Gay rights: another reason I’m Obama’s worst fan
Somehow or other I wind up on the opposite side of every argument with Barack Obama (Iran, Honduras, healthcare, the economy, you name it) – and that includes gay rights, where I am in agreement with left/liberal gay bloggers like John Avarosis and conservative gay bloggers like Dan Blatt that the President has been pretty much all talk and no action. (So what else is new?) Furthermore, Obama has been considerably weaker on the same-sex marriage issue than the supposedly-reviled Dick Cheney.
Therefore, as one of those on the right (or sort of on the right – you know I don’t care for such distinctions) who supports gay marriage, I was pleased to invite those two gentlemen on PJTV yesterday to discuss the recent blogosphere brouhaha that stemmed from some Obama minion dissing left-bloggers who criticized the President’s views and actions on the issue as (once again!) “pajama-clad.”
Are they trying to give us publicity? Never mind. I thought both John and Dan were extremely good on the show and we would welcome them back to continue the discussion any time.
Meanwhile, it gave me the opportunity to float a personal “hobby-horse.” I think marriage should be taken entirely out of the hands of the government. The state should only do civil unions with all consenting adult couples treated equally before the law irrespective of sexual orientation. Furthermore, as Avarosis pointed out, under current legislation, married couples have a number of preferences over those with civil unions. That should end. (It should end now anyway.)
Then non-governmental organizations – churches, synagogues, mosques, other groups – could determine which couples they would like to “marry” of whatever sexual preference. Marriage is, after all, an emotional/spiritual bonding between two people, usually accompanied by a celebration of family and friends. Why do we need the government for that? Indeed, as an adamant backer of the separation of church and state, I would like the state to keep its manipulative and self-interested mitts out of it.
Of course, as Blatt quickly reminded me, this is about as likely to happen as Kobe Bryant is to marry Shaquille O’Neal. (No, he didn’t use that analogy. But you get the point.)
Once again, you can check out Dan and John here.
Maybe Gov’t should not be involved with marriage but I can’t think of another mechanism that inlvolves society so thoroughly in the process. And society is at the heart of the matter. Marriage is a contract between the bride and groom and the rest of society. It is a right granted to the bride and groom that they perpetuate society and its good aims. That they be worthy to bring children into society and raise them to high moral standards and upholding of the good. Marriage is a right conferred by society for the good of society. It is not just about the love of one to another. Thanks, Lee Kleypas, Houston
I like what you said about the issues of gay marriage and of the separation of church/state.
I don’t agree with you on Obama’s handling of this topic. He cannot take on this fight right now. This will just stoke up another firestorm of criticism. My proof will be the very faint support for your post that you will get for your position from your usual bloggers.
I think marriage should be taken entirely out of the hands of the government.
That’s the Ron Paul view. Though I think he’s mostly concerned about the federal government’s involvement.
Ron Paul: The federal government has no authority to promote or discourage any particular social arrangements; instead the Founders recognized that people should live their lives largely free of federal interference. This is not to say that the Founders intended or imagined a libertine America. On the contrary, they envisioned an America with vibrant religious, family, social, and civic institutions that would shape a moral nation. They understood that strong private institutions, so important in a free and just society, could not coexist with a strong, centralized government.
Yeah, let’s give Obama a pass on this issue, cause he’s pretty busy with that language course in Danish phrasing.
Gay marriage rights is an important issue to many American citizens and Obama doesn’t get a pass on it because he can’t take the criticism. When is that man going to tie a pair on and actually be a leader and govern in all areas of citizen concern, and not just the ones that curry favor with campaign contributors? Oh wait. He DID get quite a bit of support, financially and otherwise, from the gay community – they mistakenly thought he’d actually deal with the issue. But much like the Iranians seeking support from Obama, gay marriage activists are ignored.
I completely agree the government should only be in civil union, not marriages.
Does this make 0bama consistent, or inconsistent with his campaign ‘rhetoric’, such as it
is, was?.
The constitution does not guarantee, nor forbid access to a medical abortion. So what is not delegated to the fed gov is relagated to the states, but that did not stop 0bama from intruding and mandating federal funding for this procedure, And that of course ties in with his “removing the shackles” from (non-adult) embryonic stem cell research and federal funding for that as well, which depends on fertilized fetus’s to serve as petry dish for this mad science.
Tell me that pagan religious practice is not at work here? Go on, I dare you.
As to Thomas Jefferson’s letter, where he talked about the “separation of church from state”: what he was specifically warning against was the intusion of the State [e.g. government] into the affairs of religious practice.
The government of the United States is (supposed to be) as free to include the ideals and values of Judeo/Christain values wherever applicable (and now restricted and under assault, I might add) as it is to accept the quasi-pagan, sociaistic, marxist, satanic, Robin Hood religion-of-the-State/State religion that these loony leftists practice is.
What’s next? Infant sacrifice? Oh, we already got that…
It’s called Roe v Wade.
And there is not only an app for that, there is a czar for that.
The Ten Commandments tells us what man is forbidden to do, that is their purview, their prerogative.
The Constitution of the United States, in its (10) Bill of Rights does not concern itself with what man is forbidden to do but with WHAT GOVERNMENT IS FORBIDDEN TO DO!!
“Congress shall make NO Law…”, “respecting an establishment of religion [establishing a state religion; (intrusion by the government), IOW] nor prohibiting the freedom of speech, nor of a free press; nor the right of people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
That’s what the left is counting on, whether it comes from any ‘issue’ you care to mention: gay rights, health care, cap and trade, etc, and the list goes on and on.
You know what? I just wish we’d all quit bickering and submit to our new gay and lesbian overlords…
We already have a NAMBLA Czar, and a bi-sexual and transgendered cuppula ,in the White House, so why not just shoot the works, ok?
So don’t petition me or government for special rights just cause you’re so gosh darned special: and see George Orwell’s Animal Farm if you don’t yet know what I’m driving at so gosh darned importantly.
Gay rights. sheesh! How about we do our level best to insure individual human rights and devote ourselves to making that a reality as far as is possible on this landmass, in this country; women and girls are murdered in “honor killings” in this very hemisphere, and nary a word from any of the so-called ‘victims rights groups’. Not a One.
You must go to Phyllis Chesler’s PJM blog to see just how solitary, and non-’victims rights group’ her exhaustive work is on the behalf of women who have but scant few advocates working on behalf of their right TO STAY ALIVE, in the face of lethal Islamic ritual murder, in this country, Iran, and elsewhere where this ritualized killing is permitted, and where, as in this country, it is currently being tolerated, aided and abetted!!
And yes, tolerated, aided, and abetted by lawyers, judges, and politicians, and in our own executive foreign policy.
You open up one door, and just look at the rats and killers who come charging in.
No wonder 0bama pines for Izz-slum: it gives him his hope of a fantasy of how to deal with that fire-breathing partner-in-crime spouse of his.
Makes a lot of sense now, doesn’t it?
And another thing:
If you are talking mosques, they want; they are going to want- polygamy, and child marriage.
And that means changing state law(s), or a supreme court smack down of that which is [otherwise] “relegated to the states”.
Problem.
Marriage is completely about a male, a female, children, and the survival of a society. Homosexuals wanting to be “married” is all about leaching off some of the status that societies grant to those who invest in marriage AND having children, raising those children, whatever comes along.
There are no “GAY rights,” only individual, citizen rights. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is the most effective and humane way to handle the situation.
What is it about ex-Hollywood-liberals, that they seldom paid their crass dues, yet expect their delicate smorgasbord selections should be honored.
If you expect to be taken care of in your old age, you better support the one institution that will produce youngsters who give a damn about old folks, because they have their own old folks.
I agree strongly with what you expressed on your PJTV piece: government should be in the civil-union business, not the marriage business.
However, the consecration of civil unions — that is, marriage — can take place in churches, and marriage, for some, can retain its higher state.
There is also a broader concept that should be considered: household unions. I had an aunt and uncle who lived decades together through old age, almost certainly without any sexual connectons. There is no reason, however, that those two couldn’t have formed a household union, to provide the rights that are afforded now to married people, because they faced the same health, financial, inheretance and such needs as a married couple.
Household unions would provide rights to male/male, female/female and male/female relationships with or without sexual unions.
Ozyripus is absolutely right.
Just because gays desire to be married, and to have and raise children, makes it neither a right nor a proper social policy.
Reinventing the fundamentals of society is how the ’60s movement has caused so much damage that we see today. This is just one more reinvention, of a social norm that (in spite of what gay marriage proponents say) is thousands of years old, and is a norm across almost all of human society (although polygamy is common in a few backwards societies like Saudi Arabia).
The arguments for gay marriage apply equally well to polygamy and polyandry. Are you for those also?
As for civil vs church marriages, these are already effectively separate. The state does not require or care about the religious status of a marriage.
Churches don’t care about the civil status of marriage (except where the lack of which it might get them in trouble or otherwise signify problems).
I, for one, am really tired of the social experiments that have been screwing up our society for decades.
Like you, I was a believer in changing everything – back in the ’60s. No longer – I’ve seen the consequences and come to respect the wisdom of the ages.
So government will no longer support, legitimize or safeguard the institution of marriage between men and women.
But it will continue to run lotteries and off-track betting parlors.
I don’t think the libertarian view– which you express– is consistent with maintaining a civilization. Marriage & family: that’s the original human society, on which any society that has gone beyond the hunter-gatherer stage is based. Religion is invoked to bless, sacntion, support the institution of marriage, but certainly did not create it.
“Marriage is, after all, an emotional/spiritual bonding between two people, usually accompanied by a celebration of family and friends.” Is that really all it is? That’s a very impoverished view of the matter.
Marriage is for the children not for the adults. If you think it is merely about consenting adults, then there is no reason to prevent marriage or unions between relatives. If you do not think the state has an interest in supporting pro-creation, you are kidding yourself.
Roger,
You’ve made a wonderful point about getting the government out of the business of sanctioning marriages. However, I think the idea that civil unions should be limited to “couples” is an inappropriate vestige of the heterosexual marriage paradigm. If it is acceptable for two men to join together in marriage or civil union – something on which we both agree – why is it unacceptable for three men to join together in marriage or civil union? What you propose is a half-measure and on issues of personal liberty, half-measures are not okay.
Yours truly,
Neobuzz
I think, at some level, government has to stay in this business.
Let me be upfront: I am a hawk/conservative, and I believe that gays should be permitted to marry each other.
This is because we attach a whole raft of legal assumptions and priviledges to marriage, which would otherwise be unfairly denied them. That’s wrong.
The only other rational solutions would be to strip the legal functions from a marriage- and that’s wrong. Humans are Humans, not machines, we cannot take something deeply rooted within us- mating- and seperate out the social element from the legal element. Would we want to? Imagine a world where marriage has no legal significance whatsoever. How would married couples deal with the issue of communal property? Make them cooperative shareholders? This issue wracks couples divorcing, do we want to burden every pair of newlyweds with tracking what belongs to who, for their whole lives? (Or at least as long as the marriage lasts.) And, what is the basis for granting parents any responsibility or authority for children? If we seperate marriage from the mating instinct, what happens when a corporation legally creates a group marriage for its shareholders and starts adopting children?
The “Human design spec” seems to accept that the optimal standard functional socio-economic-reproductive unit is the mated pair. Like with Ducks or Penguins. There is nothing wrong with laws written supporting it, as long as no one gets shafted by it, being denied rights otherwise granted to others.
No one has been able to explain to me why marriage between different species should not be sanctioned by the state. Whose business it anyway except the parties involved? Perhaps if they’d had a piece of paper attesting to their union the tragedy of the chimp who tore off the face of its “owner’s” best friend would not have happened.
The Legislature passes laws, which are overturned by the courts. The voters pass ballot measures, which are overturned by the courts. “All is well !! “
“Marriage” is for the future of the civilization. The children of today are the civilization of the future — marriage is more about the children than:
“ after all, an emotional/spiritual bonding between two people, usually accompanied by a celebration of family and friends.”
For the purposes of continuing the culture and the civilization into the future, man-woman marriage, with children, without divorce, is the optimal. Property division and inheritance are one of the crucial inter-generational issues that marriage helps solve.
There are many solvent, married couples wanting to adopt healthy babies. Any such adopted babies can grow up in the illusion that the (possibly unknown adopted) parents who are responsible for them are also their bio-parents.
Children adopted by gays can not.
Children adopted by singles can not.
It is better for children to be adopted than to be orphaned in even the best institutions.
I am strongly against polygamy and gay couples adopting children. I agree that two lovers who care for each other should have a way of their care preferences taking precedence over some default parental or ward of the court.
Republicans should support a “civil union contract”. This would be a package of civil contracts which explicitly specify the rights and duties of the union-mate, and be a written notice of what those legal norms for marriage actually are. Most married folk don’t really know, and it’s not even easy to find out.
A couple of things:
Why do a lot of the posters here assume that if the gheys get the marriage, it will lead to the death of marriage for the straights? Would you all not have gotten married (for those of you who are married) just because Steve and Robert over there were the next in line? “Look! Homos getting married! That’s it, I’m out!”
And another point is this whole “married and children” thing going on. Do hetero married people have children? Sure a whole bunch of them do. Do some hetero married people not have children? Yep again! So what are we to do with those societal ingrates?! Imagine those two living in matrimonial bliss without progeny! Let’s run them out of town!
That is where we get to the government in marriage thing. The government should get out of the marriage business and just make sure that all people who enter into a contractual arrangement are treated equally. “All men are created equal” and all, right? If the churches and mosques want to add to that, fine, but they don’t get to add children or animals or whatever (which they could do now, if they really wanted, who’s to stop them if they don’t tell anyone?) because that argument is just stupid. No one who can’t give consent (cause they can’t talk or are too young) can’t get married or get paper from the government. Grow up.
And “no divorce”??! Shaaa, right. Again, this is the 21st century, not the 15th. Why should people be forced to stay together if they don’t want to? Are you people serious?