosexual friendly places. Singling out those who don’t support isn’t right as in the American way even though the act of opposing is wrong in my opinion.”
See post #22.
“For the gay marriage issue… if two humans love each other, why is it good for it to be opposite sex, but wrong for same sex? Because of kids? Gay couples should be able to raise kids. Would you rather have a kid raised in foster care, or with 2 loving parents?”
If two people love each other why do they need to get married period? Two reasons. First, formal recognition by the community of their relationship and the legitimization of any resulting offspring. This here is what homosexuals really are after, the legitimization and validation of their relationships. Second, to provide a stable environment for the production of children. Granted this doesn’t always occur, but in essence the man agrees to provide for the woman and her children and the woman agrees to bear and raise his children.
Sexual fidelity is important to both ends of said relationship and is where the idea of monogamy comes from. Even in polygamy the man is not supposed to have sex outside of his marriages. Why? Because he may father children that will take away from his ability to provide for his wife and her children. Just as the remarried men out there with child support payments if you don’t get what I’m talking about. The woman basically agrees that she will bear only the man’s children as a man generally doesn’t want to support another man’s child. Yes, some men will take in another man’s child especially in the case where the father/husband is dead, but men are generally less inclined to enter into lasting relationships with women with kids. The older the male is the more likely they are to accept children that aren’t theirs, especially today where divorce is common.
Clayton;
There are multiple areas where the government treats certain lifestyles differently than others. Members of the rape lifestyle get treated special. Ditto for the drug addict lifestyle
You (and the government) need to distinguish between lifestyles that are harmful and those that are not. The unmarried lifestyle is not harmful.
You (and the government) need to distinguish between lifestyles that are harmful and those that are not. The unmarried lifestyle is not harmful.
Neither is refusing to photograph a same-sex civil commitment ceremony. And yet gay activists insist that it needs to be punished.
Against Gay Marriage?
Don’t have one.
Peace.
DS
One flavor of ice cream that Ben and Jerry’s is mulling over is one that will cover everyone. A. and B.
And the beauty of it is, that with so many available letters to add to that flavor the possibilities are endless.
Can I marry myself? I mean I sometimes I feel like two people, conflicted. Sometimes one part of me will say, go ahead, do it, while the other part says, no, don’t do it. I love myself though, well sometimes. I just can’t imagine going through my life without myself.
Anyway, I want to marry myself so I can raise children with myself. What’s wrong with that?
I can just sign the A. and B. part or just B. I think anyone who loves should be able to marry. Even three people like me, myself, and I. Yeah.
My theme song at the wedding will be “Dancing with myself”.
Against Gay Marriage?
Don’t have one.
It’s unfortunate that homosexuals aren’t prepared to allow those who disapprove to do so.
Let’s play the liberal pretends to be tolerant game like this:
Against pollution? Don’t do it.
Against handguns? Don’t own one.
Against racial discrimination? Don’t do it.
#29. You said that as if it was a bad thing.
When I see ads like Ben #44 links to, after thinking about it, my eyes turn to the children and I wonder; Where is the mother or where are the mothers? It is as if they are in the background somewhere a ghostly presence, in the next room perhaps waiting to be called to join the happy group. Or perhaps not so welcome only a necessary ingredient to be mixed into the final product.
Sorry but you just can’t get rid of us by pretending we had no part in the creation of that child. Maybe someday if science allows (and they are certainly trying) there will be an exchange of dna allowing two men or two women to insert their biological parts and pass them on to a new life, but until then, men need that pesky female human egg and women need that persistent male human sperm to bring children into the world.
I will say the ad was very clever, but I think skepticism was prominent across the board and it was interesting that ‘feeling’ was not mentioned in the comment.
Very clever ad.
Maybe someone knew what they were doing when they made the human egg so hard to get at. These experiments often have unfortunate side effects causing many failures to be dealt with before success is achieved. I wonder how far we will go before we go too far.
@91. Clayton E. Cramer:
Your reply is pure nonsense. Pollution is harmful to health, guns are deadly, and racial discrimination is harmful to minorities.
Gay marriage is not harmful to anyone. What planet do you live on?
I’m tolerant of things that don’t impact me – like your choice of spouse. Pollution and racial discrimination cause me harm. You can have your religion so long as you can keep it to yourself. Gay marriage is a civil rights issue, and the outcome is only a matter of time. Demographics will win.
Peace.
DS
‘Pollution is harmful to health’
Be more specific.
‘Racial discrimination is harmful to minorities’
Racial discrimination is harmful to ALL. i.e. white New Haven firefighter. Being trilingual or more though not Spanish?
EOE and AA is a form of discrimination. Why do you think Obama won’t release his college transcripts? i.e. white New Haven firefighter.
‘Guns are deadly’
Actually, hospital wrongful death suits, car accidents, STD’s are FAR more deadly than the rounds of bullets fired nationally.
‘Gay marriage is a civil rights issue’
Really? Apparently the majority of ‘minorities’ in California didn’t get the memo this past November regarding Prop 8.
‘Demographics will win’
No, your constant bickering of ‘unequal rights’ will strong arm people to do yours and other like minded people’s silly bidding.
Gay marriage is not harmful to anyone. What planet do you live on?
Refusing to photograph a same-sex civil union ceremony isn’t harmful to anyone, either, yet gay activists insist that the government needs to punish those who won’t do so.
You can have your religion so long as you can keep it to yourself.
In short, you are telling me what I believe and think in private is fine as long as no one else knows about it. If only gay people would operate on the same model of privacy.
My point was not that pollution isn’t harmful, but that liberals do this stupid little stunt where they pretend that as long as something is done by consenting adults, it’s none of the government’s business, until it offends gay people, then it is the government’s business.