[If video doesn't play, go here.]
In case you haven’t noticed, the world is not a simple place.
I know – that’s not an astounding comment for an adult. And I certainly meant it with irony. But I think it’s worth repeating, as much for myself as for others. I think it’s also worth considering carefully for those who think of themselves as “liberals” or “progressives,” words that I believe have long outworn their usefulness. I’m not much for the word “conservative” either. These hoary terms are all in need of serious retrofitting, if not dismissal. As of now, they are not particularly useful in the perception of reality. Indeed, they tend to distort it.
Perhaps Virginia Postrel was closer to a clear perception when she more precisely categorized things in the book she brilliantly entitled The Future and Its Enemies. Some people are looking forwards and others backwards. Those who see themselves as orthodox believers in an ideology are most likely to be among those looking backwards. They are frozen in their ideas and their perception of reality. Those who throw off the shackles of ideology are looking forwards. I know. For many years, I was shackled in a very conventional leftist ideology out of Marcuse. Hard to imagine now, but I thought it was hip.
To be clear, even less am I an adherent of post-modern cultural relativism. I do believe there is truth and good and evil. But you have to look hard and not rely entirely on old ideas to find it (although old ideas are worth knowing and respecting).
This is a long way around to a discussion of gay marriage, something I have been in full support of since initiating this blog in 2003. It is also the subject that, when I write about it, often creates the greatest dissension from those who otherwise applaud what I am saying.
So it is with some gratification that I found tonight that the person in public life I have admired tremendously for some time is also a supporter of same-sex marriage – Laura Bush. She proclaimed that support in her characteristic well-mannered, low-keyed fashion on Larry King Live. (Okay, nobody’s perfect.) I even had the suspicion that her husband agreed with her, but for political considerations didn’t say so.
What does this mean? Traditionally a woman like Bush would oppose gay marriage, but she has stepped outside that “tradition,” seen the situation objectively and come to a different conclusion. I think it’s interesting that the supposedly liberal Barack Obama has not been able to reach this conclusion or to perform any action that would indicate that he had. Meanwhile, the supposedly antediluvian Dick Cheney has expressed his support for same-sex marriage.
Obama would support any steps to promote homosexuality no matter what garbage flows from his foul mouth. Ask Elena Kagan. I have doubts about Obama’s sexuality for that matter.
The Bushes, Cheyneys, Karl Roves, and Newt Gingriches are hpoefully part of our past. As a Tea Partier I will never support or vote for any of them. Laura Bush is a despicable Lefty.
The Republican Party is going to get a much needed enema.
Steve, with comments like yours, I certainly understand why you wish to remain anonymous.
It’s okay, Steve. You can come out now. Rev Haggard did.
It’s far easier for “anonymous” to spout vile/evil comments because they don’t have to own up to them. I’ve noticed that people are often more willing to post nasty things when they remain anonymous. That’s why I post my name…and website with any comments that I make. I’m “man enough” to own up to what I say and believe in.
I hope Obama calls a Congress of Sexualities so that each sexuality: homosexual, zoophile, pedophile, polyamorous may define and have enacted into law their own forms of marriage which all subjects will be required to recognize and support. We must have the wisdom and forward progress in thought to support the objective conditions of human sexuality.
I am for epansapation.
I don’t believe the folks on this site are aware of Mr. Obamas epansapation quote at his Hampton University speech.
I can’t help but feel some of your old smug, progressive hipness coming through — that with which you refer to your 1960s self in the article. That same smugness and hipness that brought about our current social grotesqueries.
When the towering majority of the public disagree with the over simplified concept of “same sex marriage”, you lightheartedly tamper with already teetering society by so faciley agreeing to usher such in.
You would do this despite many thousands of years of historical precedent, what we call WISDOM.
Perhaps many millions of years of historical precedent, when you examine lifetime mating practices of certain animals.
No, Roger. While I agree anyone should be able to contract social partnerships with anyone they want, for any non-injurious reason, and that they should get hospital visits, co-hab tax benefits, whatever grievance du jour that makes sense, I can never agree that anyone, including smug hipsters, can so whimsically destroy the definition of the root of all society that has existed for tens of millenia.
Perhaps you should look to the hospital’s visitor rules, not seek to change human history.
Shame!
Now, wait. You’re saying it’s okay with you if gay people can form domestic partnerships with exactly the same rights to hospital benefits, shared property rights, definition that your partner is next of kin, and so on — all the same rights before the law as a married heterosexual couple. That’s fine.
But call it marriage and you’re destroying the Fabric of Civilization?
Uh huh.
Okay, how about this: we establish a civil partnership law that does all the things a traditional marriage does, but it’s always, hetero- or homosexual, called “civil partnership”. If you want to be “married” you go to someone else who does the ceremony, gives you a nice certificate, performs whatever religious rites you think are necessary. You don’t have to call anything “marriage” you don’t like.
Does that work?
It’s certainly worthy of discussion (IMHO ). I don’t think the radical homosexuals would leave it at that. Do you believe that, once the law made homosexual and heterosexual unions equal in the secular legal system, that they would not DEMAND to be married in church? “Look, how can you deny us our “rights?” The state says it’s legal, how can the church discriminate against us?”
Oh come on. Its not like straight couples can force a priest to give them a church wedding.
Actually, I’m quite in favor of that. It solves a lot of 1st Amendment issues regarding marriage. Is it a right or a rite? Calling marriage a sacrament and leaving it up to churches or other houses of worship while leaving the civil issues under another definition at least shields religion from all this grievance crap. No clown could then sue a church for refusing to marry him and his sex doll.
This solution looks good to me, but no church or clergyman should be forced to perform such ceremony if it is against the tenets of his religion. For instance, I expect that an Episcopal priest would perform the cermony, but a Catholic one would not.
I am opposed to most of the “gay” political agenda, because most of it tries to achieve (1) official victim status for gays under the civil rights laws, and another victim group we do not need, and (2) proselytizing for not merely the normalizing, but the promoting of gayness as some trait or proclivity we should all applaud or even aspire to. That said, I too support gay marriage. Ironically, it was Andrew Sullivan, back in the days before his mind went (right after Bush’s denouncements of gay marriage, as a matter of fact) whose, I thought, well-reasoned (yes, he used to actually write well-reasoned things) arguments pursuaded me.
His principal argument was that gay marriage should be a conservative principle. Because marriage is supposed to promote commitment, maturity, depth of character and so on, and a prime objection to “gay culture” has been rampant promiscuity (at least among makes) and whatnot. I think that’s a good point. And he said, as have many others, if gay marriage is supposed to be a threat to hetero marriage, is it really the biggest threat? Bigger than rampant narcissism, the collapse of so many other social norms, porn addiction, and all the other factors, real or imagined, that are cited as contributory factors to the decline of marriage? I don’t see it.
If marriage is supposed to promote having children, I mean, do I have to even point out the obvious? What about the impotent? What about those who have been rendered sterile by surgery or illness or wounds? What about those who have no intention of having children? And on and on. It’s just an absurd argument.
And of course we have the legions of pious religionists who gravely insist homosexuality is an abomination, because it says so in the Bible. You know, right there next to where it says people who eat shellfish or sleep with women on their periods should be put to death, along with women who wear clothes made of certain fabrics. Of all those abominations, only homosexuality is somehow to be uniquely featured among the pious as the harbinger of the End Times. You silly, exegetically shallow hypocrites. Shame on you
I’m sorry, but all these arguments fail miserably. To those who claim the gay lobby is trying to destroy conventional marriage—I kind of agree with you. Most Left-aligned activist groups are trying to destroy our civilization and replace it with lord knows what. That’s why I oppose every other part of their political agenda, along with the out and out proselytizing for gayness that goes on widely in the popular culture (I’m happy you’re gay, now shut up about it, willya?) But I think gay marriage is actually a counterforce to the multitude of real abominations the gay lobby and other identity politics rascals are foisting upon us. There are just no good arguments against it left.
On social issues I am one of those people that some on this board would hate. I believe that homosexuality is a sin, along with divorce, gossip, abortion and a few other things. I also don’t think that the government can do much to stop any of these things. They can make them illegal, but it doesn’t stop any of them. In this one case I think Europe has it somewhat right. The government grants civil unions, the religious institutions grant marriages. The government grants a contract between two people and if they dissolve the contract or break it, the courts decide the property and guardianship of the minors involved. You want to get married you have two services; one at the courthouse, one at the church, synagogue or whatever. If it was good enough for Princess Grace in Monaco and Prince Charles in England….
Does that make me a libertarian? I hate labels.
Please step into reality. Legalizing something increases it. Duh. More access, cheaper, less risks, etc… Of course it increases ‘it’ whatever ‘it’ may be! Is that really not completely obvious?
Cohabitation, sex outside of marriage, and oral sex (it’s considered a form of sodomy, even between a married couple, and you can go to jail for it) are all illegal in a lot of states still. I remember getting handed a pamphlet during a health fair at university in the booths about sex and sexual health. It was by the state (maybe city…it was a while ago) police. It was mostly about date rape, reporting rape, protecting yourself (don’t get drunk with a stranger kind of protection), manning up and respecting the word ‘no’, and then had a list of relevant laws still on the books. Pretty much anything other than missonary for married couples was out. That hasn’t stopped all the fornication going on out there (and yes, I do participate).
With the acceptance of homosexuality in a lot of current society, even in a lot of “conservative” areas, a lot of stable couples are living together, I know several, and not a one of them is weird, trying to corrupt me/get in my pants, or have treated me with anything other than courtesy and respect. This also goes for the vast majority of single gays I know too- I’ve been hit on a couple of times, but a ‘no thanks, I’m straight’ is all it takes. Straight women should be so lucky.
@Lyn #46- I know far too many gays and lesbians who grew up in the south in small towns where it was closeted, derided and spoken against openly in community and church, and who came from stable, religious families for me to believe the trope about it being ‘learned’. Also, marriage for centuries has been about politics, money, land, and other things besides ‘god-blessed children’. Arranged marriages aren’t blessed by God, they are blessed by the family getting the dowery. And a 50% success rate sucks and blows at the same time. Really it does. You can’t blame that on homosexuality, you might blame it on crappy parenting, and a culture that gets into rapid and instant gratification and that doesn’t take to the thought of ‘success = the sum of hard work’. Oh, and pay attention more. Language is, and has always been, fluid. Words change their meaning with time, culture, and even just plain location. Marriage is no more a sacred ‘do not touch it’ word than any other. If it was, the practice wouldn’t vary so widely, have so many different expressions, and have so many different ideals (true love for ever, duty to the family, duty to the community, self-fullfilling happieness, blessed by god(s), blessed by the ancestors, blessed by the Justice of the Peace, Blessed by the Guy behind the counter with the certificate and the stamp, etc, etc).
The US Supreme Court struck down every law (mostly unenforced already) against “sodomy” i.e., homosexuality in the country as contrary to equal protection I think, and therefore unconstitutional. Heterosexual behavior in the bedroom was already protected, hence homosexuality has to be legal too. The US Constitution also protects property rights and freedom of contract which means gays can contract to marry or join themselves property wise any time they want — marriage being a species of partnership. Who stopped Sears and Roebuck from entering their partnership? So Gay Partnership, to be legally recognized is hardly illegal. So let’s not say gay marriage is illegal. Its fully legal already.
Roger, my only concern with gay marriage is the possibility, probability in the case of perverts like Andrew Sullivan, that churches would quickly be targeted by activists who would insist that they perform these marriages or lose their tax exemption. My son, a lawyer of course, dismisses my concern but I think it is a serious possibility. I wouldn’t mind a law that allowed gay marriage but exempted religious organizations, and other social groups like the Boy Scouts, from being forced to participate.
People are free to believe that homosexuality is a sin but could not be forced to participate. I fear this is the real agenda since gay marriage in Canada has been a bust as a social construct. The number of such marriages is infinitesimal. It’s a bit like wanting something until you have it. The basic drive behind this for the activists, not your son, is to force social acceptance of homosexuality on everyone, regardless of religious belief. They will not stop until it is held to be MORE moral than traditional marriage. Once again, I think that is the activist motivation, not the average gay couple who just want to be together.
I also think a lot of the drive behind this began with AIDS. There was a real concern about the promiscuity of gay life and marriage was seen as a way to avoid it. Unfortunately, in my medical practice, I have had to tell someone who told me that he had been in a committed relationship for ten years, that he had AIDS. That is heartbreaking. And it was not just one case.
There are two specific reasons that totalitarian progressives want “gay marriage” (an oxymoron in its own right). One is what Mike_K said, that churches will be targeted immediately and brutally. The other is that gubmint indoctrination centers (aka public schools) will be forced to acknowledge and preach-preach-preach homosexuality. It’s all about the kiddies’ minds.
I enjoyed the article, Roger, thanks for writing so well on such a potentially contentious subject.
I admire Laura Bush as well, and I admire the way she carries herself and expresses her opinions. (Larry King makes my skin crawl, but that’s the price of selling your book. )
As a Christian, I have to take the bible seriously, as did Jesus Christ. On the issue of killing unborn children, the bible is quite clear that this is murder. As an American-Christian , individual liberty is also supported by the bible. I don’t get a choice about what parts of the bible I must follow–it’s all or nothing.
So, if a woman wants to murder her unborn child, abort it, and she can find a doctor willing to do so, I personally have nothing to say about it. I’d try to convince her that there are other alternatives, but as a matter of public policy she is free to do as she wishes. BUT, as a matter of public policy, taking my tax money to pay for another woman’s abortion is wrong, and something I cannot allow. (Someday let’s discuss the issue of “if the mother’s life is in danger” idea. I’m still wrestling with that as I write this.)
Homosexual marriage is, biblically, an oxymoron. There is no such thing. Marriage is a biblical concept. I am called by the bible to be legally tolerant–civil unions fall into this category. I am called by the bible to be socially tolerant–don’t stare and point at others who are different from me. But I cannot, as a Christian, be intellectually tolerant of the idea of homosexual marriage.
The complications of life are what makes it interesting. Would you and I have ever had a virtual conversation if the idea of homosexual marriage and abortion weren’t areas of disagreement?
Bless you and the work you all do at Pajamas Media.
Kathy Leicester, although I am not a Christian, I certainly respect Christianity and many of its core ideas. Hating the sin and not the sinner is a certainly a superb guide for living. And I would like to say that for me gay marriage and abortion are very different issues, not even in the same realm though they are often grouped together. I agree with opponents of abortion that life begins at the moment of conception. (I can’t think of another point) That makes support of “choice” very difficult for me. My remaining reason to support it is that I don’t like the government involved in the social/privacy areas at all. For example, I think the best solution to the marriage issue is the one recommended above – that it be taken entirely out of the governmental realm. The government gives consenting adults civil unions and that’s it. The rest is left to church and other groups to decide for themselves.
On one thing we do disagree,Kathy. I believe marriage way pre-dates the Bible.
Shall we let three or more consenting adults form civil unions? By your logic there is no reason to disallow them. Unintended consequences.
Yes.
So by opening the door to gay marriage we automatically open the door to polygamy. That is probably not going to fly.
Why not? The prophets of the Old Testament had no problems with it.
Anyone recall the Monty Python “Registry Office Sketch” where 5 men wound up getting married to each other? Nice. A Monty Python sketch is now a few years and a few reality shows away from becoming a sickening reality.
Genesis 2:24
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
Indeed, marriage does indeed predate the Bible as a written text; yet it is the Bible itself that tells us as much. In fact, the Bible reveals that marriage is a God-ordained arrangement, and there is no confusion whatsoever as to the nature of that arrangement: marriage is for the union of one man and one woman.
Any alteration in God’s standard for this union is done by ignoring God’s clear intent.
Presently, we have a culture infested with postmodernism that denies that there is right and wrong. People get to choose what is right for them based on expediency, opinion, or the will to power. Man is the measure and God is irrelevant at best.
“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” 2Timothy 4:3
The homosexual agenda includes silencing the church. It includes marshaling in a completely secular, godless state, and its tool is the rule of law. Support it if you like, but know that the only factor keeping the progressives from feeling the full effects of their decadence is that a still-large part of America is God-fearing.
Which, by the way, as the Proverb says, is the beginning of wisdom. Prov.1:7.
Roger, I’ll have to plead ignorance on marriage pre-dating the bible. One of these days I’ll get smart on that and we can talk about it, OK?
I love your response in that it seems to show your heart, in the way the original article did. And we agree on all the fundamentals, which makes me smile for some reason.
Thanks for taking the time to respond, and thanks especially for Pajamas Media. It is one of my primary news sources–authentic, timely, straight up real stuff. Consistently.
“As a Christian, I have to take the bible seriously, as did Jesus Christ.”
By “bible” here, I assume you mean the Hebrew bible — since the so-called “New Testament” did not exist while Jesus was aliuve. So if you take the Old Testament “seriously,” what’s your view of slavery? And how about that wacky stoning to death for adultery?
Now, now, no sneaky hard questions about which part of the Bible is right, and which you can ignore, or literal vs metaphor. If you really want to have fun with that one, go to a study group consisting of participants from conservative Church of Christ and a charismatic Assembly of God. That makes for interesting discussions.
By the way, and this is a serious question- if marriage is defined as a Christian act (and possibly Jewish, if the old testament is still relavent after the coming of Jesus the Christ), what about the people married under Shinto, Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic, or plain Atheist (get the piece of paper from the state) doctrines and ceremonies? Are they not married in your eyes? Should their rights be taken away since they weren’t blessed by Jehova? It may be between a man and a woman, but it is definitely not blessed by God through God’s representative and the beliefs/faiths of the couples.
The terms liberal, progressive, conservative etc. works best when used on economic policy and the role of government vs. the private market.
Issues like religion, sexuality, defense policy, drug policy, and the environment does not go neatly along party lines in my opinion.
Marriage, the union between a man and a woman with the only caveat being no mother-son, daughter-father, sister-brother, first cousin etc, but at it’s base, at it’s core, a male and a female joining together.
No, your wrong it’s more complicated. I’m a woman in love with a woman, or I’m a man in love with a man, or I’m a man in love with many woman, or a man/woman in love with both a man/woman, so when I unite it too is a marriage.
See how we can make things more complicated so that it becomes more confusing?
This has nothing to do with “rights”. That is an excuse to confuse the issue, to blur the lines of creation where the uniting of a man and a woman together has been the builders of human life on this earth, and given the name marriage. This union has been blessed by God according to those who believe. It is unique, like no other union. It should remain unique and defined as marriage.
Other unions in my opinion while respected if deserving should not be allowed to complicate this building block of life.
If we become a people no longer recognize this union as unique and special it will become as confusing as we will become. From confusion, chaos. Unions do not stand in confusion.
Not to nitpick, since the theme of your post is gay marriage, but you oversimplify the issue of “government spending”. We small government types are fine with state and county taxes being spent on roads and other infrastructure. Confiscatory national taxes to fund the Department of Education and other wastes far outside the enumerated powers found in the Constitution – well that’s something else again.
I realize that, Jack Oakie. Still, as you know, many infrastructure items depend on federal aid as well. I am basically small government type myself, and increasingly so, but pendulum will swing at some point, I imagine.
And the government is allowed to fund some of them, such as roads and bridges, both as part of the Constitutional requirement to defend the country, and to provide “post roads” for transport of the mails.
This is purely anecdotal but I know a number of gay people and all of them express the same view on same-sex marriage. That view is “Well it’s not for me but other gay couples should have the right to be married.” I suspect that much of the agitation from gay activists for same-sex marriage is based less on a real need for it than it is on a desire to score a triumphalist public victory over the “straights”
As to Mr. Obama, I don’t think there is any doubt that he will come out in support of gay marriage as soon as the political triangulation is right. The chief reason he has not done so to this point probably has to do with the way gay marriage is viewed in the black community. Although most of the elite black leadership endorses the concept the rank-and-file do not. The chief reason that Proposition 8 passed in California was because more than 70% of the large turnout or black voters voted for it. This is one of those elephant-in-the-living-rooom issues that everyoen knows about but never acknowledges. Obama can’t antagonize his core constituency of black voters by seeming to kowtow to gay leaders (nearly all of all of whom are both wealthy and white)on the gay marriage issue without appearing weak.
Personally I am indifferent to same sex marriage. The origins for marriage may be from the bible or it may (as with so many customs/beliefs/stories) from the bible) be from an earlier culture and adopted by the early Jews. So what? (I did say I was indifferent) I haven’t bothered to research this as fact.
IMO the main reason for modern governments to co-opt the process of marriage (and dissolving said marriage) is to solve the legal questions arising from two people whom have so interwoven their lives – possessions – and children – that an impartial arbiter is needed if/when they decide to disentangle themselves from each other.
Maybe marriage is the proper venue for which same sex partners can come together as they intertwine their lives – and disengage themselves should they ever part. I think same sex marriage will be considered as normal as ‘regular’ marriage 20 years from now.
Or more likely – and this is my opinion – marriage is (slowly) phasing out as a part of average American life. More and more people are opting to live together outside of marriage – it is socially acceptable in many social circles these days.
If this is the case – and in light of the ‘same as married’ laws on the books of most of our states – why is same sex marriage laws being demanded by the gay/lesbian activists so important to them?
My question – why bother with it?
The cause of gay marriage isn’t about gay marriage so much as it’s about waging war against civilization as it is and has been for centuries. If gay marriage wins acceptance, there will be a new and possibly wackier demand forthwith.
Those who abhor the idea that their children should become gay, would be wise to hold fast against this fad, regardless of who promotes it.
Conservatives are constantly beat up for asking “What next?” Liberals argue that every right (and perceived right) exists in a vacuum. Asking “What next?” is offensive and is always met with “How dare you!” and “Stick to the topic.”
But the very nature of conservatism is the conservation of values; to hold them in place. So “What next?” is always the appropriate response. Liberals don’t give a tinker’s cuss if civilization collapses. They have no long-range thought. It’s all about here and now; always about the moment; always just “Gimme what I want NOW! Let the chips fall where they may! We’ll figure it out and clean it up later!”
It’s a bloody good question to wonder what’s waiting in the wings, ready to rear its head the moment gay marriage wins acceptance.
Also: to anyone who believes that polygamy is hunky dory and should be accepted into law: why are you fighting for gay marriage? Why not “ALL marriage”? Why this one-at-a-time incrementalism? Go ahead: Tell the American people what you really want. Watch their reaction.
Bravo to Laura Bush & to you, Roger, not only for this post but also for your two comments. My two cents are these:
For what it’s worth, I am happily married in a heterosexual union, and I have never once believed the illogical and bigoted view that “allowing” gays and lesbians to marry will in any possible way “diminish” or “threaten” my marriage. It will make me happier in my marriage knowing that when a homosexual person wants to spend his or her life in a committed loving relationship, I can say, with open arms (and mind) welcome to the club of married people.
1) George W. Bush, just for the record, held a party at the White House—not paid for by the taxpayers but rather by his Yale ’68 classmates in 2003. Since graduating from the then all-male Yale College, one of his classmates underwent a complete sex change operation and had changed her name to a female version of her former male first name. Unlike Laura Bush and the majority of his classmates’ wives, the formerly male classmate wore a dress and heels. In the receiving line, she shook hands with the President, who had known her in college, as, of course, a man. She became a little flustered (many classmates did) and she said, “Mr. President, you knew me in college as John Doe and now I’m” and that’s when she became so flustered, she was unable to finish her sentence saying, “and now I’m Jane Doe.” So all she said was “You knew me as…and now I’,” and GWB finished her sentence as followed, “And now you’re you.” It was so gracious and emotionally perceptive that the President’s response spread through the reunion like wildfire, particularly impressing the Democratic classmates who attended, while grousing about W. It was a moment of complete understanding of what John Doe had felt as John and now, as Jane, was indeed, “And now you’re YOU.”
2) This is a country founded—unlike our once Mother Country, England—on a strict separation of church and state. It is not so strict that religious institutions do not receive sizable tax-exemptions, but the theory underlying this country, the USA, is that religion is religion and government is government.
3) The clear logical conclusion that flows from that strict separation is that no one’s “reading of the Bible” or the Torah or any religious document has any relevance to our governing laws.
4) And what flows from that is that “equal justice under the law,” the words etched on the facade of the U.S. Supreme Court should equally be etched in the laws the court affirms and the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President, and that means
5) All “married” people should be in governmentally-sanctioned “civil unions” that will provide equal justice—entitlements, death benefits, complete equality—for men married to men, women married to women and men married to women. Period. I, personally, don’t see the non-marriage rule for Catholic priests workin’ out so well. I think Catholic priests should be able to marry—if only to give them a full human life and to enable them to better understand the confessions they hear and to better counsel married couples. But that’s an aside from
6) Take your religious views out of the legal system. If they define your life and help you live it as you wish, great! But Biblical views and laws of the 50 states and of the federal system of laws are big apples and oranges.
7) Bring on gay civil unions and heterosexual civil unions which would be equal under the law, and then fight the battle within each religion which, I devoutly pray, will one day see the wisdom of expanding its views on gay marriage.
That idiotic yellow face was a typo and was a slip of my fingers on my MacBook Pro. Entirely unintended and totally annoying. Apologies to all readers. I happen to hate “emoticons” as much as religious views mixing into our legal system.
What if marriage, the joining of a man and a woman was “good”. Good for the earth, good for children, good for life?
Should it be given unique recognition and definition? I say yes. For those that believe that the union is blessed by God, in my opinion, is not a reason for it to be scoffed at or made to appear trivial, nor is it the government’s job to change what words mean because not all it’s members pairings are included.
To look at whether the union should get special privileges or responsibilities in civil life is one thing, but to attempt to pull it asunder because it doesn’t include them is wrong.
Even if it doesn’t have meaning for some, does not mean it doesn’t have meaning.
11. chambers: “Obama can’t antagonize his core constituency of black voters by seeming to kowtow to gay leaders (nearly all of all of whom are both wealthy and white)on the gay marriage issue without appearing weak.”
A bit of an irony when one stops to consider all the other circumstances under which Obama appears to not mind one bit the appearance of being weak.
Touche! Or to quote Osric in “Hamlet” – “A hit, A palpable hit!”
Thanks Roger for your ode to cultural rot.
I’ve changed my own mind on this some (NOT abortion, I’ll always be against it, and ANY time a woman is pregnant it’s a ‘risk’ to her health).
Heteros haven’t exactly ‘mastered’ marriage very well and the battle of the sexes is uglier than ever between heteros. There are angry men espousing raping women on “men’s rights” blogs for crying out loud! Could it get any uglier between the opposite sexes?
Husband and husband? Wife and wife? Go for it.
In my heart of hearts I believe some people are born gay and some people become gay over time (like Meredith Baxter and Kelly McGillis). Could I fall in love with a woman? I probably could in the right circumstances and if it was mutual I’d no doubt want to be in a committed relationship.
One caveat:
Marriage is the leading cause of divorce. The failure rate is still on the grim side. Churches shouldn’t be forced to marry gays if they believe it is a sin. Leave the church out of it. My marriage was without ceremony or family present and the woman who married us was a female pastor but I’d have been perfectly fine with someone marrying us with no religion at all. To us it was merely a formality because we wanted a child together and we wanted our child to have two parents. If we hadn’t had a child I probably wouldn’t have stayed married or even gotten married in the first place.
People change.
Yes, they do.
“Marriage is the leading cause of divorce.”
Very interesting concept. Sort of like – “Living causes death” – just don’t do it.
My gut tells me that marriage was a device invented long ago to support and stabilize human breeding via the nuclear family. My mind associates marriage with the nuclear family; a heterosexual family. It surely works for me, my wife and our kids. My gut is usually right – I didn’t need researchers to tell me that humans had interbred with neanderthals – I had already seen Mick Jagger.
Breeding apart, what’s the problem if two billy-goats or two nanny-goats fall in love and want to live together? I don’t care, it’s none of my business and I don’t think they should be stigmatized for being homosexual. Gay people can formalize their relationship with a civil contract anyway, can’t they? If they want to make a special social statement about their relationship then why not have a special ceremony/ritual? I don’t think they need to steal the breeders’, or potential breeders’ special relationship of marriage. Hey, there must be a million trendy PC names to replace “gay marriage”.
So my opinion is the word “marriage” should be reserved for breeders like me, or heterosexual adopters who want to strengthen a nuclear family. Gay people should act like grown-ups and invent their own ceremonies and get them recognized in law. As for religions; they too should be free to condone or condemn homosexuality as they see fit.
Some anthropologists speculate that marriage became first a tradition and then a sacrament because it was the best way of alleviating sexual tensions and rivalries over women in small and primitive communities. These were societies clinging to the edge of survivial where internal cooperation was an absolute necessity. In such societies marriage was a way of efficiently allocating women to men and enforcing their continued relationship. In this way “every guy got a gal” and those sexual tensions and rivaliries that could destroy a fragile culture oculd be controlled. In addition children could be born into a more or less stable household and socialized into the mores of the community. Making marriage the only acceptable way that a young man could obtain sexual satisfaction brought internal discipline to the community and channelled the energy of the young into constructive activity
Some anthropologists speculate that marriage became first a tradition and then a sacrament because it was the best way of alleviating sexual tensions and rivalries over women in small and primitive communities.
LINK?
I’d think given the number of wars etc to take women from opposing tribes etc that this wasn’t the benefit of marriage. Rather, marriage would seem to be the mechanism of power consolidation, unless one also speculates that the post-Roman European blue-bloods, Amerinds etc coincidentally conjured this concept purely from the aether on separate continents…
How about it’s biologically based? Other species mate for life. Why doesn’t that extend to humans, too? Historically, without the children to worry about, gays never mated for life, or show me the proof. Governments ratify behavior already evident, that is beneficial, not the other way around.
Thank you for shedding light on the hypocrisy of the Left. Gay activists will continue to bash Dick Cheney and Laura Bush as part of some imagined monolithic enemy, when in fact the truth is much different. In the U.S., conservatism is anything but. It is the most forward-thinking, individual-empowering and liberating ideology the world has ever seen.
The concept of marriage clealy predates ancient Israel. The modern Christian church only injected itself into the institution in the middle ages as a lever for control. Since time immemorial marriage was a matter of familial and tribal/governmental concern. Therefore IMO homosexuals should be entitled to civil unions as any hetero couple would be. As for church sanction I don’t see forcing churches to adopt it; although some liberal churches are well on the way do voluntarily doing so. In hindsight I wish the church would have just stayed out of the marriage business.
Roger, thank you for giving voice to a rational conservative perspective on same-gender marriage. I am pleased to tell you that this past weekend, at our Episcopal church here in Washington DC, my partner and I had our civil marriage license signed as our family and friends looked on and celebrated together. In the District, we were able to forge a broad-ranged coalition, including a large majority of the city councilmembers–both white and African American–and an interracial, interfaith network of supportive clergy. It was a years-long process that involved organizing and patience, but through regular legislative channels we prevailed, and thus far challenges to the process have been appropriately rebuffed by both district and federal courts.
We have been in a relationship for 13 years, and are pledging members of our church congregation. I am caucasian, my partner is black. We mow our lawns, care for our two cats, and watch too much cable TV for our own good. Neither of us are college graduates: I work as a graphic designer for a trade association, and my partner tests fuel at an air force base and is on reserve status after serving 20 years as a flight engineer in the U.S Navy. My partner’s Baptist mother and sister flew in from Ohio to be a part of our weekend, though I suspect they probably voted to amend the state’s constitution to ban same-gender marriage when it was on the ballot in 2004.
Rest assured, my partner and I are not out to destroy Western civilization. We just need and want the same legal rights and responsibilities that heterosexual married (both formally licensed and common law) couples take for granted. Civil unions, though they can confer some important protections, are simply not an adequate substitute. And while one commenter stated their belief that it would be gay activists who would not accept such a compromise, I instead think that it would be the heterosexual majority which would (rightfully) object to having their properly obtained civil marriages downgraded to civil unions or domestic partnership status.
There are still hundreds of ways in which our marriage is not recognized as equivalent due to the federal DOMA law, but I am increasingly hopeful–given the expressions of support not only from progressives but also from those on the other side of the aisle, such as yourself, Ted Olson, Cindy and Meghan McCain and now Laura Bush–that the day is soon coming when bashing neighbors and taxpaying citizens like myself and my partner for political expediency will no longer pay the dividends it did under the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, that DOMA will be repealed, and that we can all move onto the many more pressing issues that should concern our government and our nation’s voters.
You may blame me for looking backwards, but God is all for freedom. With the freedom God gave us, there are mistakes in moral judgement. It is called sin. I know the Bi- and Homo-sexuals out there like to give their own definition of what God was doing when he “blew up” Sodom and Gomorrah (Oh, the people were just being inhospitable!) If that is the case, why, we all would have been blown up by now since we are sooooo inhospitable, all the time. The thing that God doesn’t like about homosexuality, is that it goes against HIS created order. It is like saying to God, “I don’t care what you say I should do and what you created me to be, I’m doing it anyway!” That is what sin IS. Of course, all sin is despicable to God; that is why Jesus had to take the punishment for our sins. We all are sinners. But, we should try NOT to sin, even though we fail, being humans. Homosexuals flaunt there sin at God, and try to force Christianity out of existence. Then they won’t have to deal with the truth of what they do-the guilt.
With the freedom God gave us, there are mistakes in moral judgement. It is called sin.
With the reason man evolved, he has come to understand that the cause of homosexuality ranges from genetics, foetal hormonal imbalance, or even a virus (google Dr Gregory Cochran.) Contrary to the fervent wishes of the congenitally religious, homosexuality is *anything* but a choice.
It’s difficult to buy the notion that an omnipotent deity could have missed this.
It’s not difficult to buy the notion that you don’t know anything whatsoever yet imagine yourself as having the right to speak for god due to praying a lot. The sooner the GOP can rid itself of the likes of you, the better off we will all be.
Sadly, sex preferences can be imprinted by any type of associative behavior forced on a child just as they reach puberty. As a horse can be broken and trained, any human can be bent toward homosexuality by the patient guidance of an older trainer. The ancient Greeks and Romans knew if you got a boy of the right age and introduced him to all the right tricks, you would have a homo for life, and it didnt matter who you picked for training. Sadly, this aspect of homosexual development, also not a choice, is sadly lacking in our current education on the subject, and not by accidental oversight. And You have forgotten to mention it. Why?
Sadly, sex preferences can be imprinted by any type of associative behavior forced on a child just as they reach puberty.
My guess is that you’re repeating some nonsense from a “christian” psychologist wannabe. Either that or you’re simply full of it and repeating scary crap from the 50′s.
How about a link? Let’s see this in black and white. Something from scholar.google.com ought to do the trick.
A link? For thousands of years this was the common received knowledge of where sexual preferences come from. You are the first person I ever heard who apparently sees the (protective?) need to claim that experience has nothing to do with sexual preferences though, from my own experiences, I can guarantee you are wrong and would suggest you analyze your own experiences to test out my theory. Also, I know or know of too many gays who were molested when young and read a few books about it to doubt that such experiences can destroy one’s natural inhibitions. But for links check out the literature put out by NAMBLA for the counter argument. Or read some old books addressing the sex practices at boys schools in Victorian England. Or the historical studies of adult child male bonding as it went on in Ancient Greece and Rome. Or the story put out by Rolling Stone a few years ago concerning the weird sex practices of Chuck Berry. Seems he grew up in a one room shack with a nurse who used the facilities in the very room where he slept. Grew up to own a mansion where he secretly installed cameras in all the toilets so he could catch all the action, which he then preserved on film. The author assumed as would most that Chuck’s early experiences had some bearing on his adult practices. Also, check any dictionary, such as one that has collected words from multiple sources for hundreds of years. The definition of pervert (the verb not the noun) includes:
2.to lead astray morally.
3.to turn away from the right course.
4.to lead into mental error or false judgment.
5.to turn to an improper use; misapply.
7.to bring to a less excellent state; vitiate; debase.
8.Pathology. to change to what is unnatural or abnormal.
9.to convert or persuade to a religious belief regarded as false or wrong.
Now when I grew up, the assumption was gays had been perverted at some point by some force outside themselves from what was natural. What force, traditionally, would you assume that to be.
Lastly, I don’t read any religious books, being more interested in old pornography, i.e., hundreds of years old like Boccaccio. But I have spoken to lots of priests, nuns, brothers and other religious folk, who never mentioned it. So I am not aware of any religions source for the widely held (and experienced) belief (surviving over many centuries) that your experience affects your sexual preferences, but I still know it to be true. Ask yourself why over the last few decades this widely held belief has been brainwashed out of you?
Mr. Simon, Once again I am afraid that I must take umbrage at one of your posts. The primary problem is that you over-simplify the issues discussed in your post. This is extremely ironic considering that you accuse your opponents of doing exactly that at the beginning of the same post. Let us take the major points one at a time.
First, the problem is not terminology but rather the fact that politicians and political parties attempt to blur the meaning of terms in order to obfuscate their own positions. A good many Republicans who claim to be conservative are not conservative but rather moderate or even liberal republicans. The truth is not in what they claim but rather in their voting record and actions. I think RINO is a fine term to use although a better term might be CINO as in Conservative in Name Only.
Mr. Bush was never a conservative. He held some conservative positions but he did not embrace the conservative ideology of government. If he had he would never have voted for the Medicaid drug program, the original TARP, the bailouts, or made the Harriet Miers nomination. He was a good man but no more of a conservative than Richard Nixon was a conservative.
In many of your posts you argue that we should move beyond ideology and categories but these are foundational to our political system. How can we govern effectively if we are not anchored to a system of foundational beliefs about government, society, and ourselves?
Second, conservatives are not opposed to all government spending. Conservatives may see government as a necessary evil but they recognize that it has a role to play. Conservatives are not anarchists and we are not libertarians. In making the statement about government funding of infrastructure you seem to blur the lines here yourself. The problem is not in the terminology but your improper use of it.
Third, your support of gay marriage is in no way a conservative position. A government which can change the definition of the oldest institution known to man is in no way a limited government. As a conservative I stand firmly against the redefinition of marriage to include same sex couples. Mrs. Bush and Mr. Cheney may adopt any position on the issue they please but they cannot proclaim it to be a conservative position.
Fourth, conservatism cannot be defined as simply looking backward. Conservatism looks to a future made bright by the fact that it is anchored in the past. Conservatives honor the past and learn from it. Progressive, liberals, and Marxist all wish to abandon the past for a future utopia that has no grounding in reality. Edmund Burke makes the point far better than I can. Conservatives are not opposed to change as long as change is guided by the wisdom of the past. With that being said, some things should never change. You say that things are in flux and people change. Does that mean that if slavery became popular again you would support it? I, for one, would not because it violates a fundamental principle of my faith. I am not ruled by the whims of man or generational changes. My path is not guided by the light of what undisciplined man wants to do or accepts.
I think 9/11 was one of the biggest reasons so many conservative and non-conservative folks supported Bush.
I would support Barry too if he actually made me feel like he wants to protect our country. Under Bush I felt safe (even if he was no Conservative under any pretense).
Slavery was a relic of the age of animal and human power as the chief source of energy. The same was true of large families. The agrarian life needed lots of human energy. The Industrial Revolution ended slavery except in those cultures where it has had little impact, such as parts of Africa and some of the Middle East. Slavery in the US was a relic and remained mostly because of the peculiarity of cotton harvesting. England, while it had outlawed slavery, was the chief driver of southern slavery because of its insatiable need for cotton to make cotton cloth in mills that had become dominated by machinery. There was no equivalent way to harvest cotton.
The only possible circumstances in which slavery would return would be if the radical environmentalists got their way. Then we would be back to the age of animal and human power.
The point was, if it did come back into fashion, would it suddenly be okay again since those pesky moral issues are always in flux.
Edmund Burke makes the point far better than I can. Conservatives are not opposed to change as long as change is guided by the wisdom of the past.
“We’ve always been utterly wrong, but it’s tradition!”
Your position is premised on the utterly inane concept that homosexuality is a sin, a choice. The reality is that being gay isn’t a choice.
Here you are, endowed with the reason of man and the overwhelming evidence that says being gay isn’t a choice like it was thought to be for centuries. Finally due to the sciences and technology, we can see that the earlier suppositions were simply wrong.
And your solution? IGNORE IT. Part of the wisdom of the past is being able to admit that grandpa may have gotten something wrong.
As a conservative…
You are no conservative. You’re a reactionary luddite afraid of your own shadow.
First, there is no overwhelming scientific evidence that proves homosexuality is not a choice. Second, since your initial premise that homosexuality is not choice is wrong than the rest of your argument is simply bunk and ad hominum attack. Seems pretty reactionary to me.
My God, what long-winded, pompous twit you are, Kipling. You are a disgrace to my creator who at least had some wit. You actually believe people choose to be gay? What planet do you live on? Mr. Simon should ban you for tediousness. At least calling yourself Kipling. Kipling was talented.
And yet you produce nothing but ad hominem attacks as a response to my posts. Way to lead us all in intellectual discourse.
Why do you find it so hard to believe that someone might choose to be gay? Your response was a little odd on that point since you seem to support gay marriage.
Gunga Din, be careful what you wish for. 10 minutes after the genetic basis for homosexuality is determined, there will be a genetic test to determine who carries it, and you can decide whether you want to outlaw abortion, or watch that particular trait get weeded from the gene pool.
Ok…last post on this thread, and I’m going to quit reading it too because it’s become a logger head of religious exponents, word preservationists or ‘slippery slope’ without substantive argument. There have been several eloquent arguments in favor of acknowledge homosexual unions. However I had to comment, Kipling, I do agree that for some people, homosexuality or bisexuality may have been a choice. For younger men and women, there have been times when it was faddish to claim it (whether it was acted on or not)- I’d wager real money those who were faddish about it got over it.
However, my gay friends that I have talked with in depth about it said they had always been gay, never had any inclinations to the hetero norm. These were long term friends who had no agenda and gained nothing from me by lieing about it. Most were not comfortable talking about it initially even. Most of them came from small, southern towns, very religious families, and had very normal, long-married parents. Several were children of pastors. Do you think they’d choose a life of potential misery, having to hide themselves from their families and friends, go without a life-partner or even just the normal human experience of getting to know someone as a potential mate, since often times, a revelation of being gay risked ostracism by friends, family and community, including the loss of a job? Not to mention the threat of violence? Did they simply choose to not take the easy way? There was no hedonistic advantage to it for them, no ‘I’m going to the club to get laid’ mentality, many just wanted a nomral, loving relationship, a partner and companion to share life with, and were either circumspect or went without, often miserably until they had to move and leave everyone and everything behind. I suppose they could have ‘chosen’ to marry the opposing sex, and then spent several years trying and living a lie, and then having to leave, devastating two people and possibly their children, not to mention extended family. That’s such an honorable thing to do.
I know my friends, I trust my friends, and I believe them. If I didn’t, they wouldn’t be my friends. In liberal areas, yes, there probably have been people who chose it, and again, I bet when the time came for them to “settle down” they discovered they were straight really fast, but where I came from, it’s not likely, not at all.
Of course, I agree with you. Thank you for your reasoned posts. It’s curious to me that some who post here in the name of religion do so with so much less generosity of spirit. But so it goes.
A impassioned post that clearly evokes sympathy but it is hardly a reasoned post. There is no objectivity, no engagement in logical, rational, and intellectual thought based upon an objective set of principles. (Which, Mr. Simon, is the very definition of reasn.) You appealed to emotion and the only evidence you provided was the testimony of reliable friends who are far from objective observers of their own actions.
I encourage you to re-read your post and remove all reference to gay marriage and homosexuality. Then insert any social disorder you like into the equation and see if you do not get the same affect.
The debate comes down to a couple points for me. I have thought a lot about this and have tried to take emotion out of it.
We are a country that believes in a separation of church and state. The only people that oppose gay marriage do it based on religious ideals. If you remove religious thought from the argument there is no longer an argument.
On another angle. From the financial side. Getting married is big business. If gay marriage is allowed it could represent a financial windfall for the states that allow it. The overall number of marriages that take place will greatly increase. More marriages means more money for florists, tux shops, caterers, photographers, DJ’s etc.
Last time I checked being conservative meant you believed in less government. Doesn’t that mean that someone who’s conservative wouldn’t be opposed to gay marriage because they want less government telling them what they can and can’t do?
> The only people that oppose gay marriage do it based on religious ideals.
I do not believe in religion and I oppose gay marriage. Why? Because I am a conservative. Read Kipling’s post #23. He said it
much more eloquently than I ever could.
For the sake of argument if you oppose gay marriage and it is not routed in some religious belief you are choosing to have the government dictate what some people can do and what other people cannot do. I am opposed to government making my decisions for me. I am a conservative thinking person. I don’t want the government telling me what I can’t do especially if they are saying that some other person can do it. I have the right to chose whether I want to or not. Keep in mind that marriage is a decision between two consenting adults. Those two adults have the ability and the right to chose what they want to do. There are plenty of things that I don’t have interest or desire to do that plenty of other Americans do.
Take smoking for example, I don’t have any desire to smoke or be around people that are smoking. I don’t have the right to tell people they cannot smoke and to make smoking illegal.
Gay marriage should be looked at the same way. A person may not be gay or approve of others being gay but they don’t have the right to tell them they cannot. No one has the right to deprive them of any other right or privilege that other Americans have access too.
Making gay marriage legal does not force a point of view on anyone else. Everyone has the right to chose and decide for themselves.
Anyone that wants laws dictating how people should think are not conservative. They are fascist.
First, your definition of marriage as being simply a decision between two consenting adults is rather a recent invention. Western civilization has largely, if not exclusively, defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Even cultures that recognized and tolerated homosexuality did not recognize nor advocate homosexual marriage.
Second, asking or allowing the government to make gay marriage legal is the equivalent of allowing government to redefine the oldest social institution known to man. You claim that to ask government to maintain societal standards is to create a tyranny by taking away choice. In reality, to allow government to redifine societal norms is to create a tyrannical government that greatly exceeds its bounds.
For thousands of years people thought the world was flat. Historical beliefs doesn’t support the argument.
I am a fan of history but there’s plenty of things done differently now because we have evolved.
We are talking about a legal union between two people. Two adult, sane people. We are not talking about forcing personal viewpoints upon someone else. There is a fear that allowing same sex marriage some how encourages it. Government doesn’t have the right to say one group can and another group cannot. This only applies when someone elses rights are not being affected.
The government shouldn’t define anything, that’s the point. Currently the government is defining marriage. The government use to allow certain people to drink out of this fountain and certain people cannot. That was determined to be wrong.
One person’s beliefs shouldn’t be forced upon another person. That’s what people seem to be not understanding.
Please define how we have evolved. The last time I checked we still function basically the same way we did when our ancestors thought the world was flat. If you mean we evolved as a society then I would argue that we have not evolved there either. Sure we have better technology but does that really mean we have evolved?
Government did not define marriage. The concept of marriage existed long before the United States. In this case the government has accepted the historial and societal concept of marriage that has existed as long as written history. Yet, you would abandon the concept and empower the government to enforce that abandonment to please a very small minority which has only lobbied for such a move in the past couple of decades – a rash action by any measure.
Mike Miller writes:
“Keep in mind that marriage is a decision between two consenting adults.” Nope, sorry Mike, you forgot the children. Check out an encyclopedia on marriage, even Wikipedia would help you. Maybe talk to some families, not consenting adults.
I’ve been married for fifteen years and have four children myself. I am qualified to talk about this subject. Having kids and being married are two separate things.
Allowing or not allowing gay marriage is honestly a simple argument. People want to make it into something much more then it is.
If two like minded adults are willing to legally commit to one another they legally should be allowed to if another legally like minded adults are allowed to regardless of who they are.
Like I have stated, separation of church and state should allow for marriage between man and woman, man and man or woman and woman.
Last time I checked wikipedia is not the end all be all when it comes to accurate information.
The reason the majority of people are against gay marriage is because instinctively they know that by defining marriage, the government is establishing a state religion—whether it is a religion that recognizes gay unions or not.
Look at history. When has the government definition of marriage been a good thing? In the past state governments made it illegal for people of different ethnicities to get married. They made people wait a certain number of days before they could get married. In some places you had to take blood tests, etc. Why?!
Why is it any bureaucrat’s business whether the person I am living with is my lover or just my roommate? Why do I need the government’s approval of who I want to spend my life with? And why does anyone have to wait to get an official pronouncement that their marriage is over? Didn’t it end when one person walked out the door?
Marriage is more than just a living together contract. I got married several years ago. The state tells me if I get tired of being married all I have to do is file some papers with the court and wait three months. But that’s not what the vows I took said, and it’s not what my Bible says. Marriage is about love and commitment. To many, it is also about making a covenant with another person before God. In other words it has to do with a lot of things that the government has no business meddling with.
If people want to save marriage, we need to get the government out of the business of performing ceremonies and issuing certificates. I guess there may be the need for some sort of civil contract, but a lot of people seem to get along just fine without even that.
There is a key question missing from your discussion – is access to federal civil marriage status a “human right”, a “US Constitutional right”, or a “privilege”? Whether or not it is a “human right” has little direct impact on legal status, but the question of whether or not it is an existing, but yet to be identified, US Constitutional right is extremely important.
I get very, very nervous when our courts start finding previously unidentified “rights” in our constitution (state or federal). Because of that, for me the gay marriage question is not binary yes/no and my response is as follows:
- I do not support enacting gay marriage via judicial reinterpretation of the constitution.
- I do support expanding marriage to include same sex couples via legislative action or referendum.
Process matters.
Those who have written in support of gay marriage express great concern for the liberties of adults but have nothing to say about paternalistic authority over children. In the USA, marriage law is the province of state governments and they have always asserted authority over marriage for protection of children. If a couple with minor children show up before a judge for divorce proceedings, the judge has incredible power that he/she can exercise over the family and that power is exercised in the name of the children. The judge can remove custody from both parents. Paternalism toward children involves some heavy criminal laws. Incest is a crime that, once reported, can be prosecuted by the state with or without the cooperation of the victim. Do most gays really want to live under such laws? Gays argue that sex is for pleasure not reproduction. If they believe what they say and they want gay marriage, then a gay man could be convicted and sentenced to many years in prison even though the child he had sex with refused to press charges against him. Or maybe the proponents of gay marriage intend to do away with incest laws. Who knows? But it is one of a million knotty questions that must be solved if there is to be gay marriage. This topic is onerously serious. It is not a matter of Laura Bush feeling good about gays gaining new liberties or status. And if you think that a discussion at the level of this one on this forum actually engages the serious issues facing gay marriage, you are as light headed as Laura.
Your point about protecting children from parents is valid, but cannot be applied only to same sex couples. It also doesn’t stand up as a valid point for not allowing gay marriage.
Sadly it doesn’t take much to get married, it takes however take slightly more then it does to have a child in the first place. There’s no qualification test for those people who are currently allowed to get married. There is especially no qualification test for being a parent.
Men and women are allowed to get married if they choose. That’s it, that’s all.
The bottom line is that rights afforded to some adults should be afforded to all adults. The kids that come from a marriage adopted or otherwise are another story. You can’t put all people from a group in a box and assume they will behave a certain way. That concept is unrealistic and unfair to those that would handle their responsibilities.
Theo, I have a lot to do and very little time to do it, but your blanket grouping of “gay activists” into some bizarre “sex-is-only-for-pleasure” hedonistic cult is nothing short of
astonishing and requires a direct attack. Ever noticed PLAYBOY? Ever notice the centerfold? You really don’t think that millions of heterosexual couples don’t think sex is mainly for pleasure? Why do you think condoms are sold? So that every heterosexual couple will procreate every time they have sex? Where on earth you get your ideas that gay people think “sex is only for pleasure” and not, for example, an expression of their deeply-felt love, is beyond me. As if consenting adult heterosexuals don’t use a wide variety of means to prevent the creation of a fetus by their every sexual act. You don’t think that implies that heterosexuals also find that sex can exist for pleasure and not always for procreation? Yes, procreation is one of the potential results of heterosexual sexual behavior, but far more often than not, it isn’t, at least in the West—and in China. And your beating the drum that no child of the same gender should ever sleep in the home of a homosexual of the same gender is bigotry, pure and simple. Would I want my son to have an overnight with the late Michael Jackson, if he were still alive? No. But to smear every single gay man or woman with the specter of Michael Jackson is reprehensible. Growing up here on Planet Earth, my brother and I spent many weekends (yes! including sleeping overnight) with a gay male couple, who lived together for more than 50 years, longer than any of my mother’s heterosexual marriages. Not once did either gay man proposition, flirt with or, God knows, force himself on my very cute brother. You are an embarrassment to PJM and I hope your next comment will be “moderated” out the door. Stop smearing all gays with a brush so broad that it is absurd, stupid and, very frankly, annoying. And no, Theo, I am not gay nor did my brother grow up to be gay. But we both have glorious memories of our time in Connecticut on weekends with Paul and Harry. They taught us both a lot, by their example, about love, devotion, loyalty and steadfastness.
The Internal Revenue Services instructions accompanying Form 1040 state that “For federal tax purposes, a marriage means only a legal union between a man and a woman as husband and wife.” There are similar restrictions in Social Security and other federal contexts. Hence, heterosexual as well as homosexual couples, “shacked up” and long behaving as husband and wife, but not married, are left out.
Although an Agnostic, I recognize that in some religions marriage is considered a religious sacrament, similar to baptism and communion, and that “shacking up,” no matter how permanent the relationship, is deemed to constitute living in sin. The Roman Catholic Church limits its priesthood to unmarried males.
I have no idea what changes to tax and other federal laws would be needed to recognize homosexual unions – or for that matter heterosexual “shacking up” – as marriage, but suspect that the necessary changes and their revenue consequences would be many. Nor do I have any idea whether churches, the doctrines of which preclude homosexual marriage or offering communion to homosexual couples, would experience legal difficulties in adhering to their doctrines. The questions should be explored.
In my view, marriage should have no federal or even state consequences and should be of purely religious concern. If, for example, the Unitarian Church wants to perform homosexual marriages and the Roman Catholic Church does not, that should be up to them; I should have no say in the matter and neither should governments. Nor, in my view, should governmental burdens or benefits be dependent upon marital status.
During the debates on the California marriage referendums, much was said about the need for social acceptance of homosexual marriages. The argument was made that social acceptance would follow were the state to redefine marriage to include marriages other than between a man and a woman, and it was substantially on that basis that the California Supreme Court initially rejected a ballot initiative changing the state law expressly to exclude homosexual marriage. The court found a right to marriage hidden away in the California Constitution. In the linked article I stated,
There was a new referendum, this time on a constitutional amendment but otherwise substantially to the same effect. The same court upheld the second referendum, since the change to the California Constitution was permissible and trumped the court’s earlier interpretation of the California Constitution.
Like many issues, homosexual marriage issues are highly emotional and contentious. If the legal consequences are not adequately considered, there are likely to be many unintended consequences of any legislation. As with the recent Health Control Laws, the devil is in the details and needs to be exorcised before plunging ahead guided principally by our emotions and/or religious views.
The only say the government has ever had in marriage is the say it got when it added benefits to marriage.
Marriage in and of itself has not changed.
So it makes me wonder why gays get so pissy over a word.
Because overall in the way of government marriage and a civil union are the same thing.
How about I throw a wrench in this conversation. Above I advocated for Civil Unions with marriage being determined by religious institutions.
One of the biggest problems facing society for children is not having two adults in every home. Mostly this is for child supervision and financial reasons, it seems. What if two, hetrosexual, single mothers with children decided to form a civil union. They could buy a house together, watch out for each other’s children, inherit and file joint income tax.
You could also have two 70 year old female friends sharing a house, watching out for each other, making medical decisions for each other.
Take “love” out of it….what if…??
Good point. There are childless and even sexless (i.e. no sexual relations lol) hetero couples. Wanting to be with someone, share responsibilities and be BFF of the same gender doesn’t always mean they want to have sex with each other and why is it my business if they do or don’t? It ain’t my bidness and I don’t wanna know either! Seriously. Please. I DO NOT NEED TO KNOWWWWWWWW about ANYONE’s sexual goings on.
The question is not whether some otherwise admirable people want to have sex. Gay Activists claim that sex is for pleasue and that it is a mistake to treat sex as something exalted, as reserved for procreation for example. If you have a friend who constantly argues that sex is for pleasure, nothing beyond, and that friend invites your minor child to spend the night, then you are a negligent part if you permit your child to go.
Delia, you are so sensible and terrific. I loved —LOVED—your last three sentences. Right on. Also agree with you on 9/11 and its aftermath. Please keep your comments coming!
I love how Roger says to stay on topic and can’t seem to do so himself.
Reading the above diatribes make me extremly sad. I was unaware that biblical ignorance is an epidemic with so many Christians! Jesus said NOTHING about same sex behavior folks! Most of you have no idea what the meaning of the words are in the bible ,translated from Hebrew or Greek and Aramic, are!
If you are refereing to Leviticus 18:6, you need to learn what the word “abomination” ( or TO’EBAH in Hebrew) means! To the Jewish people,TO’EBAH are behaviors that people in a certain time and place consider tasteless or offensive. They are NOT laws!Jesus and Paul both said the holiness code in Leviticus does not pertain to Christian believers.
It was also an TO’EBAH or abomination to spill your seed on the ground for which Onan did and was killed by the Lord for in Genesis 38 and also to “pull out” to avoid pregnancy in a married relationship–Both death sentances.WHY? the Jewish people at the time were a small tribe and to waste on single male that could be born was not to be done! There are many of these TO’EBAH like touching pig, disabled approaching the alter of G*D,etc!
That is just to start you off as many of you have obviously not thought about what it actually means and instead you have used the bible like a buffet, picking and choosing what fits your agenda and using it without critical thinking! Please try harder before using the bible as a weapon! Do research and think about the meaning of the word used in the time it was written.it does matter! Thanks!
Interesting that you mention Jesus because all the sources you cite are Jewish. Christians follow the New Testament, though they study the Old Testament to learn the signs of the coming of Jesus. Christian doctrine on marriage is stated by St. Paul. If a couple asked him to marry them he would counsel them that he expected the Apocalypse that afternoon and that all good Christians should be out converting sinners. If they persisted and revealed their weakness, he agreed that it is better to marry than to burn. Then he wrapped them in the Christian traditions of marriage. As for someone who advocates the doctrine that sex is for pleasure, St. Paul would have said that there is nothing I can do for you. By the way, St. Paul authored the poetic passage that is acknowledged throughout Christianity as the very best description of love.
I suggest you go back and read Scripture before you make such bold claims that are so easily disproven.
First, Leviticus 18:6 does not even deal with the issue of homosexuality. Leviticus 18:6-18 deals with incest. Leviticus 18:22 deals with homosexuality. The whole 18th chapter deals with various sexual sins, condemns them all, and perscribes death as the punishment for each. If the purpose of the law was to encourage procreation then why make the offense worthy of the death penalty?
Second, Jesus did not speak specifically on homosexuality but He did uphold the Jewish moral law and He did specifically condemn sexual relations outside of marriage.
Third, Paul was much more direct and condemned homosexuality openly. See Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10, etc. Paul does not mince words. In Romans he calls homosexuality and its acceptance by a society as a sign of the demise and de-evolution of that society.
Please be sure of your own knowledge before you accuse others of not knowing the Scriptures.
I love Dick Cheney but I agree with Obama (or at least what he says publicly) on this one. Marriage is between one man and one women. What Cheney supports is an abomination. Strong marriages are the essential building block of a safe, free and prosperous society. Redefining marriage will destroy it. As for anyone who wants to find out what society would look like without marriage just take a walk around after dark in anyone of America’s inner cities.
What Cheney supports is his daughter…and who knows what Obama supports? At least with Cheney you know where he really stands and the same goes for George Bush who did not support gay marriage.
I admire Laura Bush and I think steve is crazy to call the woman a despicable lefty, that is just nonsense. I know a lot of libertarians who are not even a lit bit lefty and they support gay marriage.
I think the point Laura Bush is making here is that she has her opinion on these subjects and her husband had his. She is not bossy or intrusive about it..and I think she is right in that it is a generational thing, in time gay marriage might well become accepted. As for abortion, I don’t like it, but I think it would be a mistake to try and make it illegal.
Well carried to extremes the ideals of small government can fit gay marriage into the equation.
But honestly we all have our quirks. Laura has hers. I have mine. It doesn’t make me like her less.
Roger:
Thanks for your provocative post. And the video that once again shows what a fine lady Ms. Bush is.
I was part of panel here in Spokane, WA, several years ago on this topic (as the token gay conservative) and my argument was that we should resurrect ‘common law marriage’. Doing so would set the religious argument aside and acknowledge the simple fact that when two people decide to make a life together, rules of fairness (equity as it’s called in the law) should prevail. The response from the leadership of the Spokane ‘gay community’ was hostile. These are mostly folk of the ‘Stonewall’ generation–tired, if not atrophied. (They liked me even less when I asked them what they were doing to support the working class gays and lesbians here who couldn’t afford to spend money at their bars, but that’s another issue.)
When I pointed out that many heterosexual couples would benefit as well, lots of heads shook. Those shaking heads really define what the issue is here. Not equity, but telling us what we’re supposed to think, do and act. You mentioned Marcuse; Gramisci is very much part of the equation with his slow grinding down of standards. When and if the gay left is able to define ‘marriage’, you may be sure that there will be lots of gays and lesbians like me who will be thrown outside the ambit.
The gay left’s arguments are not about ‘marriage’ at all. They are all about having the power to say who may do what on their terms.
Ms Bush’s comments precisely defined the conflict that afflicts the old leftists in the gay community today. The younger generation is no longer counter-revolutionary. And now all these professional gay activists find themselves reactionary.
Brooks
Time to come out of the Dark Ages folks. Elena Kagan was correct when she said the Constitution affords no right for gay marriage but it does not extend one for heterosexual marriage either. Therefore, the government has no legal interest in supporting or opposing marriage whether it be gay or straight. If certain churches don’t want to do gay marriages then they don’t have too. Gay marriage WILL be legal in the coming years, you can bet on it.
Moreover, look what just happened in the UK. The conservative Tories alligned with the Liberal Democrats have marginalized the far right of the party (better yet, thrown them under the bus). They have permanently realigned the political center of gravity. This will happen soon in the US too and the far right extremists will be left wringing their hands on the sidelines.
If Cameron in the UK cannot score a clear electoral victory with the mess Gordon Brown has made of everything, then I don’t think he is going to accomplish much else. The conservative and liberal coalition will not last long unless Cameron abandons most of the conservative values. He has already jettisoned a few. The question is not who will rule the UK but who can save it from the fiscal and social abyss on which it stands.
People who are gay already can get married. If they do not wish to marry a man or a women they do not need to change marriage.
Younger people already accept Homosexuality, because the secular humanism that has taken over the school system has mislead them with evil.
Humans can justify anything they want. Secular humanism has been justifing all types of evil. For example, abortion, NAMBLA, homosexual marriage, porn, and drug abuse.
If 1-3% of the nation believe it is OK to marry their horse, you can go ahead and take that that last step. Come on, if men poking each other in the arse is no longer evil, then having sex with your horse is no big deal.
What is the purpose of marriage today? Unless you want a tax break or you believe marriage has a religious significance, why bother? (For the record, I’m in the second group.)
A good friend is a Presbyterian minister. When he began his career in the early 1970s, most of the couples he married were around 22. Now most are in their late 20s or 30s. First marriages come later; cohabitation before marriage is the norm; long term or serial cohabitation, without marriage, is not unusual; there is no stigma to unwed motherhood or divorce. Sorry, but the battle to save marriage was lost around 1990.
Personally, I have trouble with the concept of gay marriage but I have a hard time rationalizing my objections to it. On the other hand, seeing the problems of modern heterosexual marriage,why do gays want to imitate it?
#35 leatherneck — Come on, if men poking each other in the arse is no longer evil, then having sex with your horse is no big deal.
Yeah, that whole ‘two consenting adults’ thing is just SO mystifying and vague.
#32 Dave M. (now in S. Korea) — Redefining marriage will destroy it.
Indeed. Why, I know a couple of gay men who were married in Sioux City, and 30 minutes after the ceremony, you could hear marriages imploding in some of the surrounding towns. It’s a shame. What was Iowa thinking?
(Obviously I’m in Evil Roger’s camp here.)
Obviously.
For some reason I like to think historically, with the long view to the past. [The future for me presents nothing clear since now, everything goes]. I will not use the word marriage since it has a million meanings now, loaded with personal grapeshot for use as a weapon by anyone who wants to fire. But traditionally for most millenia, people celebrated two people getting together to commit to themselves for life to create with God’s help and grace a family of children of their mutual blood, who they would then, together, raise and train, in part by staying together. Now homosexuals want the same celebration, even though the joint procreative power for them is missing, though society, free of internicine struggle, the close proximity of crop failure and plague, is not so much in need of procreation for cultural preservation.
My solution. Men and women joining together for the joy of preserving the race and their own family heritage, just as it was handed down to them, are entitled to the traditional celebration, which gays cannot emulate for obvious reasons. If gays for different reasons want to commit themselves to each other for life few would question their free right to do so, or the possibility, not demonstrated anywhere in history, that their mutual love will last for their mutual lifetimes. (Many times it does even without the cement of children). But for the Gays, don’t impersonate the breeders or steal their word for what they have traditionally done. Committment for the love of two people alone is something significantly though not completely different.
Also, bringing in a third contributor for DNA only, or gay adoption to create a family that way, well this has come too, and the claims that its just as good as a traditional family, may well be true, and I don’t oppose it logically. But I still see a distinction which even total societal freedom, to let any two consenting adults do anything they want, still won’t erase completely. So notwithstanding my love for at least one Gay of my blood, I still must say, vive la tradition.
So … the Chinese and Victorian English who smoked and became addicted to opium were secular humanists?
Denying gays and lesbians the right to marry the consenting, adult partner of their choice will resurrect America’s inner cities, or is it that gays and lesbians are responsible for the dysfunction of (straight) individuals who fail to properly control their lusts, consummate their sexual urges and breed without contraception, giving birth to children they are ill-prepared to raise and destined to become burdens to society as wards of the state?
Is it that gays are the all-powerful, dictatorial controllers of the judiciary and the media? or is it that we are merely a tiny, despised minority and that therefore, are somehow not entitled to the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Sorry, but I just haven’t been able to keep track of all the internal contradictions desperately thrown out above as supposedly rock solid arguments against my relationship being recognized by the District of Columbia.
Finally, out of concern for the apparently fragile state of heterosexual marriage I just want to ask: as a result of gays and lesbians having the right to marry in New Hampshire and Iowa (those hotbeds of hedonism and depravity), if any of the anti-marriage equality posters’ marriages fell apart today? Anyone? Thought not.
Again, I appreciate the support and courage of the article’s author and the commenters who see through the tired scare tactics about bestiality and polygamy and the juvenile “ick” factor, and who trust their fellow American citizens to make rational, enlightened choices about their own private family lives and legal arrangements.
Please don’t be bullied or silenced by the opportunistic extremists, or give into the fear of being tarred by guilt-by-association and having your own family history or sexuality held up to scrutiny or ridicule. Your gay and lesbian sons and daughters and grandchildren deserve nothing less. Decades from now, they will be embarrassed by the memory of those who stood for segregation forever, for separate but equal, for prejudice and discrimination against their very own brothers and sisters.
And they will gratefully remember those who stood on the side of equality before the law and justice for all–concepts that seem to be oddly alien to many posters here claiming to be the “true conservatives”. How predictable, how sad.
The minute you quote the Bible in a discussion of American law you have just lost your argument.
This is precisely why marriage should be taken out of the hands of government (especially the federal government, which has no authority to establish a new form of marriage or enforce a particular old form).
Let “Marriage” remain the domain of religions, but for legal purposes a new model should be developed…not a “civil union” but some sort of official “household” status similar to the rules that apply to claiming dependents on your taxes.
This could be between man and wife, man and man, siblings living under the same roof, friends sharing a home, etc. True, at the moment, I can’t think of any particular secular reason to insist that this partnership be limited to two people, but when you realize that it is NOT a marriage, nor a proxy for marriage, what would be the problem with that? Consider two brothers and their sister who inherit their parents’ home and live together running that household. It would not be insensible that they should have some rights under inheretance and insurance laws, no?
And this “household” status could be subject to legal dissolution just as it is subject to legal establishment. This way, if one brother marries a gal, has kids and moves out, his household partnership with his siblings could be dissolved (or the whole family could stay and his wife be added to it). Again, the government already recognizes divorce in marriages even though many churches do not, so there would be no big practical change there.
Honestly, as a Catholic who wants to see the sanctity of marriage preserved, I feel the best way to accomplish that is to remove the entire concept from the grips and whims of the government…but in order for that to happen, religious folks from sea to shining sea need to get it out of their head that the only alternative to government marriage needs to be some other type of government marriage…the alternative can be something else completely – no government recognition or regulation of marriage, and the real institution of marriage will be stronger for it!
Why does a reference to the Bible automatically mean one has lost any argument regarding American law? All premises, even legal ones, start from some foundational beliefs. Why is the Bible not an appropriate foundational belief? I suggest you read the legal decisions rendered by the Supreme Court prior to the 20th century and see how many references are made to the Bible.
Law deals with societal norms and societal norms are based on several factors. Throughout our history individuals have refered to Scripture in support of their position without any loss of credibility. Rev. Martin Luther King use Biblical references and images to challenge racism and segregation. Were his points any less valid?
The problem is that Christians have acquiesced too long in the ridicule and ultimate removal of Biblical standards from our government. Instead we have allowed progressive to advance policies based on flawed reasoning and error. Without independent standards of morality existing outside of government, government will become the ultimate moral authority. So much for limited government at that point.
Those who would jettison the Bible and Scriptural standards of morality advance the cause of big government by abandoning their strongest ally against it.
Which biblical references do you want to use? All old testament rules like kill any children who disrespect their parents, “All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)” or how ’bout adultery, “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)”. I could go on but you see the problem with using the bible as a universal guide to law in this country, most of us are willing to die to prevent the abomination that resorting to those type of primitive rules would entail.
So Kipling are you picking and choosing which laws of the GOD to obey and if you are why only the ones on homosexuality and marriage and not all the rest?
I agree with the Old Testament condemnation of all the practices you cited in your post – children who belittle and hold in contempt their parents (definition of the Hebrew word for curse), men and women who commit adultry, and homosexuality. Christ however introduced grace and God’s forebearance into the picture and lifted the death penalty from these sins. See for example Jesus refusing to stone the woman caught in adultry or his conversation with the woman at the well in Samaria. Nonetheless, Jesus still considered these sins and, while lifting the extreme penalty, called them sin and told the offenders to go forth and sin no more. Jesus particularly held the religious leaders accountable for sanctioning the belittlement of parents in Mark 7:10. Paul spoke out against all three and told the people not to elect anyone quilty of these sins to a leadership position in the church or to even have fellowship with them in some cases. So, as you can see, the sins in the Old Testament were still sins in the New Testament.
I never said that Old Testament law should be the “universal guide to law in this country.” I spoke of societal norms not of trying to build a theocratic goverment. To many liberals, and perhaps yourself, any mention of moral standards makes you whine about the theocratic bogeyman.
Which of the three practices you mentioned do you support?
I believe Homosexuality is an individual’s right and none of the business of Government, but protection of individual’s rights are (I’m for civil unions). Adultery is between the individuals involved and once again not the Government’s realm to punish. As for disrespecting your parents OK normally not something I support but there are cases where I would, an example, Fred Phelps pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church, how “bout you?
Now my turn, do you agree with the condemnation of witches, I know we aren’t suppose to burn them, my question is do you believe in the supernatural? How ’bout using this admonishment, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Should we make this new testament command a law or only the ones we (society) feel comfortable with?
Historically we in this country (society) we have changed what we consider acceptable. Examples: slavery, interracial marriage, women voting, native Americans as human, the treatment of animals, workers and children. There have been a score of societal norms we have changed that our GOD fearing ancestors considered perfectly Christian and good. We of a more enlighten age find these same societal norms disgusting, I believe you do as well. I know men and women have used the teachings of Jesus to advance what most of us consider good but so have some most of us consider evil, Fred Phelps. My question is if societal norms and the Bible are your prerequisite for upholding this gay marriage ban isn’t that always going to be a moving target and like nuclear power a two edged sword and dangerous in the wrong hands?
I’ll make a prediction, meat eating by humans will be considered evil and no I’m not a vegetarian, most of the drug laws in this country will be repudiated and gay marriage will be acceptable sooner rather than later. If I’m wrong I’ll buy you a six pack of your choice in fifty years barring an early death or Jesus coming back first and that whole anti-Christ thing doesn’t happen of course.
Response to Eden: The Old Testament command not to curse your parents means a lot more than to simply disrespect them. It covered abandonment, exploitation, and other far more serious activities. As to adultry the government should have laws to protect the sanctity of the home and to keep spouses and children from being exploited. In some regard adultry may be a personal affair but if a man cannot keep his vows to his wife then why would I expect him to keep his word to me. Thus the private activity has a larger social implication.
Yes, I do condemn witchcraft. Yes, I do believe in the supernatural, at least to some extent.
Jesus gave the admonition “to sell all you have and give to the poor” specifically to the rich young ruler who appraoched Him on the road. At no point did Jesus issue a general command to all of His disciples to sell all they had and give it to the poor. He spoke in such a way to the rich young ruler because the young man considered his wealth a sign of God’s blessing and a means to assure ultimate salvation by doing good works – a typical religious belief at the time. The man though hs wealth and the charitable use of it would earn him salvation. Jesus wanted the young ruler to shed his earthly support and to accept the Kingdom of Heaven as a free gift. Note the Scripture passage before the one you mentioned deals with little children accepting free gifts. Christians are to consider all they have as belonging to God and to be charitable; however, we are not all called to be Saint Francis.
Historically, societal norms in the United States have changed. The changes you mentioned are all positive and Scripture does not contradict any of those points. Evil men have attempted to distort and exploit Scripture for their own evil designs. They have done the same to science, literature, psychology, sociology, etc. Should we abandon those disciplines as well.
Without a firm moral foundation grounded in the truth of God, society will become adrift and everything will become a moving target.
As to the bet, make it a Limoncello or a good cigar and you have a deal. Although we may not be able to enjoy much of anything in the future with the pleasure police out in force. Thanks for the great discussion.
As to Phelps, pastors and teachers of Scripture are held to a higher standard. His distortion of Scripture will earn him the wrath of God. Jesus made it clear that it would be better if those who led others astray were thrown from a cliff with a millstone around their necks than thay face Him at judgment.
And as for law, what exactly is a state’s Constitution? Is it not the foundational law of bringing together under explicit provisions a given geographical area and its populace?
I recommend to those who seek to silence Americans who hold to a Biblical worldview that they should examine carefully our state Constitutions to glean a greater understanding of the place of God in our history and its laws. Oh, and don’t forget the Declaration of Independence. We would have no laws but for it.
Mr. Kipling, somehow your comments made me think of this video….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o&feature=player_embedded
Enjoy
Thanks for the clip but I must decline. I watched the first minute and found it rather standard fare for anti-religious bigots. Mr. Carlan attacks business and religion while at the same time making as much money pushing his philosophy of sarcasim and nihilism to anyone who will buy a ticket. Unfortunately, he is gone now and will soon be forgotten by the world that once embraced him. Many a hammer has worn itself out on the anvil of Scripture. Hammers come and go but the anvil remains.
I went back and viewed the whole clip in order to be entirely fair to you and your post. I must say that it did change my opinion. After the first minute I felt a little angry but was really rather bored by Mr. Carlin and his remarks. After all what Christian has not heard some variation of that routine. By the end of the 10 minute clip, I was simply sad. Sad for Mr. Carlin and the life he must have led. Sad for the people who found any of that routine funny. Sad that Mr. Carlin missed it and went to his death simply a shell of humanity. The clip actually confirmed me in my conviction that I must always stand firm upon Scripture because it and nothing else is the Truth that will set man free.
George Carlin (May 12, 1937 – June 22, 2008). Enough said.
I’m with you on this one, Roger. People are born gay. Nobody wakes up one morning in their early twenties and decides, “Hey, I think it’d be cool to be gay.” It’s all about to whom you’re attracted.
Conservatives need to drop the moralizing and stick to defense(including immigration policy) and the budget if they ever want to run this country for a sustained period of time.
Considering that a majority of the American people overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage, I do not see how this is a looser for the Republican party. The Republican party constantly says that it wants to make inroads into the Black and Hispanic minorities. What better way than to embrace them on the social issues they support?
Republicans should promote conservative social values because we believe they are true and right, consequences be d@mned. No offense intended, Kipling.
I agree completely with you darcy. I just wanted to counter the false argument that to promote social values will cost you votes on election day.
And right you are to do so
So the GOP should opposs gay marriage because it’s the popular thing to do? How Clintonian.
I distrust surveys about personal behavior- ask almost any man how many sexual partners he has had, his answer will depend on the audience. My instinct tells me that there are a lot of people (let’s say “x”) who are born heterosexual. They could no more have sexual relations with a person of the same gender than they could sprout wings and fly. It seems logical that there are also some number of folks- – “y”- who, similarly, are born homosexual. But there are also people- “z”- who live very succesful lives as heterosexuals but also choose to engage in homosexual behavior. Who is the real Jim McGreevey?
Certainly, “x” >> “y”. Is z > y? Is z > x? Does it make any difference?
Jesus said nothing about homsexuality. Paul said, among other things, that women should cover their heads in church and slaves should respect their masters. I think Jesus would be much more gentle to a gay couple who are faithful to each other than to a straight married man who commits serial adultery. Or to deceptive politicians.
Republicans should oppose gay marraige because it is the right thing to do. In my post to which you responded, I sought to counter the argument advanced by Dave S. that do so would cost the GOP votes on election day. My council like darcy above would be to oppose it no matter the popular opinion on the issue.
Umm… wow. You don’t hang around in the right circles. I work in theatre. Yes, people DO say, “Hey, I think I’ll try being gay because it’s cool.” Anything to be cutting edge and outrageous.
I’ve seen it plenty of times.
“Born gay” is something the gay community needs. It has no science yet. But they’re looking for it. Better not use the same science tactics that brought us “global warming,” as that one didn’t exactly work out.
Yes, well, the people you are talking about are bisexual, they are not necessarily gay. I do believe that some people are predisposed to be gay. It is obvious. What has that got to do with what Laura Bush said anyway?
He doesn’t have to voice support. His Czars will implement regulation that say it all. Americans have no voice, except that which the government gives you.
The country is broke. We have a marxist “dictator” in office. The middle class is being erased. 10% unemployment. 40 million on foodstamps. A media that doesn’t do it’s job. All the while Islamic terrorists are trying to “convert” us. I am reminded by the phrase…you can’t see the forest for the trees.
Talk about putting the cart before the horse.
“No social calamities have occurred that I know of, at least not from gay people living together.”
This is a weak argument for same-sex marriage. It like someone saying: “Look, I smoked a cigarette yesterday and nothing happened.” Many regular smokers lived to be 100. And yet, statistically, tobacco is not good for you.
“Our cities are filled with gay couples who are de facto married.”
Cohabitation is a civil right. Marriage is not. Currently the group whose civil rights are violated constantly are the polygamous, with arrests, imprisonment, and the removal of the children from their parents. The civil rights of same-sex couples are not violated now; in the past, violations occurred with arrests and imprisonment.
Marriage is a contract with society as a whole. The marriage issue is not one of civil rights but of culture of the society. Why do we have laws against public nudity? Has public nudity per se caused harm? Why the laws relating to restrooms? In the Middle Ages in Europe, the outhouses were such that several people (male and female together) would defecate in the same room/compartment so to speak. Why the change?
Many of you would say that the Ancient Greeks were rational people. The discipline of Logic originated from the Greeks. Although homosexuality was accommodated in the general culture, marriage (as in man-woman) was mandated. PLATO (Laws, 636D): “He who refuses to marry shall be thus punished in money, and also be deprived of all honour which the younger show to the elder …”
I also believe that children emulate the adults around them. I do not totally agree that all homosexuals were “born” homosexual. In the Greek society for example, the elites had sexual relations with woman who bore children and also has sexual relations with young men and boys mentoring to them. These young men and boys followed the “norms” of the society and engaged in sexual activity with the men whether they were homosexual or not. We “KNOW” that children being the least powerful in a society often are the victims of a civilizations quest for “lifestyle” experiments.
A young boy or a young girl confused about their sexuality can be vulnerable to feelings or attractions that they are too young to understand. Just because a young person may get a JOLT of sexual stimulation in the company of someone of the same sex does not mean that they are gay or bisexual. It often just means that their hormones are surging and not always at the right time. Humans learn to control their body in order to function and to prosper. Letting the body rule over the mind often leads to chaos.
Unfortunately for those that are not attracted to the opposite sex the “norm” on this earth and what has enabled the human race to grow and continue on has been the joining of a man and a woman. This joining when it has become permanent is called marriage. It is unique.
The government, editors, dictionaries such as Webster etc. have absolutely NO BUSINESS redefining words. If words begin to have no meaning or can be manipulated to advance ideologies, or changed at the whim of people in control then, in my opinion, we are becoming a nation wavering back and forth never sure that even the words we speak are solid, definitions changing to accommodate those left out just ‘because’ their left out in the definition.
A paper must be altered because the words husband and wife not longer can be attached to it? It must be altered with A. and B. and we consider that an advancement? We are fooling ourselves that a child with a father/husband, mother/wife is just another relationship no big deal when raising children neither a necessary component to a health society. I find this insulting and not an advancement.
I see this as trivializing one important relationship in life so that others can feel better about their relationships.
I am sick and tired of this attack on marriage and I would like to point out if the divorce rate is around fifty percent than those would be pretty good odds when playing the lottery. There would be many wealthy happy people on earth. Even at half a success it has pretty damn good for this world. Don’t mess with it.
It is blessed by God, it is blessed by nature, it is blessed by science, it is blessed by the numbers, it is blessed by history, it is blessed.
Kipling: “Yes, I do believe in the supernatural, at least to some extent.”
Well, of course, you do. You’re a religious fanatic. It couldn’t be more obvious. You also suffer from logorrhea, writing endlessly on someone else’s blog. How rude. Is that you learned from these religious values you parade so ceaselessly and dogmatically?
Andy, please some civility, most of Kipling’s writings were in response to mine. If any wrong was committed, I’m to blame. I don’t agree with Kipling but do admire his eloquence and his informed commitment to his position. If all of us who disagree in America could have the same courteous discussions it would go a long way to solving the great divide we all see between the people of our country.
All people who don’t believe as you do are fanatic. You would make a great Dictator.
It makes me so sad to read some of the comments against gay marriage. At least Laura is coming out now in support of it, although I think it’s completely cowardly and somewhat useless. People like these guys DESERVE EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW! http://ourscenetv.com/posts/281/internet-superstars-equality-heroes
When the government, when private industry, when the judicial system takes it upon themselves to redefine words to suit others needs because they are not included in the definition, it is time to take a hard look at their power to initiate changes to society without the consent of society.
To redefine the word Marriage, solid in its’ defining as the joining of a man and a woman, and change it to include other pairings, is an insult to those who do not agree that unchecked power should stand.
While people have been debating their attitudes and beliefs about various relationships and what privileges and responsibilities they carry, quietly and behind the scenes there has been a concerted effort to CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE in order that the argument now becomes one where the definition has already been changed before we have even become aware of it.
This has allowed the other point of view to come to the table as if something is being taken away from them, when in fact it was never was even decided to redefine the word, except by a few elites in the government, judicial, and civil world.
Thus now when looking for the definition of marriage we see it already changed with barely a whimper or question because it was so stealthily done.
It’s called manipulation, something we should be very wary of and question the motives behind it. It has already happened. This cunning method to attempt a huge change to our society should not be allowed to continue without our right to question their methods, and intent and whether it is a good thing for ourselves and future generations to come.
As a gay man, I COULD CARE LESS ABOUT “GAY MARRIAGE”-I MEAN REALLY. I know this type of thinking is totally uncommon in the GLBT community, but this is why this is a non-issue:
1) our national debit is growing each day and right now, we as a nation are in debit to China. What do you think China has to say about gay marriage?
2) we have people in this world that REALLY DO WANT TO KILL US! Since “O-Bummer” took office-we have had more attempts to harm our nation than all the years George Bush was in office. We all know how Iran handles gays-they stone us to death in public!
3) We have mass unemployment-California alone is at 16%-yet, Pelosi and crew have done nothing except “bank bail outs” and “cash for clunkers”. However, when they (social progressives) are down in the poles, they mention “don’t ask-don’t tell” and the ignorant gay community rushs right in and drinks the “coolaid” and says “see he really is gonna help us!”
4) we have a massive oil spill in the gulf coast-nobody has any idea how to stop it. Sorry-I like sea food and can’t live with out shrimp and we get 40% of our seafood from the gulf coast.I can live without a paper on my wall saying I am married!
5) we have a culture of kids in our public shcools who seem to enjoy flying the flags of other nations at our public schools-we have teachers pandoring to this activity and sending other kids home for wearing our nations flag on Cinco De Mayo. Not to mention the communsit teacher Mr. Ron Gochez at Santee High in Los Angeles who calls for a “Mexican Revolution”-my God! Yea, look him up on U-tube!
I think it should be clear that we have far more problems facing OUR NATION than “gay marriage”. I my opinion, as gay man who has been openly gay since June 21, 1991-this isnt even a good side issue.
My partner and I have legal papers which are better than any state issued paper allowing us to get married. Getting married won’t change how we feel one but and won’t add anything to our lives-and we have been together now for 16 years! So, so gays pushing this are clueless! WE ARE PERFECTLY FINE WITH THE WAY IT IS AND HAVE NO DESIRE TO CHANGE THE WORDS-”MAN AND WOMEN”-WE DON’T CARE!
I guess we are wierd, but we ARE NOT marching in “lock step” with the crazies in West Hollywood and crazy Castro Street Mobs in the bay area. We do think for ourselves and will not be brainwashed by the loud mount crazies in the GLBT community.
Anyway, just a thought from a gay man on this topic-some of us really could careless about the whole thing. We just don’t get the media play becuase we’re not the ones out in the streets throwing crap, jumping on police cars, or making fools of ourselves infront of the LDS church.
John
Homosexual marriage the law of the land?
Let’s see now. Hmmmm. Public education. How’s that going to work, with the students, I mean? Does anyone here remember when sex-ed in high school and junior high was controversial?
I remember it. What a black mark on our culture its introduction to the curriculum that was, and all the politically acceptable claptrap (sophistry) the Left employed to ease the policy into the system against the wishes of parents, well into the ’80s. I remember, too, being an intensely embarrassed junior high student, having to sit through health class in a mixed setting and being ‘taught’ about sex. What a disgusting and UNLOVING way to be taught about sex, and oh yes, with no moral guidelines attached, as if we’re nothing more than animals — that’s what the Left makes of you; that’s how they think of you.
And now we learn that Highland Park Assistant Superintendent Suzan Hebson, who canceled her school’s girl’s basketball tournament trip to Arizona is no stranger to stirring things up.
You can go to Gatewaypundit to read the story yourselves. But essentially, the point is this: sex-ed in school will take on a whole new dynamic — NATIONWIDE — if homosexual marriage becomes the law of the land. This is what O wants, as is obvious in his choice of “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings.
How far down the road to depravity does the Left intend to take us? Oh, sorry. No such thing as depravity, only personal choices — all equally valid.
Such ideas live in a fantasy world that does not exist.
Wrong! Obama has often expressed his approval and support of homosexual conduct.He is the Queen-In-Chief of the wonderful Jackass Party. Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian. Wonder why he favors queer marriage? Laura Bush is a United Methodist and therefore believes in absolutely nothing. They deny the inerrancy of Scripture and therefore have no basis for their perverted version of “christianity”. Dubya qualifies as their Hypocrite-In-Chief. But he may not be fully accountable, due to a low IQ. All of the above are satanists, devoted to the destruction of mankind for their master, as is the Kenyan Usurper.
@ Darcy, Intresting you raise this topic:
“Highland Park Assistant Superintendent Suzan Hebson, who canceled her school’s girl’s basketball tournament trip to Arizona is no stranger to stirring things up. ”
After seeing this on Fox News, I sent a nasty e-mail to The School Board of Highland and accused them of using the girls basketball team as “pawns” in this political debate. I told them that adults like Hebson were using these kids to convey their message that they dislike the Arizona Immigration Reform and linked it to not only what is going on at Live Oak High, but the communist teacher in Los Angeles “Ron Gochez” who calls for a “Mexican Revolution” and refers to the southwest as “stolen lands”.
I got a response-I guess they thought I was some “redneck” from Texas-until they found out my partner is a native of Mexico from Jalisco and HE IS A US CITEZEN AND WE DO FLY THE AMERICAN FLAG EVERYDAY AT OUR RANCH!
I told them that “there security concerns” were a crock of dung-No, I agree with you-that’s why this whole issue of “gay marriage” is a NON-ISSUE and given what we are dealing with as a nation-IT’S NOT IMPORTANT.
We have seen that even California Voters for the second time have clearly stated that marriage is between a man and women.
Sadly, most GLBT’s just don’t get it aand will have another measure on the ballot soon to try and overturn Prop 8 in California. I guess some people just don’t understand the words ‘NO’. I laugh at them and say, “so insted of fixing your state budget which is broke-you wanna waist your time on this BS” SMART-REAL SMART!
@ Mike K, “Mike_K said, that churches will be targeted immediately and brutally.”
Sadly, Mike this is already being done and we have no shortage of evidence to support this-that’s why I will not support my community on this.
First, In San Francisco, The Catholic Church in that city has been taughted by men dressed as Nuns. The Usually strike on Sunday’s at Mass-when I saw this being done I was livid.
My partner and his family are catholics and asked myself “what if these fools did this and came in and sat down next to his mother?” The Gay Community openly condones and supports this tactic becuase they feel “By Any Means”.
I compaired these donkey’s to Rev Fred Phelps of Whitesbrough Church who runs around the nation showing up with big signs at funrals for service men killed in action. His signs read “God Hates Fags-God Hates America”. His twisted logic is that our service people are being killed because America allows homosexuality. You should have seen the reaction I got when I made this remark to gay men in the room!
If you choose to look-check out the video images of the protests out in California After Prop 8 passed-people from West Hollywood marched on the LDS church and disrupted it and tried to vandalize it-that’s when I cut all ties with 90% of the gay community.
My point to this is simple-WE ARE EQUAL. I have no right to compell a church to worship as they choose. If that church like Fred Phelps feels it is a sin and wrong-FINE!
We ARE protected under the law-my partner HAS seen me in the hospital when I was hurt in the line of duty. We joinly own property, have bank accounts, we can adopt if we wanted, blah blah blah.
So, why do I- or anyone for that fact-feel the need to change decades old “traditions” in this nation. I mean come on, why bother-leave well enough alone. We have far to many other pressing issues. Besides, people ARE ENTITLED to their opionions as long as they don’t infringe on my rights.
Belive me, I have seen some of the remarks made, and I may not totally agree or I may totally disagree-but that’s what is great about this nation! WE DON’T HAVE TO AGREE!
As far as more laws-nope don’t need them. I think we have enough-if only we had people willing to apply them and not find reasons around them. THAT APPLIES TO SO MANY TOPICS NOT JUST THIS ONE
@ Mike Miller, “We are a country that believes in a separation of church and state”
This won’t happen-this speaks to the very foundation as to why this nation was formed and how it came to be.
LOL, yea we are-kinda, but I am shocked that nobody has brought up Nancy Pelosi this last week who told the Catholic Church leaders “you need to be speaking about amnisty”-she was talking about “immigration reform” and in a way telling the church to help mobialize their communities-so this seperation of church and state is an intresting topic.
I think to take this “litterally” that is a real slippery sloap-look at the WW I cross stolen in the middle of the night in Mojave, CA after the courts ruled it could stay just this last week. That was done under “seperation of church and state”-
Then, you have that wacko who wants to take out “in God We Trust” off our money and “God” out of the Pledge-again I say, we have better things to deal with than these side issues.
EXACTLY-WHY WORRY ABOUT THIS WHEN YOU HAVE ISSUES LIKE THIS LOOKING YOU DEAD IN THE EYE.
This reminds me of watching Titanic. The Ship is going down and we are all watching the band and talking about the deck chair colors!
Thank you for your kind reply, John. But given it, let me say that I may not have made myself clear about my position as to the importance of the issue at hand: homosexual marriage.
The activist homosexual community has made it an issue, so here we are, dealing with it. There’s understandable majority resistance to it across America. But some, like Laura Bush and Dick Cheney — notable Republicans — are outspoken in favor of it.
In the mind of the Left, their support of it somehow delegitimizes and marginalizes the voices coming from traditionalists and conservatives, whom the Left can now dismiss as out of touch, etc, etc. As the Left succeeds in minimizing opposition, the easier and quicker do they achieve their aims.
But the larger picture is this: The Left is communist to the core, hates the family structure that is the building block of society — and the transmitter of values and beliefs — and seeks to undermine it from all directions, the better to minimize resistance to the godless, secular state.
In that project, homosexual activists are little more than commie tools (just another of the Left’s groups to coddle and pander to) used to usher in permanent control of America. Conservatives, traditionalists, and patriotic Americans are understandably alarmed at the prospect of losing their country entirely to the political/philosophical progeny of Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin.
So, for a myriad of reasons, religious and political chief among them, this IS an important issue — at a time, when as you rightly state, (and let me paraphrase here) the world is coming unglued.
The joining of a man and a woman was never a tradition, never decades old, never an invention of this country or any country or nation as a matter of fact.
The joining of a man and a woman “Is and Was” from farther back than written history. When a man and a woman join together and make a bond together with the intention of permanence we defined it as marriage, we didn’t invent it.
A man and a woman join together in marriage and become husband and wife. It is and it was nothing new, not invented, not traditional, not conservative, not liberal, not democratic, not republican.
It is defined with words, marriage, husband, wife, until that is, the government, the judicial system and the private sector have decided to change it.
It is insulting, and in my opinion elements in this world have moved beyond the permissible and taken on power they have no business taking on.
This is as big a deal as an oil spill, balanced budgets, a poor economy, inflation, deflation, war and peace. It is a move by the powerful to alter society, forcing us to accept changes that will affect future generations to come.
Defining or redefining a relationship that is the building block of human life is proper, since we are a people of words and language to communicate. Singling it out as unique is proper because it is.
Redefining it by the few and demanding it from the many is something we all should think seriously about and be very concerned that if the powerful can do this with the word marriage, what else can they do to us before we even have a chance to think about the consequences or whether is would be “good”?
I am not surprised that this is happening while the world is in turmoil. This of often the most ideal time to make changes that should not be made and the method used to cause this great upheaval in society is an indication that it is taking advantage of this turmoil.
I am extremely angry that we are being taken advantage of through tricks and subterfuge seeking advantage over ordinary people who are the back-bone of this country, nation, and world.
There is no such thing as Gay Marriage. The word has been changed so that we have been forced to be in the position of taking something away, when in fact is was only invented by Judges, Legislatures, and certain powerful Civilians.
It is a big deal, make no mistake about it.
I oppose “Gay Marriage” because I oppose the agenda that is pushing it. Not because I think homosexuality is immoral or a sin. I don’t. I certainly don’t think anyone chooses their sexual orientation. And biblical injunctions against homosexuality mean nothing to me. My problem with these people is that they are not interested in gaining the same rights that married couples have. If they were, they would be pushing for civil union legislation that gave them all those rights, and would leave the word “Marriage” alone to mean what it has always meant.
These people will use any means necessary to make homosexuality culturally acceptable. I do not oppose artistic (movies, etc.) attempts to do this. Or philosophical attempts. OR even political attempts in form of referendums. But these people will use the courts to change the definition of one of the most valued institutions that has had the same meaning across all cultures throughout all history. I just don’t think making homosexuality culturally acceptable is that important. It is absolutely important that homosexuality is tolerated. But the zeal to eradicate homophobia by any means necessary is just too fanatical for me. Not because I agree with homophobia, because I don’t. I just disagree strongly that homophobia is really that dangerous or destructive. As a blue collar worker, almost everyone I know is a homophobe. On the other hand, I have never heard anyone seriously suggest that homosexuality should be outlawed or that homosexuals should be harmed with impunity.
I believe that the people pushing the ‘gay marriage’ agenda, by virtue of their willingness to use the courts against the wishes of the majority to change the very meaning of a treasured, traditional institution, demonstrate a degree of violence on a much larger scale then culturally engrained homophobia does. In other words, to me, the phobia against homophobia is more dangerous then the homophobia itself.
Homosexuals should not be persecuted. That what “toleration” means.
But “gay marriage” isn’t about “equal rights”, it is about compelling acceptance. Ever heard the word “heteronormative”? It’s a progressive neologism, coined to refer to the presumption that heterosexuality is normal – which the truly progressive now consider bigotry. (Jada Pinkett spoke at Harvard, told coeds they could have a great career and a husband – and was roundly denounced for it.)
The pretense behind the “gay marriage” program is that homosexuals want permanent monogamous relationships. A few do; but the vast majority of male homosexuals are extremely promiscuous. This is reflected in the on-going pandemics of STDs among male homosexuals, and such practices as “dogging” in public parks or soliciting in public toilets. (Homosexual activists object vehemently when police crack down on these activities.)
Also endemic among male homosexuals are pederasty, bondage and sadomasochism (“Mr. Leather”), and drug use (crystal meth and amyl nitrate especially). Lesbian sex culture is less public, but it seems to have a bondage element too.
But the rest of us aren’t supposed to notice this. For that matter, we’re not supposed feel any repulsion or distaste for homosexuality. We are repeatedly told this is no different from being against interracial sex. Now, rules against interracial sex weres a relatively new thing: the Egyptians and Greeks and Romans didn’t care, nor the Persians or Chinese or Indians or Arabs. It was clearly a cultural construct, invented by ideological racists in the Old South and South Africa.
Today’s cultural radicals insist that distaste for homosexuality is also just a construct, with no basis in human nature. It is bigotry to be suppressed – to be purged from peoples’ minds by appropriate training, and by establishing complete acceptance of homosexuality as a requirement for any public role whatever.
(Note the persecution of, for instance, a wedding photographer in New Mexico who refused to shoot a lesbian “wedding”.)
Beyond that is a deeper agenda – the cultural radicals want to abolish marriage, among other foundations of traditional society. And yes, some of them have said in public that same-sex marriage is a step in that direction.
If we are spared terminal decay, sometime in the next 25-50 years, neuroscientists will determine why some people have deformed sexual drives: to copulate with children, to receive or inflict pain or humiliation, to involve feces and urine, or to copulate with the same gender. Once we understand the cause of such deformities, we can prevent or cure them – unless the cultural radicals succeed in imposing their dogma that such practices are “normal”.
I think one can see how same-sex marriage fits into that scheme.