In the aftermath of Proposition 8’s passage in 2008, Dan Savage put it bluntly:
Old people are the real villains… And they’re dying, which is some comfort.
Okay, that’s a bit harsh. Still, a new CNN poll confirms that there is a huge generation gap regarding voters’ support of gay marriage. That means that in a way, with every day, we get closer and closer to equal marriage.
Of course, we’re not completely there yet. The CNN poll’s overall findings still show insufficient support for gay marriage:
Fifty-four percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Monday say that marriages between gay or lesbian couples should not be recognized as valid, with 44 percent suggests they should be considered legal.
But we’re getting closer and closer. I just wish we were moving a bit faster. Waiting for old people to die is hardly an acceptable political strategy. I would really love to see some of the leading advocacy organizations for equal marriage start communicating directly with the American people and making the case for equal marriage. Let’s be honest: We desperately need to reclaim the debate from people like Joe the Plumber.
FWIW: My parents up in Duluth are 70 & 72 years old and both support same-sex marriage - They’ve been married for 45 years and when I asked if same-sex marriage would in any way change their outlook on their own marriage they both laughed and said “hell no”. I’m in the 35-49 demographic who’s been married for 19 years and I agree - The strawman argument about same-sex marriage “cheapening” hetero marriage is completely bunk and loses traction on a daily basis with average Minnesotans. Either the fundies need to come up with a more compelling line of reasoning for their opposition or they’ll have to come to the obvious realization that they’ve become the mariginalized members of American society. We are one Swedish-American family who cannot wait for the day that America does as Sweden recently did - Legalize all marriages and treat them equally.
“Let’s be honest: We desperately need to reclaim the debate from people like Joe the Plumber.”
Why is the goal to “reclaim” the debate? How about engaging in a dialogue. Before you say that those other guys are impossible to dialogue with, remember that you are essentially advocating “hushing” them as a solution.
If you represent 30% of America on this issue, then you bring a very valid viewpoint to the table. If Joe the Plumber represents 30%, so does he.
For the record, I have no problem with same-sex marriage. Of the ten or twelve issues I’m willing to devote my time and effort to, though, this one doesn’t appear on the list.
I agree with you DtM - Although you’re basically arguing semantics with Jeff’s wording, there’s plenty of room at the table for counterpoints.
As a lefty, I will wholeheartedly admit that I feel the fundies have demogogued the issue to the point that it’s not in the left’s best interest to engage the social conservatives until they tone down the caustic rhetoric.
JtP doesn’t want to discuss the pros/cons of same-sex marriage, he doesn’t even seem to want to debate the pros/cons of same-sex relationships. His total lack of empathy for those outside of what he sees as his social circle does much to marginalize his viewpoint before the left even utters it’s first response.
I don’t think your claim that the left wants to “hush” social conservatives is totally accurate - Perhaps if I were a GLBT individual I might want to hear less from the “haters”. I’m just another hetero individual who knows full-well that I cannot do anything to mute one side of the conversation or the other, but I’m willing to empathize with anyone who has a compelling issue in need of a solution. If both sides of the debate were to agree to conduct the debate in good faith, with no inflammatory rhetoric or straw-man arguments, then there’s no reason why all of America should not hear such a debate and be allowed to draw their own conclusions.
I think we’re starting to get there, but it’s far from perfection. JtP is not what any of us would call a skilled debater and it’s no crime for those of us on the left to ask for a better opponent - If that’s “hushing” JtP, then I think we should all do more of it.
Hear hear.
“Why is the goal to “reclaim” the debate? How about engaging in a dialogue.”
Because people like Joe, and even you, have no desire to “engage in dialogue” on this issue. This is a wedge issue used by republicans to cow bigots into voting party line.
JtP might…MIGHT represent 5% of Americans. That’s being generous. You might represent 5% (those who don’t care, and are too apathetic to do anything one way or the other.)
Democrats in favor of SSM represent half of America in supporting SSM. This is a clear civil rights issue. We need to use the bully pulpit to bring this issue to the fore. Naysayers get out of the way, lest your opposing blather be crushed and ridiculed for the sham that it is.
“For the record, I have no problem with same-sex marriage. Of the ten or twelve issues I’m willing to devote my time and effort to, though, this one doesn’t appear on the list.”
Let’s officially consider this to be ON THE RECORD so that DtM doesn’t have to pull it out of his toolbag and PUT IT ON THE RECORD every couple of months. Give it a rest, okay, DtM? If you support it but won’t lift a fucking finger to support it, then you don’t support it, and you should get no cookie for not having a problem with it.
I’m going to add that “not having a problem” with SSM is the most cowardly goddamned position there is. If you support it, it takes a couple of calls to do the right thing. If you oppose it, the same holds true. “Not having a problem with it” is just a coy way of intimating that you’re not a bigot.
Not sure if I buy the premise, but the tool you’re using to shape it is as sharp as a rusty hammer. I wish you’d quit.
That’s a pretty hardcore take-down, but I have no problem removing nuance in order to strip things down to the bare facts. Anyone can say that they have “no problem with…” but the actual motivations of that person is left up to the individual readers/listeners to try and translate into reality. One person might read DtM’s “I have no problem with…” and conclude that he’s a supporter, but nowhere did he actually say anything that supports that conclusion. I’m actually not at all interested in DtM’s stance on SSM, but if he wants to present his thoughts on the subject (without qualifiers) then I’ll be happy to give him the floor.
Here is the issue, lojasmo. At any given time, there are probably 300 issues on the agenda at the state and federal levels. Of those, there are probably 10 that we’d fall on our sword for, maybe 10 more that we feel very strongly about, another 200 that we have an opinion on (or adopt the opinion of ones party, something that happens too often), and then on the final 60 we have no clue and need to learn more.
For people like me, and I think there are a lot of us, for which SSM falls in the category of something we have some opinion on but not in our top 10 or 20, the question is this: How does the movement (in this case SSM) get us statistically on board? How do you represent to our elected officials that by not being opposed to SSM, we are de facto supporters? If you can do that, you’ve tipped the scales mathematically and won with this debate forever.
As far as this being a cowardly position, I disagree. Because I don’t share your passion on this is not cowardly. In fact, if you can engage people in this dialogue without implying that anyone who is not strongly for this must be a bigot, you’ll find yourself having a lot more support.
I do not hold SSM on equal footing to HM as the SSM has no benefit to society, at all. HM presents the correct environment for procreation within a traceable lineage. Its that simple. Is it worth all of this fighting? Maybe not. It sure isn’t high on my radar.
I dont know why SSM is being pushed by gays. The legal ramblings and shackles of a marriage seem great now, but wait until the divorce comes. SSM will create new court precedents never before seen. Who gets the non-related or related child? Who pays spousal support? How are assets divided?
Be careful what you wish for comes to mind…
SSM has no benefit to society, at all.
Thanks Don, for illustrating to us all how much of an ignorant bigot you are.
Don, I am not usually this dismissive, but your comment is just asinine. Saying marriage is only justified to allow for traceable lineages is a bogus claim that I doubt even you really believe. Do you think infertile couples should be allowed to marry? What about 80 year olds?
Also, you posit that allowing SSM will create legal issues involving divorce. Specifically, you asked:
“Who gets the non-related or related child? Who pays spousal support? How are assets divided?”
These are all questions that come up in hetrosexual marriage all the time and the law has found solutions. If you doubt me, look at Massachusetts, where gay divorce has not destroyed the legal system or even caused much of a blip.
Minnesota Poll: A subtle shift on gay unions
More Minnesotans appear to be accepting of same-sex marriage. Their age, politics and where they live influence that opinion, according to a Star Tribune Minnesota Poll..
http://www.startribune.com/politics/44100537.html
Hmm, it appears from this article and poll that only 25 percent would favor legalizing same-sex marriage. That’s not a lot, if today’s candidates are interested in what Minnesotan’s want, they should be careful about this one issue, yes?
Why lose it all to “stand up for what’s right” if most people don’t feel the same about “what’s right”? (and there are possibly more important issues to discuss… such as how do we fix the economy and what do we cut?)
Jeff’s point was time will change things, yes… too bad it won’t happen sooner than later (IMO, change would happen faster if supporters used the courts to pursue civil unions rather than ‘marriage’.)
IMO, change would happen faster if supporters used the courts to pursue civil unions rather than ‘marriage’
—
If my opposite-sex “marriage” were officiated by a judge, rather than a clergymember, is it definied as a civil union or a marriage?
The way I see it, it’s a civil union but is classified by society as a “marriage” simply by virtue of the opposing genders of the two people involved. So “marriage” is a social definition rather than a religious definition. Calling something a civil union is just a dog-whistle so-as not to offend those who believe there’s a difference between a marriage and a civil union.
To further muddy the definitions between the two, because a judge performed our civil ceremony, why did we have to apply for a “marriage license” and then sign a “marriage certificate”? Is it just because of our opposing genders? If we were MM or FF would we apply for a “union license” and then sign a “union certificate”?
What this debate truly needs is a set of air-tight definitions of what is “marriage” and what is a “civil union” and if there’s really no difference, then let’s stop pretending that there is a difference.
The way I see it, it’s a civil union but is classified by society as a “marriage” simply by virtue of the opposing genders of the two people involved. So “marriage” is a social definition rather than a religious definition. Calling something a civil union is just a dog-whistle so-as not to offend those who believe there’s a difference between a marriage and a civil union.
Don’t blow the cover, Northeaster. And your definition of marriage is… yours. Judge, Priest, Rabbi, it’s still your definition.
Civil Unions leaves the religious aspect out, perhaps, though.
That is a really stupid questioning for the poll.
Who the hell polls the public about if the gay marriage should be left up to courts, it doesnt matter, that shouldnt be a factor for an opinion, that role of our government doesnt really involve us, we cant affect court cases or affect if they get heard.
The poll needed to have been a plain, do you support gay marriage or oppose gay marriage? A gay marriage/civil unions/no legal recognition poll also makes plenty of sense.
But what they polled doesnt reflect anything accurately whatsoever.
This is clearly a civil rights issue. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion or sexual practices. If a citizen can marry in our state then no other citizens should be denied that right. Iowa just declared the issue is over on those grounds. There are no compelling reasons, no rationale to deny this right to any subgroup of people in our society. Even citizens, death row inmates, who have had their civil rights severely restricted can still be married in a civil or religious ceremony.
I think the Constitution is very clear on these matters.
This is clearly a civil rights issue. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion or sexual practices.
Sometimes it seems that way, doesn’t it. But if the majority of people think it does… well, what’s it worth to make that statement?
I think the Constitution is very clear on these matters.
Well, good. Then everything should be easily fixed via the courts. Legislators carry opinion to the Capitol, but courts judge based on constitutionality… right? Get on with it, lawyers.
Holly I think that one of the reasons that everyday people are not for this issue is that it is cloaked in sexual terms. For some it is an “ick” factor that in simple terms is meaningless. If you replace every instance of “man,” “woman” with citizen it becomes clear to me.
The question to ask is why are some citizens forbidden to marry under our laws while others are allowed. Is that fair? Is it justifiable under the Constitution? The correlation would be the miscenegenation laws of the last century. Are there any other classes of citizens of legal age who are forbidden to marry? I can’t think of a single one… maybe the criminally insane but I think they are still allowed to marry even if they are not allowed to vote.
I recognize that neither side is willing to look at this issue from a Constitutional viewpoint. The fact that is is ridiculous on rights grounds is the reason the “antis” are trying to install an amendment that would institutionalize the ban. With an eventuality it will be decided on Constitutional grounds and those against are not going to be happy.
Why not polygamist marriage then?
Well, you sure are amusing!
I do agree that marriage has nothing to do with religion or sexual practice. Marriage is defined by the two people entering into the agreement (non-religious) or the covenant (religious). In the non-religious ceremony, which is performed daily in the US, there is no “higher authority” to answer to. The “vow” is nothing more than a non-binding agreement between two people, of whatever sexual orientation. Anyone can marry in any type of ceremony, WITHOUT religion, or with…and WITHOUT any notification or license by the state. You can, in fact, draw up a complete marriage contract, if you will, between two people, and define all of the obligations and financial arrangements within the contract. You can sign it after a ceremony in front of who ever you want, and then go on living your life together. The “divorce” can still be attained in this arrangement because the contract requirements are set forth…its a legally binding contract. If one party breaks the requirements of the contract, the other party can LEGALLY seek redress from the courts…and have a “divorce, per se.
Now, what does that mean? It means that marriage is already available to anyone in America via civil courts. The current “marriage license” is NOT a contract as it has no terms, etc…and requires no performance. It is only a legal document that guarantees that a court will be involved in your divorce, and that states, to the government, that you have made a pact in marriage. That document, really…in the end….is nothing more than a document that tells the government that you are entitled to file a “married filing joint” return. Thats it.
There is nothing that a gay couple cannot do, in terms of marriage, right now….except file a “married filing joint” return. A gay couple can make any legal arrangements they want. They can enter into contracts, legally change their names, assign SS benefits and assets upon death, give power of attorney, be considered “family” for hospital visits and assign living will requirements, etc, etc, etc. All of these things are currently available to gay couples.
Additionally, Amuse…there is NO place in the Constitution that says there is or that a citizen has a right to marriage. People were married in the US LONG before there was a license or even a government to issue a license. The framers knew this, and thus there is no mention of marriage in the Constitution. So, there is clearly NO civil rights at issue here. Why? Because there is no right to marriage, and marriage is really nothing more than a personal arrangement between two parties, with love as the binding agent. If the state did NOT require a couple to have a license, would marriage end? No. If the state removed the license requirement would gays be on the same level as heteros in terms of marriage? Yes.
So, the real solution, yet again, is to just get government out of the picture. Lets just remove the LICENSING requirement, for marriage, and this issue would be over. Right? Right.
Separate Civil Marriage from Religious Marriage. To be civilly married should require some paperwork and notarized signatures, it’s really a contract, nothing more nothing less.
If you want a Priest, Pastor, Holy Man, Shaman, the ghost of L. Ron Hubbard, or the Dali freakin’ Lama to bless your union in the religious ceremony of your choosing then knock yourselves out.
And ELIMINATE the phrase “by the power vested in me by God and the State of…”
Whoa. Now we’re talking eliminate G-O-D. That’ll raise hair on someone’s neck.
I have been mulling Jim Wallis’ theory that Democrats might include G-O-D as they talk about social programs for the poor, etc. Maybe in CD 6, eh? But Wallis takes it farther than I would…
Not eliminating GOD, just separating two distinct things, one is a civil contract, one is a religious commitment ceremony. Have all the GOD you want in your religious commitment ceremony of choice, or multiple GODS if you prefer for the Hindu among us, but leave the civil procedure religion free.
Any two people could have the civil ceremony and any two people could also have the religious ceremony that will have them. No church would be forced to recognize another religion’s version of marriage or the civil version, if Catholics only want to recognize Catholic marriages performed by a Priest in their Church, fine and dandy (same for all the rest of the religions). The government however will only recognize the civil ceremony. Keeps that whole establishment clause out of the picture, the government doesn’t have to decide which religious marriages it will recognize, because it won’t recognize any, only the civil marriage portion.
That means everybody who is married would have to be in a civil union to exercise the rights that marriage confers as a matter of law, property rights, survivorship and so on. Without it you can be religion married but would have the same status as same sex couples enjoy today. (Many Hmong are Hmong married without the benefit of a marriage license and as such can have trouble with insurance coverage and other matters, since the Government does not recognize Animist as a religion with is the faith tradition of many Hmong, see all the trouble attaching religion to marriage causes)
By the way, I have been married for almost 32 years, my marriage is not threatened by the thought that my gay brother may decide to marry his partner. if he is happy why would it bother me? I would be happy for him. Bigotry is bigotry, even when you try to disguise it under the cloak of religion.
But I agree, separate civil unions from marriage by allowing civil unions to also encompass same-sex couples.
Harsh maybe, but Savage is correct.
I foresee SSM going down the same road as numerous other significant social changes, like slaverey, women’s suffrage, 60’s civil rights, etc. There will be a small core of people who will never accept it, but eventually they’ll die out.
Holly I think that one of the reasons that everyday people are not for this issue is that it is cloaked in sexual terms. For some it is an “ick” factor that in simple terms is meaningless. If you replace every instance of “man,” “woman” with citizen it becomes clear to me.
So you know it’s a religious issue, but you’d rather it wasn’t. Maybe we should work together to change the way it is perceived.
It’s too easy to bring us sexual terms, and etc. Man and woman do the same stuff, perhaps (heh! I said that!!!)… but why bring sex into the debate? Better if we leave the bedroom out of it and appeal to kindness and common values. Drop those stones. See the compromise… it’s not “marriage” per say and you don’t have to deal with it. But it helps to ease pain and suffering…
Blah blah!
As to the Constitutionality, I agree. I think: There must be some protection under the law. I’m not a lawyer and so I don’t know if there is a good argument, but it seems like the US Const would be of some use, already. In think the anti-gay folks know the Const. already protects and that is why they want to add clauses about marriage.
By the way, I have been married for almost 32 years, my marriage is not threatened by the thought that my gay brother may decide to marry his partner.
Yes, it is dumb to think gay unions would threaten marriage. I think it is a Republican, side-tracker, argument used to induce fear and rile up their base. So, you don’t have to argue that one with me.
I don’t think you’d get as much backlash as you think from eliminating God from the civil ceremony. There would still be religious ceremonies, and alot of people would not consider themselves married until it was done in a church in front of their friends and family. The civil procedure would simply be seen as an administrative step, much like getting a marriage license.
I personally wouldn’t have considered myself married until I had been married in a church by my minister. But if I would have had to add a step of saying some words to a bureacrat at a courthouse, big deal.
BTW, Holly, I’m going to look up Jim Wallis. Looks interesting. The fact is that there are a whole lot of people out there who are trying to be giving and generous because of their spirituality, and there are a whole lot of people out there who are being giving and generous because they “all just want to get along, man” and it has nothing to do with God. Those two groups are often trying to help the same people. Who cares what their motive is.
I believe there is a God who wants us to be good to each other. The next guy might think the reason we tend to work for good is due to nature. The next gal might think that trying to treat each other well is just part of cosmic harmony. Who freakin cares. We’re all playing the same game, and with the exception of terrorists and the like, we generally have the same goals.
Why focus on eliminating God? Just allow civil unions.
Wallis is worth the look.
The history of the institution of marriage is complex. It remains so today. There are no hard and fast rules to go by in spite of what the religious right may think. The recognition that women and children are not property, that blacks are not less than human, and that children born out of wedlock are not illegitimate is contemporaneous with this movement towards same sex marriage. It is not related to a desire on the part of the left to defy the natural order of things. It is a recognition that all human beings have certain inalienable rights. That is why the courts have been involved and why these decisions are not made by the council of church elders.
Sacramental marriage is a church issue. The formation of kinship units or households as a means of creating stable and prosperous communities is a civil issue. There is no requirement today to procreate in a marriage and there is no requirement today to get married if you procreate. Paternity and financial obligations can be determined by genetic testing. People can cohabitate if they choose too.
The benefits conferred by the state through marriage include tax exemptions, insurance law issues, property rights, decision making rights when one of the partners is incapacitated, etc. These are the benefits that are being denied to those who are not able to be married or have formed a household in some other way. This includes not only same sex couples but also unmarried heterosexual couples or unmarried family units such as a child who never leaves home or siblings who live together for life. There are other comabinations of humans that form stable households as well. They all need the same rights that we confer through marriage. They should be able to access these rights through civil unions.
I understand why folks like DantheMan believe that it isn’t a marriage until the church says it is a marriage. I think DantheMan also understands why stable family units need certain civil rights.
Same sex couples who want to marry in the traditional sense should take this up with the church of their choice. People who want to seek the benefits of civil unions should pursue their legitimate claims of equal protection through the courts. As Jeff correctly pointed out, this is an issue that will go away as society matures in its thinking. When I was a kid, there were still areas of this planet that remained unexplored and primitive cultures that were unknown to modern humans. Today, I can go on google earth and see individual trees in the jungles of Borneo. When I was a kid, we had apartheid in America. Today, we have a President who is half Black. Things change.
The history of marriage is not complex…its very simple. We have had marriage on earth for a LONG time…and WITHOUT government intervention of definition. The marriage “ceremony” is now, as it was in the past, nothing more than a recognition, by all parties involved, of the commitment of two people to stay together in a union, forever. And within that union, to start a family…the CORE FOUNDATION of any society, and to procreate with a traceable lineage…aunt, uncle, brothers, sisters, etc. Thats all it is. The practices may be different, the ceremonies may be different, and the “beholden to God, or” may be different, put the PURPOSE is CLEAR and EASY to define.
You are right that there is no requirement to be married before you procreate, and that is a shame. But, it takes a half-intellectual to understand the obvious result of a society that “allows” procreation without marriage or commitment…family structure failure, leading to societal failure…etc etc. The fact that we have allowed this to become a more standard practice, so to speak, will prove to, eventually, lead to our demise internally. Societies SHOULD have standards of behavior. We seem to have forgotten that.
The only benefit conferred by the state via “licensed marriage” (which is what it SHOULD be called) is the tax exemption. Thats it. The state does NOT confer ANY insurance requirements, property rights, or incapacitation rights via a marriage license. Maybe you could show me those contractual benefits somewhere? Are they written on paper? Where do you see these laws regarding property rights in marriage? Are these laws applicable to NON-Marriage license couples? (yes, they are). What you are missing is this. With the exception of the ONE tax filing status, which may or may not be a benefit, there are ALTERNATIVE avenues in which gay people can use to obtain the same result regarding property, insurance, etc. They are called “PRIVATE CONTRACTS.” (Say it slow if you need to…LOL!) Our courts recognize, thankfully, PRIVATE contracts…and give them legal credibility via the courts, regardless of how ridiculous they may seem. You and I could enter into a contract to send each other hate mail everyday…and if you breached that contract, I would have the ability to sue you, in court, for the terms set forth in the contract…and the courts would recognize it and give authority to it. Thats the purpose.
So, in the end, your facts are not facts at all…but rather boorish opinions…which are OK too. If you wish to itemize facts, please make sure you can identify what is and what isn’t a fact.
Have a nice day!
Don, the tax exemption is huge, mostly because it carries over into a lot of other areas. For example, ERISA does not require coverage of anyone except an employee and the employee’s spouse/children. An employer who does grant “domestic partners” coverage does not get the tax benefits of a qualifying plan. Employees end up paying for coverage out of after-tax dollars — a big hit.
There are other spousal benefits that cannot be granted by contract — immigration rights, joint bankruptcy, elective shares against an estate, evidentiary privileges, marital property rights, etc. In many situations, outsiders are not bound to honor “contracts” — absent a state law, is a hospital required to grant a partner access? They are not a party to the partners’ contract, so that answer would be no.
Equality would, atht he very least, demand that all benefits from any kind of domestic arrangement be granted only on the basis of a “private contract” between the parties. Are you willing to take that leap?
Don you sure are right that there is no mention of marriage in the constitution. Does that mean we can only consider things or concepts mentioned by an 18th century agrarian elite? Well if you are an extremely stupid libertarian as most of them are… yes.
We could not have laws or rulings on air travel, intellectual property in any form other than printed, voting rights other than white men of property and well lots of other things. I suppose marriage may have something to do with “Life” and “the Pursuit of Happiness” for it surely has nothing to do with “Liberty.”
But that is not how the Constitution works. Michelle Bachmann the intellectual guide of Libertarians everywhere not withstanding, you need to understand the document as more than words on paper. It is not the Procrustean bed you seem to have mistaken it for… I do not need a civil contract to have my civil rights.
When we talk about civil rights it is just that… the rights of all citizens. This includes my right to free speech through the digital media I am using right now or as a sound recording or as a photographic image. None of those forms of speech existed in the times the Constitution was first written. But that doesn’t mean that free speech does not cover them… unless you are a literalist pretending to give insight into the rights of citizens. Or is it that free speech only covers public performance and material printed with machines available to Benjamin Franklin?
I wish more people would read Franklin. The man was a perfect example of what is the best about America then and now. He was a pragmatic man who understood that life needed to be lived with freedom and curiosity. Science was his lifelong hobby while French court ladies seemed to be his passion for certain periods and politics other times. He is also the man who said, “We must hang together for certainly we will hang if apart.” The divisiveness promoted by the Republican party, libertarian ideologues and misguided readers of “Atlas Shrugged” does not help America at the start of the 21st century, though I think the words of Franklin will.
Randy, This is really not a big issue for me. Again, I do not want to equate one marriage on equal footing with another when the SSM clearly has no benefit to society, as a whole, so why should society endorse it? Canada is already being pushed to grant marriage licenses to polygamists, and I ask you, why should they not?
Amuse…
An 18th Century agrarian elite? Thats your impression of the founding fathers…who wrote the most comprehensive document known to mankind? Listen, it doesn’t matter. I didn’t espouse the Constitution in the thread, I was merely responding to someone elses use of it as a reference. Oh look! It was YOU! I think the Constitution is very clear on these matters. SO…it looks like the FACTS show that YOU used the “18th century agrarian elite document” to SUPPORT your view…and now you dismiss it. Hmmm? How old are you? I have a feeling you haven’t left HS as your debate skills leave much to be desired.
I do read Franklin…and quite a bit of him. And he would say that marriage is NOT a union between man and man…almost assuredly he would not support gay marriage.
But, I will say this. BOTH parties own divisiveness, and I generally think thats OK. We have TWO different view points, and two different expectations of America. The left thinks that everything should be fair, equal, free, without pain, etc…while Republicans think that everyone should be left to thier own devises. I would be MORE THAN WILLING to give up the marriage license requirement in order to make everyone equal WITHOUT the aid of government. You?
First of all, I have no particular objection to polygamy between consenting adults. It is comparing apples to oranges to bring it into the SSM debate (people may choose to be polygamists).
Second, you say that same-sex marriage “clearly has no benefit to society.” Indeed? Are you saying that there is no inherent benefit to removing legal bars to equality? Even if there is no benefit to society (which I am not willing to concede), what is the harm? Should the government ban practices that cause no harm to society just on the ground that there is no “benefit?”
I’m also curious why you think Franklin would not approve of same-sex marriage. He was awfully tolerant, in ways that would raise more than a few eyebrows today (how else could he have persuaded his common-law wife to help raise his illegitimate son?).
Franklin had a high moral and ethical bar. He was surely tolerant, just not willing to accept all just because it is.
Same sex marriage has no direct benefit to society…that is clear. The SSM serves no purpose to a society outside of the perceived happiness of the two individuals. But, it a piece of paper the catalyst for happiness? The “what is the harm” argument is nothing more than an attempt to dilute the ills of moral “bar lowering”. We could name thousands of things that are illegal, immoral, not equally given to right, etc…in which the same argument applies.
People also chose to be gay. We have MORE than enough examples from which to prove that this is in fact true. Since we cannot differentiate between who CHOOSES to be gay and who is born gay (remember, there is NO gay gene, nor has science ever proven that homosexuality is a genetic issue) then how can we set standards regarding the issue? Can it now be possible for two female “roommates” to enter into “marriage” in order for one to be covered under an insurance policy for no other purpose than a financial one? Also, the strain on our judicial system will be tried in ways never before seen. Hundreds of years of legal precedence will be tossed out the window to reflect new legal standards which will have to be set for gay marriage divorce.
Ben Franklin used a system of pro’s and con’s to decide some important issues. The sales world calls it the “Ben Franklin Close”. Basically, he would list all of the negatives and positives relating to an issue, and make a decision based on the overall outcome of the pro’s vs the con’s. Franklin would look at this issue the same way. And since the CON list would be MUCH LARGER than the pro list, he would not have taken the side of SSM…almost assuredly.
Don,
You advised me:
“If you wish to itemize facts, please make sure you can identify what is and what isn’t a fact.”
Just for clarification, are the following statements of yours facts?
1. “The history of marriage is not complex…it’s very simple.”
2. “We have had marriage on earth for a LONG time…and WITHOUT government intervention of definition.”
3. “The marriage “ceremony” is now, as it was in the past, nothing more than a recognition, by all parties involved, of the commitment of two people to stay together in a union, forever.”
4. “But, it takes a half-intellectual to understand the obvious result of a society that “allows” procreation without marriage or commitment…family structure failure, leading to societal failure…etc etc. The fact that we have allowed this to become a more standard practice, so to speak, will prove to, eventually, lead to our demise internally.”
5. “So, in the end, your facts are not facts at all…but rather boorish opinions”
These look like opinions to me.
You assert:
“The only benefit conferred by the state via “licensed marriage” (which is what it SHOULD be called) is the tax exemption. Thats it.”.
Then you go on to say:
“there are ALTERNATIVE avenues in which gay people can use to obtain the same result regarding property, insurance, etc”.
To obtain the same result as what? Marriage? You are saying that these benefits are not conferred by marriage but can be obtained in alternative ways the same way they can with marriage. That doesn’t make sense Don.
I have five children who have many friends who are couples in their 20’s or 30’s. Some of them are very committed to each other but have chosen not to marry or to simply have a civil ceremony. Many of these young people have a very negative attitude towards religion because they associate it with the hypocritical people who have co-opted the right wing of the Republican Party.
Don, here is a quote from a CNN article on the 8 year old Saudi girl who was finally able to obtain a divorce from her 47 year old husband after 3 tries in the Saudi courts. This situation would bear more resemblance to our historical approach to marriage than your simplistic description. The religious fundamentalists over there have much in common with the religious fundamentalists here in the U.S. Their views are narrow, ill informed and irrational.
. (CNN) — A court in Saudi Arabia has granted an 8-year-old girl a divorce from her 47-year-old husband, after twice denying the divorce request previously, local media reported Thursday.
The marriage sparked condemnations around the world from human rights groups and U.S. and other government officials when it first came to light in December.
Local media, which is highly regulated by the Saudi government, reported that the court in the city of Onaiza approved the divorce decree Thursday, and the divorce is final.
A source at the court told the Saudi daily newspaper Al-Watan that the divorce “came after a series of pleas made by a number of officials in the region to the husband.”
“The issue of child marriage has been a hot-button topic in the deeply conservative Saudi kingdom recently. While rights groups have petitioned the government for laws to protect children from such marriages, the kingdom’s top cleric has said that it’s OK for girls as young as 10 to wed.
“It is incorrect to say that it’s not permitted to marry off girls who are 15 and younger,” Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, the kingdom’s grand mufti, said in January, according to the regional Al-Hayat newspaper. “A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she’s too young are wrong, and they are being unfair to her.”
Al-Sheikh reportedly made the remarks when he was asked during a lecture about parents forcing their underage daughters to marry.
“We hear a lot in the media about the marriage of underage girls,” he said, according to the newspaper. “We should know that sharia law has not brought injustice to women.”
Sharia law is Islamic law, and Saudi Arabia follows a strict interpretation of Islam called Wahhabism.
Just a few more questions Don. How old do you think the earth is? How do you think it got here? How long do you think that humans have inhabited it? Do you see any merit in the concept of separation of church and state?
I don’t need facts here Don, just your opinions. This is a blog. I think it is ok to express an opinion on a blog.
Marriage is a simple concept. If you think it complex, you are nuts. Marriage, as an act, may be complex, but the principle behind it is quite simple. I would say this is a fact.
People have been marrying on this planet for thousands of years…and most of them WITHOUT a government “license” or “recognition”. There are people today who marry without benefit or recognition from a government. Again, another fact.
A marriage is exactly what I said it is. It requires NOTHING from other men un-related to the family. Marriage is a bond between two people…and their families become one via said bond. Another fact.
There is no other issue as important to a successful society than family. Look it up…its a fact.
Yes, the same result as marriage. The point is that there is no real benefit, legally, to marriage outside of the tax issue. All other issues can be addressed or resolved via contracts. A gay person can list who they wish to allow to make living will decisions, for example.
Religion plays no part in marriage outside of the choice to have a religious ceremony, as agreed by both parties. You want to bring religion into this debate when it has nothing to do with it. There is NO requirement to have a religious marriage ceremony. The state cares neither way. Nothing else you say, including the reference to the article about a Saudi girl, has any bearing on the argument here. Please…try to remember to DIFFERENTIATE in the future. I know it requires clear thought, but maybe you can try harder next time.
The earth is 124,000,000,000 years old. Right? I mean, that is proven by scientist.
I think it was a piece of star dust.
Humans? Like…the English? Oh, about 265,000,000,000. Science has proven that too.
Church and state separation? Yeah, its a nice idea. Religion, in government, is more a reflection of our history than it is an endorsement of a certain religion. The Constitution does not SAY there is a SEPARATION of church and state. Mr. Jefferson did, in a letter to a Baptist church…but thats the only place the words were originally used. The Constitution is clear in its statement. It cannot endorse an established religion (as a means to force people into church or religion…like they do in such progressive countries as Sweden or Finland) nor can it PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF. The last portion is the most important. Now, being we are a government OF THE PEOPLE….and the PEOPLE are mostly religious, as long as the government does not enact legislation respecting a religion, nor prohibiting its exercise, how do you propose we remove all religion from government when the very people who run the government are US citizens….free to exercise their religion? There is NO limitation in the Constitution that bars religion from the public square.
But, I am sure you will give us some speculation as to how you wish to settle that issue….
BTW…I also do not believe immunizations cause autism….because the AMA and a few government scientists say so.
Anything else? Or is your diatribe over?
No, Im done with you Don. I take no pleasure in exposing your ignorance. It is just another job to be done.
Since I graduated High School in 1970 I think your idea of me is little off. Perhaps we could call it jejune?
If you take a descriptor like “18th Century Agrarian elite” as an insult your missing out on historical facts. You have a better description of Jefferson et al I’d like to hear it.
The Constitution is quite clear that all citizens are equal under the law. That is unless you have some other definition of equal? Your understanding of the document is quite limiting for others and expansive for yourself… again perhaps we could call it jejune?
I highly doubt it would be worth quoting Franklin to you on his views of religion’s role in politics and on human freedoms. I’ll leave you with just one. “Where there’s marriage without love, there will be love without marriage.”
- Benjamin Franklin
You can’t be a Republican if you believe that everyone should be left to their own devises. Or at least a modern Republican… what with all the spying on Americans without judicial oversight, bank and financial bailouts and non-bid contracts for some and no government contracts at all for other companies. Republicans obviously believe in big government, big debt and well doing whatever they want in office. We just saw that through 8 years of the Bush administration. Or was that some other Republican Party than the one you espouse?
(I think I’ll spend the rest of my day beaming over some crank thinking I was in High School. You made an old man’s day.)
My comment was a reflection of your inability to bring thoughtful logic to a debate. I apologize. I have sympathy for someone who has spent so much time trying to mature.
Marriage is NOT a religious issue, btw…but good try.
So half-ass facts, sins of omission and misguided whackjob opinions are now mature debate for you? I just get a thrill every time I think of you and your libertarian friends trying to get regular folks to vote for your causes. Ideologues always think that if they spew longer, “complexer” and louder the “sheeple” will follow them. Doesn’t work that way for either left or right. Right now the Right has taken up the foolish comment that they know better than the voters how to live their lives. I have great faith in the goodness, sensibility and fairness of the American voter. It just takes them a little time to see through the right-wing lies and prevarication. The Republicans have proven you can fool some of the people all the time but not all of the people all of the time.
Ron…
Liberal trait number one….giving up!
Thanks!
Amuse…the liberals in this country have been telling people how to live their lives for decades. Its my turn now. Taking a page from the liberal handbook is not such a bad idea!
Love the chart, btw. It makes it look as though the percentages are very high…unless you read the numbers. The fact is…only 56% of the most TOLERANT age group, via a full generation of indoctrination, think that gays should have legal marriage.