We have been through this topic 'ad nauseum', but in a new election cycle , anti-gay-marriage is being revisited as a last ditch attempt by conservatives to bring voters to the polls, we know, the usual drill.

Last election I would have thought conservatives exhausted their capitol on this issue; views among citizens have changed, largely due to it being brought to the forefront, an unintended consequence. Nothing was done over threats in 2004, the issue was dropped like a lead balloon after so much hullaballoo.
However, this week once again we saw Bush advocating that heterosexual marriage should be protected, to huge applause among his base, one of the few things this admin can count on to rally their base, but they did nothing about it in two years.

Do you think that conservatives can garner the same enthusiasm and support on this issue that they did 2 years ago and still get many votes over it?

Why or why not?

Are we moving closer to acceptance of gay marriage or civil unions as a nation, IYO?

Here in Tennessee, this is a very hot issue indeed. State Senator David Fowler is one of the leaders of a very strong campaign to pass an amendment to the Tennessee Constitution which would define marriage as between one man and one woman. His name appears in the local news just about every day. Here's a random example.

Link

The sadly ironic part is that all this effort is not needed. The amendment is absolutely certain to pass by a huge margin. I can only conclude that this is the one issue which always ignites the passions of religious conservatives. Not even the issue of abortion seems to draw so much attention. So, I have to say that, yes, the war against same-sex marriage will bring out the social conservative vote in droves, at least on a state level.

As far as the attitude of the people as a whole, there is reason to hope that some slight amount of progress is being made.

Link



One can only hope.

Many of my constituents as well as myself feel that it is time that we eliminate this blockade that prevents equal rights to gay couples. The adds that are coming out against gay marriage are ridiculous and only make the organization that made them look racist.



Yes, but I don't know if it will happen all together this midterm or even the next but many people are gaining acceptance and realizing that its not about sexual preference, but love that bounds these people.

Do you think that conservatives can garner the same enthusiasm and support on this issue that they did 2 years ago and still get many votes over it?

It depends entirely how much advocates of same-sex marriage are willing to completely ignore the law in order to get their policy preferences enacted. In Massachusetts, there's currently a constitutional amendment making its way through the works to undo the blatantly activist ruling that that state's high court enacted imposing same-sex marriage. If everything works according to the constitutionally established procedures, it's all but certain that it will appear before the public in a ballot referendum in November 2008, and then be approved by the voters. But that's a big if. The state legislature has already once resorted to unconstitutional tactics* to prevent it from getting it on the ballot, and it appears to be gearing up to do it again. There's going to be a limit to how much people are going to be willing to tolerate outright lawlessness again and again and again, before they decide it's time to put their collective foot down.

*By the way, "unconstitutional" is not just my assessment. Even left-wing supporters of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts have castigated the Legislature for its illegal tactics. The state constitution requires that the legislature have a vote on amendments that have been proposed to it by a petition with the necessary signatures. The approval of only 1/4 of the legislators is necessary in order to get it moved onto the ballot. But when presented with the proper petition, the Legislature has refused to act on it, despite being constitutionally required to.

Are we moving closer to acceptance of gay marriage or civil unions as a nation, IYO?

Well, a good indicator of that will be to present the question to the voters of Massachusetts, widely regarded as the one of the most, if not the most, left-wing state in the union. Let's see if the Legislature is willing to do that. If it's not, it's a pretty good sign that its members know what the answer is.

1. & 2. No they can't garner the same enthusiasm and no they won't get many votes over it. It's not that America has warmed up over the idea of gay marriage. But we've seen this movie before. In 2006, the issues are the war, the economy and how well or poorly the Republicans have done with complete control of government.

Get a dozen people in the room and ask them if they're concerned about the situation in Iraq and probably everyone's hand will go up. Ask them if they're concerned about the cost of health care or their job situation and maybe half of them will raise their hands. But ask them if they're concerned about two lesbians getting married and moving in next door and nobody's hand is going to go up.

A lot of states have passed or will be voting on "defense of marriage" laws that restrict marriage only to a man and a woman. This simply is no longer an issue for many people. The notion of gay marriage scared the crap out of a lot of straights and the Republicans reacted, but more on a state than federal level. Even the GOP-controlled Congress and the President only gave lip service to the idea of a Constitutional amendment. They never put any real effort into it.

Here in Ohio, Ken Blackwell tried to revive the whole gay marriage issue, but all it did was appeal to the voters he already had on his side. Hasn't done him a bit of good in the polls.

But I don't think we're any closer to legally sanctioned gay marriage. In fact, we're probably further away from it than before. I don't believe the John Roberts led Supreme Court is going to be recognizing same-sex marriage any day soon. Civil unions may be only "half a loaf" as a solution, but it might be the best hope gay activists have until the political climate changes to one more favorable to their issue.

I am so sick and tired of hearing about "activist judges". It is almost entirely patently false, an idea made up by those who view things differently. You know what activist is? Interfering into the lives of the Schiavo family. The term "activist judge" completely ignores how the legal system works. Lawyers try their cases and whichever does a better job usually wins the case. In Massachusetts, the lawyers for the plaintiffs successfully convinced the judiciary that the call for equal treatment in their state constitution spilled over into the marital realm. Since the US Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a right, the Massachusetts court was entirely within its jurisdiction to do what they did--and it was not activist, no more so than the Brown v. Board of Education decision was.

So please, Blackstone, spare us the hollow claims you spout without proof to back it up. The law was on the side of the plaintiffs in that case. Lower courts may grant more rights within their states, but they may not reduce rights granted by the federal courts. It's a one-way street.

Gotta laugh at the "unconstitutional" argument- it is the FACT that gay marriage can't be denied due to our constitution makes it more and more pathetic to see the right wingers get into a lather about this. Loving vs Va along time ago set the stage for gay marriage- and the very fact that some folks are all up in arms about it shows how bigoted our country continues to be. After all, gotta protect the sanctity of divorce!

Do you think that conservatives can garner the same enthusiasm and support on this issue that they did 2 years ago and still get many votes over it?
Nope- even poeple who once supported GW are starting to learn a little bit, starting to get a little educated on to who this guy is. Allowing a very, very small minority within a minority the same rights and privileges we all enjoy just doesn't seem to have the impact after this incompetant, possibly the worst, president in US history. It is a one trick pony that has ran it's course- thankfully/

Why or why not?

Well, as long as there are bigots and homophobes in this country, it will have some traction, but my generation and younger are starting to accept it a bit.

Are we moving closer to acceptance of gay marriage or civil unions as a nation, IYO?

Slowly, yes. Just like with the civil rights movement, it will be slow and tortured, and take the right screaming and kicking away from fascism and towards more freedom for all, not just straights.

The Supreme Court didn't change the definition of marriage. It took an activist Massachusetts court to do that, and it in no way was an inevitable result of Loving v Virginia. The fact that this court felt the need to impose social policy by its own decree, and the fact that there's such a powerful movement afoot in Massachusetts to pull out all the stops, legal or illegal (mostly the latter), to keep the people from voting on it, pretty clearly answer the third debate question.



Now this is interesting. So the people of those 38 states that passed DOMA amendments to their state constitution are "fascists"? We as a nation were "fascist" for practically all of our history when marriage meant exactly what it means when you look it up in a dictionary? By the way, you may remember that I specifically addressed that point in this post to you:


I notice that post was met with absolute dead silence.

I will address itL

The idea that "traditional marriage" is anything more than a false construct is laughable. Only about 50 years ago, marriage was defined, as you suggest, to be only whites to whites, and not interracially. Anti-Miscenegation laws (sp) etc.

Sure, plenty of poeple were all about equal rights in the 50s, as long as thier daughter wouldn't marry "one of those poeple"- same deal today. Anybody that votes for a DOMA is a flaming bigot- no way around it. You support legislation that takes away the one of the most vital rights there are- the right to determine, without jumping through legal hurdles to do so.

IN reality- there is no and never has been any threat to "marriage" over gays getting married- it is stupid in the extreme to think so- what, now that gay marriage is legal, suddenly, I am not married because gays can? How silly is that? What is being protected by marriage is the sanctity of divorce. So that gays can go through the same property claims straights do, and, oh yeah, the sanctity of having your mate present when you are ill.

The great injustice that is done here especially is when a mate gets ill. Often, gays are enstranged from thier family, and the lack of marriage laws for gays means bigoted awful family members that they very well may hate to the core will be the ones allowed to take thier loved ones belongings and make health decisions, often contrary to the gay, but ill persons wishes.

There is absolutely NO constitutional basis to keep gays from getting married- - that is why a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IS NEEDED- there is absolutely NO logical argument against gay marriage- over and over again on this debate- there has been not one single logical post as to why not- it goes back to religious arguments ONLY. There IS NO secular argument against gay marriage- never will be. We just have to wait until illogical bigots and homophobes either die off or become the minority. Just like with civil rights and blacks. When I dated a black girl back in 1982 in Alabama, it was still a very big deal. Blacks still had a hard time in a club with whites. I went to "black" clubs there, and I was the only white guy, almost every time.

In my nieghborhood as late as 1972, there was still "steerage"- I am not sure even when it ended to be honest- and it has become 100% integrated since the mid-80s.

Now, I go to "straight friendly" clubs sometimes when I want to dance- the segregation is just not as forced as it used to be, when you NEVER went to a gay bar unless you were gay!

The analogy that this is our new civil rights movement stands, and, in looking back to the civil rights movement, there is no doubt that those opposed to civil rights at the time, no matter how they protested that they weren't bigots and racists- well, they were, and now they can deal with it as if they were.

It may very well be the "slippery slope"- gays will <gasp> have the same rights and privileges as any other citizen in America- and <gasp> marriage would end, churches will be swallowed into the ground, and good, white, christian straights will be sent to jail for being married to opposite sex partners. Seems about the argument that is being made.

You just can't point to a tangible damage that this will create- no one can, unless you believe that the rapture is coming because of it.

So yes, the path to equal rights for gays is inevitable- to answer the original question, and bigotry, one day, hopefully, will lose.

With the massive and gross incompetance of the GW admin, some folks are educating themselves and seeing the light that "social conservatism" is the path to slavery. The massive attack on civil rights by this admin is starting to scare even the churchies to some degree- they are finally, rightfully, becoming more afraid of this admin that terrorist in the ME.

So no, I don't think the gay marriage issue will be a factor on Tuesday, at all. When you have a president that is so laughingly (or sadly) incompetant and inept as this one, even a conservative may have to actually pay attention to an issue other than "the democrats will take our bibles away, those darn intellectual elites with thier smarty-ness" - they may actually be forced to make a logical decision, that anyone, third party if you can't stomach the dems- is better than a republican.

The whole controversy is an attempt to, once again, take attention away from really important subjects, like, say, massive fraud commited by Haliburton?

Uh-huh. I'll wait while you go find a single dictionary entry that backs you up on this.


No, a constitutional amendment is needed because of activist judges with a social policy agenda.


Obviously not one that you'll ever approve of. Just as others I'm sure will claim that there's no secular argument against polygamy. Or against incestuous marriages (its advocates will point to the fact that we don't prohibit people from marrying just because they have genetic defects that they'll likely pass on to their children).


Not even close. No comparison at all between race and behavior.

I'm confused. Are you denying that the law of the land 40 years ago was that inter-racial marriage was illegal?



Tell me something Blackstone. Since you keep referring to 'activist judges' would you be so kind as to define for me exactly what an 'activist Judge' is? Because so far, it tends to be used to mean a judge who makes a decision the speaker does not personally agree with. But I am sure you have a more specific definition for us? What is it?



Oh, and here comes the slippery slope argument, that if you make gay marriage illegal, soon it will be legal for a man to marry a corpse or a refrigerator or a moon of Saturn.

Except there is no basis whatsoever for a slippery slope argument, at all. There is no causal link between these examples except that they involve the word 'marriage'. WHY would the legalisation of gay marriage lead to men marrying toast racks or the marrying colour green? WHY is there any causality there at all?

And, more interestingly, WHY has this illogical 'slippery-slope' argument NEVER taken place in any of the 40-odd countries around the world that HAVE legalised gay marriage or civil unions?



Why not?

The history of marriage is a history of change. Why stop with the fact that 40 years ago in the US only same-coloured people could be married? let us not forget that 90 years ago in the US, children as young as 10 could be married in many states. Not too long before that, women did not need to consent to marriage. About 140 years ago, men could marry multiple women in the US.

The very idea that marriage is a static institution is a fantasy, in fact it has been a changing state ever since the first recorded mariages 4000 odd years ago. Christianity only took over the institution about 500 years ago. So the pretense that THIS change, which will affect about 7% of the population, and will have NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on the lives of straight people, married or otherwise, is just silly.

I believe CruisingRam was specifically referring to the legal definition of marriage. The dictionary also never included the term "Google" but can now be found in almost every dictionary. If we were to rely on dictionary definitions, "gay" would still mean happy.

Really? What would you call the judges who decided the Brown v. Board of Education case? Gender, an immutable trait declared protected by the government, is the discriminatory factor in prohibiting same-sex marriage. You can argue all you want about the act of homosexuality, but the US Supreme Court has already decided that personal private sexual matters are to remain such, not for legal interference (Lawrence v. Texas).

With this out of the way, the only remaining factor which differentiates same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage is the gender of the individuals seeking the marital legal contract. Gender, as I said before, is protected; therefore, it can not be used as a platform for discriminating practices, including prohibiting legal contracts to people on that basis.

So please, explain to me how this valid legally-substantiated argument is one of social activism? So long as the government is involved in the issuance of marital licenses, they must abide by the rules established by themselves. Until the protected status of gender is removed from anti-discrimination laws, or the constitution itself is amended to outlaw same-sex marriage, gay marriage is a right warranted, even demanded by the very document you claim to be upholding. The Constitution is not something to dictate social standards--the one time it was proved disastrous and needed to be repealed. It is to grant rights, not remove them. Every state which has amended their constitution has found the only legal way out of the inevitability of same-sex marriage.

And even then, federal law trumps state law. If the federal courts decide that same-sex marriage is a right, as I'm sure they will at some point in time, all these state constitutional amendments will be null and void. And when things go on like they did before, hell is not unleashed on earth and the wrath of God is rained down upon humanity, history will look back at this as an embarrassment, comparable with every other civil liberty squashed under the banner of tradition and moral aptitude.

There is a new book on this subject which is supposed to debunk nearly all of the slippery slope arguments. It studies the data on marriage in Scandinavia and marriage rates are up, divorce rates are down, co-habitation is down, gay partnerships are more long-term. Sounds very interesting, and may be required reading for some of us on either side of this debate.

Amazon link

I'm not a fan of the reviewers that the publishers list, but they are here if interested.

Here is a take from The WSJ (subscription required) - creative googling may find it somewhere for free...



For the dimunition of marriage in the US, the authors place blame on no-fault divorce and common law marriage and/or legal recognition of co-habitation among opposite-sex couples, which sounds right to me. Of course, the USA isn't scandinavia, but this is the first long-term empirical evidence I've seen.

Well, some "lands" (states), anyway. But that wasn't my point. I had brought up the dictionary definition earlier in the thread in order to show that when the Court ruled in Loving, it ruled according to the definition that the word had at the time (and still has now, the Mass SJC's ignoring of it notwithstanding). Therefore, the Court's opinion does not require granting rights beyond that. Now you can argue that courts should do so, but that's a separate question. The point is, Goodridge does not follow inevitably from Loving.


Certainly. It's a judge who lets her ideology dictate her rulings, instead of sound legal logic. Obviously every judge has to at least pretend to have some fig leaf of legal logic to a ruling, but when it reaches a certain level of implausibility, one is left with little other option for a conclusion. Especially when the judge in question makes very little secret of her political views. In 1999, the future author of the Goodridge opinion, Margaret Marshall, delivered an address to a $60-a-plate dinner held by the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Bar Association (possibly in violation of established rules of judicial conduct), in which she exhorted lawyers there to cite a recent South African court decision to in order to push for homosexual rights in the U.S. (Source).


Only the fact that people would claim that their "liberty" is being violated if they can't have polygamous marriage - same exact process that led to the Goodridge decision in the first place. Look at the link in the bottom quote box in post #9. After seeing the information there, I no longer trust bland assurances that the slippery-slope argument is just a phantom.


What does that have to do with what I said? I didn't say that marriage was a static institution. I said that comparisons between race and behavior do not hold. Most of the changes you mention are a result of the people deciding on their own to change the law. The one exception was done to enforce a constitutional amendment that was specifically targeted against laws treating blacks as second-class citizens.



Even legal dictionaries back then never made any mention of race in the definition of marriage.


Nonetheless, if a court ruling from 1930 used the word "gay" somewhere, we would not be justified in treating it as though it had anything to do with homosexuality, just because our definition is different.


And which gender is being discriminated against here? It's been long established by jurisprudence and just plain common sense that non-discrimination on the basis of gender means that the two genders have to be treated as fully interchangeable in every way. If that's the case, then employers would have to provide unisex restrooms, and they would not be able to prevent men from showing up for work in a dress (see this 9th Circuit Court ruling).



This needs to be put into a bit of context. The 17-year reference is to civil unions in Denmark. Same-sex marriage is not legal there. Among other things, same-sex unions in Denmark are restricted from adopting children to the same extent as married couples.

I don't think there are any conservatives left in the United States government and I don't think that Republicans can garner the same enthusiasm because I don't believe that average Americans really care about the issue. The fact is not allowing gays to marriage/civil unionize is to deny them rights that everyone else enjoys [which violates the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause].

The only people in the Republican base who really see this as a huge issue are social conservatives, and I don't believe that they can single-handedly win the Republicans the election. That and I don't believe that John Q. American cares that John and George are getting married more than say, a miserable war, a terrible fiscal policy and invasive government.

I don't know to be honest with you, there are a lot of states that have held a popular vote on the issue [which is ridiculous] and time and time again people vote against gay marriage. In some parts of the country [like here in Boston] we are moving closer, but I don't think as a country we are.


CP

The gender being discriminated against is one of the two people asking for the marital license. The exclusion of same-sex couples requires a marital legal contract to specify gender. As a result, gender comes into the equation which has already been established as being excluded from discrimination practices by the government. Your cases of employers don't mean anything since they are private corporations, not the state. Furthermore, despite your argument that they would have to provide unisex restrooms, they don't. But they do offer two restrooms with the same amenities, and they are both called restrooms.

They're prohibited by federal law from discriminating on the basis of gender, in language far more explicit than anything in the Constitution that's been held to prohibit the state from doing the same thing.


So they're "separate but equal"? To put it in your terms: The gender being discriminated against is the person who's required, solely on the basis of his or her gender, to go into one restroom, and not the other. As a result, gender comes into the equation which has already been excluded from discrimination practices by employers.

If you were to try and pass civil rights legislation in 1952, it would have been a landslide defeat. but today- different story.

the new civil rights struggle is over sexuality, without a doubt- and for the record- I am against ANY goverment interference OTHER than enforcing marriage contracts as far as marriage law goes- yes, polygamy should be untouched by goverment- for incest- the only thing I would like to see the goverment involved here is birth defect issues- they would have to sign a waiver, saying that they would never seek goverment aid for disabled children that arise from this relationship, or submit an authentation of sterility of some sort- otherwise, goverment has no business telling CONSENTING ADULTS to whom they are allowed to marry.

I am always suprised, though I shouldn't be, of conservatives that will moan and cry about regulation of business, and goverment red tape, and "big goverment" in general- but have no problem stepping into folks private lives like this. It is pure hypocrisy.

As soon as the current crop of conseratives start to die off, we will get more libertarian minded generation in power I think- and I do think that teenagers today are far more politically aware than I was as a teen, and watch with bemusement Republicans go into a froth over this, and wonder if they don't have some sexual identity issues.

Like Haggart that got busted by the male escort this week- I think that those that are really against homosexual marriage and gays in general have pretty strong gay tendencies themselves, and are frightened by the fact that it might acceptable to society, and then they won't be able to hold off thier gay-ness any longer.

I predict in about 15 years, folks that are down on gays today will be pretty much viewed as the bigots of our time, as we view those that rioted over integration of schools back in the day.

Remember that teenage girl in that famous photo that was screaming at the black girl as she entered her school in Little Rock ? She is sorry she did it now- and, like today, it will be darn hard to find those open air bigots from back in the day, today, they are firmly locked in the closet with thier bigotry.

This issue will, at some point in the future, turn somewhat on the Republican party, like civil rights did for the dems in 68, with all the dixie crats and dyed in the wool racists leaving the dems, I believe that at some point, this will happen to the republican party- but where do they go then?

OK, and for the record, is everyone who's opposed to polygamy a "flaming bigot"? Do you have any compunction about making that absolutely clear to them?

By the way, Vermillion, if you're still reading this thread, I invite you to check out CR's post. You asked how it is that legalization of same-sex marriage could possibly create a "slippery slope" to legalization of polygamy. Well, there's your answer.

Polygamy is between adults. However, since polygamy revolves around the idea of multiple partners in a marital agreement, there is at least a valid argument to be made that the government can prevent polygamy based on the concept of quantity. That is, to say, each person is allowed one marriage license at a time. You can't get multiple driver's licenses from the same state. You can't get multiple social security numbers.

Incidentally, you have not yet provided a legally-substantiated argument to support the rejection of gay marriage. Everything you have said is circumstantial and relies on "What ifs" instead of looking at the fundamental legal justifications provided by myself and others in this debate. Since marriage, provided by the state, is a contract--a legal contract binding two people together in an agreement--the state may not prohibit such a contract due to the gender of either individual. You may argue that this is not similar to the Loving v. Virginia case, but it is almost exactly the same. Both race and gender are protected under the same law.

In that case, the judge declared that the state may not discriminate based on the race of the couple seeking the marital contract. Remembering that this was in contrast to the legal definition which prohibited miscegenation, how are we not to make the logical jump from race to gender?

And please, don't pull the "which gender is being discriminated against?" question because it is irrelevant. In the Loving case, which race was being discriminated against? Same deal.

Anybody that makes value judgements on any consenting adults sex life or to whom they choose to wed in a negative manner, or believes that laws should be written to restrict thier sexuality or whom they choose to wed, yes, is a bigot, absolutely. It is not ANY adults business restricting non-harmful life choices of another human being- you (generic, not name calling here) are free to be that bigot- I don't want laws written to stop you (generic again) from being a bigot- but, I don't see the point of the goverment being involved at all unless you can prove direct harm to the party's involved (abuse of some kind, which crosses over into harm)

It is that belief that poeple like, Haggert, Falwell, etc use to enact laws that harm no principle party, and no harm can be proven in anyway that directly harms ANYONE, INCLUDING SOCIETY in letting human beings decide on thier marriage contract to other consenting adults, whatever form that takes.

It may not pass your "ewww" factor- but that does not mean that those poeple should be singled out for discrimination.

All liberty has come with the price of poeple putting aside thier pathological need to butt into and run other poeples lives. That is why our founding fathers tried to, as best they could imagine at the time, put checks and balances in place that tried to protect against buttinski-ing your nieghbor- they just had no idea how large we would grow, and how close we would have to live with one another.

That is why, to me, consservatives will never really want freedom, they just want freedom for thier little group, and that is all- they are simply too worried about adults that don't live to the same codes and cultures as thier own. That is not to say other cultures don't have thier drawbacks, and that certain things that are cultural somewhere else, should be legal here, such as slavery or legalized beating/killing of your children, but once again, those show direct personal harm.


Our nation has been a history or racism and bigotry, and we haven't even come close to shaking it off- we still practice it every day. If we truly want to continue to thump our chests and declare we are the arbiters of freedom on this planet- then we need to shake off that racism and bigotry. Acknowledge when we are bigots, and racists, find a pragmatic way to obtain justice for all, and then move on. Marginalize those forces that stick to thier bigotry, like the religious right- pretty much the Taliban componenet of our world.

We critisize the Taliban, but really, there is not so much difference in theology or dogma between the Taliban or the religious right, except in thier ability to force thier beliefs down the rest of the population's throat.

What, because a member of the board happens to think polygamy should be allowed? And thats your legal argument?

Heck, I know a guy on this board who thinks George Bush jr is one of the greatest presient the US has ever had. His belief does not make law or legal precident. The fact is there is NO causal link between legalising gay marriage and legalising marriage between a man and a spotted marmot, or a man and the east wind. None whatsoever. That is why there has BENN none of the 'slippery slope' occurring in the fourty or so nations which have legalised gay marriage or legalised civil unions. In fact CW posted a study demonstrating the cibil union laws in Denmark [b]improved[/b[ the state of marriage overall, rather then somehow destroying it (by means never explained by those who opposed these laws). Your rebuttal of 'ah but in Denmark gay partners could not adopt kids' is utterly irrelevant to the debate at hand.


But the absolute most amusing argument is your 'which gender is being discriminated against' argument. This is hysterical, in a sad and unfortunate sort of way.

In the years after the civil war, there existed a 'reconstructionist' movement which tried to abolish anti-interracial marriage laws. They had some success as well. However the will of the bigots overwhelmed them, and the reconstructionists collapsed. In their wake, inter-racial laws were reinstated and strenthened.

The single most common and well-used argument AGAINST interracial marriage at the time was the 'equal application claim' argument, that stated that the laws were not discriminatory because both blacks AND whites were prohibited from marrying the other, thus there was no discrimination.

'Which race is being discriminated against', they asked?

I find it amusing and highly ironic now that to argue against gay marriage you borrow the EXACT argument used by bigots to oppose inter-racial marriage 130 years ago.

Do you think that conservatives can garner the same enthusiasm and support on this issue that they did 2 years ago and still get many votes over it?

Why or why not?

I don't see it as a very important issue this time around in terms of energizing the Republican base. It's very hard to claim to be the protector of marriage when you've got a gay man chasing after male pages. Locally, a major male church leader has been exposed for hiring a man in Denver for regular sex. Prostitution support equals marriage protection? I don't think that would fly anywhere at anytime.

So, the basic why of the situation is that words don't mean squat, actions do.

Then I saw a supermarket tabloid screaming about Mrs. Bush filing divorce papers. Holy cow, that must hurt! People actually believe this stuff, as opposed to the junk on TV.

Are we moving closer to acceptance of gay marriage or civil unions as a nation, IYO?

The question is on the ballot here in Colorado. I think gay rights will win on Tuesday. I also suspect that the ballot issue will attract (energize) the Democratic base, not the Republican. And a lot of Republicans actually believe in equal rights under the law.

Another issue here is to reduce Colorado's reputation of being an intollerant state, which hurts our economy by pushing away forward-thinking companies and talented people.

This might become a slam-dunk.

As a nation I think the gays will win eventually too, possibly because nobody cares what goes on behind closed doors, but what happens in the courtroom does matter. The nation does have a sense of legal justice that crosses political lines.

So you mean to tell me that if we allow gays to marry that that might lead to a series of unfortunate events resulting in complete freedom over who someone marries? What a horrible state of affairs that would be . Blackstone, the only way the "if X happens, Y will happen" argument works is if you can prove that Y is a bad thing, and I don't know about you, but I'd have a hard time doing that in this instance.

CP

CP- this is one area that I am 100% a libertarian party man- if Americans truly wanted goverment out of thier private lives- we would remove marriage from goverment determination in any way- just a civil contract enforcer through civil courts- which, we are darn close to already to that- the religious right is the only thing holding back a sane and consistant policy when it comes to co-habitating.

Robert Hienlien was perhaps one of the first true libertarians, and he explored alot of his somewhat kinky side in dealing with goverment, sex and marriage. In "the moon is a harsh mistress" he goes at length to describe the no-goverment overseer utopia on the moon.

But, what should really happen, is take tax breaks out of the marriage equation completely, and allow any person with another consenting adult to determine thier personal preference for marriage- line marriages, polygamy, gay marriage- whatever- and make it a civil contract for all- let poeple and religions define it themselves within thier private circle of friends.

It would sure help in divorce cases to have a clear contract of marriage, instead of the asinine system we have now, and anyone entering into a contract should have automatic and exclusive "spousal" powers- which is at the heart of this debate-

marriage as it stands today, gives the spouse family level rights- if your loved one becomes sick, you are automatically guardian- and this is what the majority of the debate centers around anyway- if it were just a ceremony- gays wouldn't be pushing this- but too much abuse by families of gays against the spouse in thier last days is what this is really about. Protecting the sanctity of divorce and death.

I'm going to join CR and CP and take a libertarian and a laissez faire position on this issue.

If I could think of any, again any way two gay people getting married impacts my life in any way, I would be against gay marriage. Being unable to figure how this would help or harm me, I have no objections.

As I read through this thread, the most humorously ridiculous argument has to do with unisexs restrooms. To use a football analogy, it's like Terrell Owens catching a pass near the bleachers. It doesn't count because it is so clearly urelated and out of bounds to the point of being a fairy tale. No instant replay is going to change that.

The comparison to driver's licenses doesn't hold. You don't need more than one driver's license in order to drive more than one car. So why would you need more than one marriage license to marry more than one person?


"What ifs" are a proper way of analyzing these legal justifications. If you lay down a principle, you should be prepared to look at the consequences of it.


You might have to get the Supreme Court to reverse some of its precedents in order to get it to see things that way. As the Court stated in Maynard v Hill, "while marriage is often termed by text writers and in decisions of courts as a civil contract, generally to indicate that it must be founded upon the agreement of the parties, and does not require any religious ceremony for its solemnization, it is something more than a mere contract. ... It is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress."

But, if you want to dispute the Court here, and insist that marriage is indeed nothing more than a contract, then that would further weaken your argument above against polygamy. After all, contracts can involve more than two parties.


As I pointed out to you already, gender is often treated differently from race by the courts, in that when a law prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, it does not prohibit all gender-relevant rules and policies. Although employers, which operate under such prohibitions, may segregate bathrooms by sex, they may not segregate them by race. Nor may they require different standards of dress and facial appearance based on race, but may do so based on sex. That's because common sense tells most people that differences in gender are much more significant and fundamental than differences in race. Therefore, non-discrimination on the basis of gender only means that one gender can't be treated better or worse than the other. The opposite-sex marriage requirement doesn't offend that principle in the slightest.



Actually make that two members, now that ConservPat has seconded CruisingRam's opinion (possibly three, given that BoF appears to have endorsed their views also). And on a related note, there's this thread dealing with incest as it relates to the same-sex marriage issue. It was started by someone who wanted to dispute that there was any connection between the two issues at all. Yet, a few people showed up there to advocate legalizing incest, and most significantly, none of the supporters of same-sex marriage even tried to argue against them. And that's because, as I pointed out on that thread and this one, all the same arguments apply in all three cases: consenting adults, outdated notions of "morality" aren't enough to trump "rights", how does it harm YOUR marriage?, etc., etc.


And you really mean to tell me that you're having trouble answering that question? Speaking of "sad" and "unfortunate"...


Anyway, I'd like to make an addendum to my answer to the third question:

Are we moving closer to acceptance of gay marriage or civil unions as a nation, IYO?

The answer to that will really depend on how honest and forthright supporters of this type of "marriage" are willing to be. If they continue to try to deny or avoid the fact that they're opening up the door for polygamy and incestuous marriage, they're taking a gamble: maybe the people will be fooled by such gambits long enough to let themselves set the precedent - or maybe they'll wise up, look at the history of how this movement came about in the first place, and realize that the much-pooh-poohed "slippery slope effect" is in fact quite real. And then when they see the dishonest arguments and tactics for what they are, they'll be much less likely to warm up to the idea when they're unsure of where it will take them, exactly.

On the other hand, if the supporters of same-sex marriage are completely honest, the way CP and CR and a few others have been, and the people are made fully aware of the fact that this is indeed a package deal - no more baiting-and-switching - then the people may appreciate their honesty enough to have a serious discussion on the issue, but that would carry the risk that they might decide they don't want to go down that road after all.

Since when is it the population's business to vote on whether or not people should have equal rights? There is no reason why this should come to a vote, it would be a perfect example of the majority violating the righs of the minority. This is an equal rights issue, not one to be decided by a referrendum.

CP

http://www.religionandspirituality.com/cur...23-064214-6059r

A thought occurred to me: What if it was found that gay married couples were on the average more faithful to each other and were better at caring for elderly relatives and raising relatively well-adjusted kids? Is this what the heterosexual homophobes are afraid might happen--that their upholding of the "sanctity of marriage" would not measure up to the devotion of those who want their unions to be recognized with a religious mutual commitment ceremony that is recognized by law? Just musing about it...

I'm sure it's the Bible story about Sodom and Gomorrah and a reference from a couple of New Testament writers that help preachers keep their flock fearing anything that would benefit persons of a differing sexual orientation. The Rev. Pat Robertson claimed that Katrina struck the New Orleans area because God was angry at the homosexuals; it was pointed out by Jon Stewart that the French Quarter where they are known to frequent was unscathed in comparison to the surrounding residential areas...

Do you think that conservatives can garner the same enthusiasm and support on this issue that they did 2 years ago and still get many votes over it?

Why or why not?

I don't think that it is as much of an issue this election cycle. There is enough anger about Iraq, illegal immigration, job outsourcing and the self-aggrandizing, do-nothing Congress that many people outside of the evangelical and fundamentalist Christians will care much about the gay marriage issue. But I've been wrong before...

Are we moving closer to acceptance of gay marriage or civil unions as a nation, IYO?

Possibly, but I believe that it will probably take a Supreme Court decision down the road to help establish the right of gays to cohabit with each other in a legally-recognized manner. That's how it was with the Jim Crow laws.

For those church-going individuals who are absolutely against gay marriage, let them not attend the ceremonies and continue to attend churches where the minister feels the way they do. They shouldn't delude themselves by thinking that denying gays the right to marry each other will cause them to "join" the not-always happy (often unhappy) community of heterosexuals, though.

I don't remember Jesus condemning homosexuality in the Bible.

But a driver's license doesn't bind you to one car. A marital license does. My point was not to argue the results of a contract, but how many one can have. In terms of marriage, one at a time. And since quantity is non-discriminatory, there's no constitutional problem involved in prohibiting polygamy (which, I should mention, I don't much care about anyway). If you say, "Two people may enter into a civil marriage", there is nothing being discriminated against. The ONLY possible problem could come from conjoined twins. But I believe they can already wed under current law. Not to mention the extremely small minority this involves. But I'm getting off topic...

That they are. What if we legalize gay marriage and *drum roll* nothing at all changes? Is the big fear that nothing at all will occur if same-sex couples get married? Life will continue and we'll all end up killing ourselves in other ways. It's such an odd thing that we are fighting a war in which thousands of people have been killed, but God forbid two people be allowed to get married.

They already did... "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Loving v Virginia.

In fact, in said decision, one of the closing statements is as follows: "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

It doesn't take much of a leap to see how race can be swapped with gender in this decision. I guess it would be "another race" with "a same gender" instead, but the Court's decision seems to give heavy support for gay marriage rights.

Yep, but due to activist judges, it has come down to a vote in Colorado. We actually have two things. One is to define marriage as heterosexual and the other is to allow gay marriage.

What if you voted yes for both?

It would be an existential moment, wouldn't it. Are the machines programmed to toss such a vote? Isn't that reversing the vote to no on both issues?

Ah well, just one of the many Zen things that happen.

Since you've ruled on the validity of opposing views, I'll be a sport and refrain from making an argument that may be contrary to yours. In fact, why not post in the comments and suggestions section that arguments for and against gay marriage be banned because there is no "con" argument - it is hereby resolved? Seriously...maybe that would save tons of typing.

In any case, for all this talk of unconstitutionality, exactly where is it not legal for gays to marry? I missed that somewhere. I was under the mistaken impression that gays could marry anytime and anywhere they wanted to.

I believe that question was answered quite well in the Loving vs Virginia decision when the same arguement was made- blacks are allowed to marry. White are allowed to marry. Just that blacks are not allowed to marry whites, so no one is being discriminated against- after all, no one is being denied the right to marry- correct? They just can't marry the one they love or want to live with.

There continues to be no logical argument against Gay marriage - it all boils down to religious arguments, nothing else.

What next "it is un natural"

same issue with civil rights- anti-mescenegation laws were because "it was unnatural for them to marry" and "we are changing the definition of marriage"

They are the same tired arguments of the civil rights stuff back in the 50s

And, interestingly enough- it is going the same way on gay rights.

first- you have court cases delaring the wronged to be made whole - how dare the minority force thier views on the bigoted majority? Think about it- loving vs virginia was in 1952. Rapes, Lynchings, fire bombings went on for years, really until 1968- 16 years later! Rosa Parks was 1955- again, 1968, and the boycott lasted over a year!

DR- would you deny that those same poeple that were denying blacks basic rights bigots in 1955? Same thing is going on now.

And the wierd thing is- it is over something fairly trivial to society, that has no real impact all on anyone but the parties involved- two dudes get married- it has two effects-

1) they get the same spousal protections as any other marriage partners in death and divorce

2) I get more hotties to pull due to the fact there are two less dudes competting for the ladies

But really- it is just a religious issue, as religion is the only justification for homophobia

Your question assumes the premise. Nobody's equal rights are being denied. All that's happening is that the law doesn't satisfy some people's preferences as much as others'. And that's pretty much going to be the case with every law.



I twice explained to you why it is that gender and race are not treated the same by the courts. Do you have any questions or comments about those explanations?



And if you read the decision, you'll find that the Court rejected the notion that one race wasn't being discriminated against to maintain the supremacy of the other. But still no one's made the case that one sex is being discriminated against by the definition of marriage to maintain the supremacy of the other.


Quote a single definition of marriage at the time or earlier, either from a regular dictionary or a law dictionary, that mentioned race as part of the definition.

Sorry to have to shout, but that wasn't the first time you tried to peddle that myth, and it's not the first time I've had to shoot it down.

That's because the premise is correct. By not allowing gays to marry we are also preventing them from getting all of the legal benefits [unless you are pro-civil union, in which case, that's perfectly fine].

CP

Of course people's rights are being denied. I already demonstrated this is exactly the same argument that was used by those bigots who sought to oppose inter-racial marriage, and it carries the same weight now that it did then. I'm not sure why you think repeating the argument gives it any more validity.




I still do not understand this point at all. On the face of it, it seem like you are trying to DENY that inter-racial marriage was illegal at one recent point in the history of the US. I assume you are not doing that, as that would be insane. So what exactly is your point?

What 'myth' are you trying to destroy exactly?



Speaking of myths, allow me to destroy one you keep repeating.

There is NO link between legalising marriage, and the legalisation of incest and polygamy. None, whatsoever. This is not a slippery-slope argument, it is a weak attempt at one. For it to be an actual slippery-slope argument, there needs to be evidence of causality, whereas in fact none has been supplied. In fact, no argument whatsoever has been supplied that would link one to the others at all, just the assertion that there IS a link, honestly.

The closest there has been to any kind of actual argument is that 'some people on the board think polygamy should be legal'. Firstly, this ranks up there with the weakest arguments I have ever heard on AD, unless the three people in question happen to all be members of the supreme court of the United States. I can find at least three members on the board who believe the US government had an active role in the 9/11 attacks. Does that make for legal precedent?

But it gets worse. Not only is this a terrible argument, its also WRONG. Yes, several people on this board take a libertarian view of human sexuality, and think the government should not be legislating sexual behaviour. But how many of those three actually think legalising gay-marriage will somehow lead to legalisation of a man marrying an outhouse, or a man marrying the film 'Die Hard 2'? I would strongly suspect, none.


So we have an assertion with absolutely no logical foundation or evidence. On the OTHER hand, there is substantial evidence AGAINST this assertion.

-Firstl, law does not work that way. The very idea that allowing gay marriage (homosexuality being a legal act) would somehow make two illegal things allowable (incest/ child abuse and polygamy) is farcical. Why would it? Why should it?

-Secondly, not only does it not work that way, but it HAS not worked that way, EVER. In over 40 countries which have legalised gay marriage of civil unions, some for years, NONE of them have allowed men to marry badgers or cumulo-nimbus clouds. (or many wives, or children). NONE of them. So where is the slippery slope exactly?

-Thirdly, its not even a legal argument, at best it is a rhetorical one. Its like saying "We can't lower the voting age to 16, we would have to lower it to 1 year olds." Rhetorically there might be a (bad) argument there: why 16 but not 14, why 14 but not 12, and so on. But legally there is NOTHING there. The lowering of the age of voting has NO precidential implications apart from what is on the face of it. Laws are not made that way.

-Fourthly, the entire basis of the argument is an attempt to put homosexuality on an equal moral plane with incest, pedophilia, bestiality and polygamy, and that is simply homophobic on the face of it. I should point out that when inter-racial marriage was being discussed there were ultra-conservatives who openly stated that if we allowed that, a man might marry his dog. This wasn't logic, it was pure bigotry.

-Fifthly (and most tellingly), lack of interlinkage of criteria. Throughout human history there have always been criteria which allow for a legal marriage. Common criteria are race, age, co-sanguinity, religion, divorce, property rights, equality of partners, gender, species, quantity and so on. Individually, these criteria change routinely, as Blackstone has already admitted. In the last 200 years, the rules on age, race, quantity, divorce, equality of partners, property rights and religion have all changed, all without directly or uncontrollably affecting the other criteria. When the age of marital consent was raised from 10 years old in the 1890s, it did not lead automatically to the uncontrolled alteration of other criteria. Nor did this happen in any of the other cases when criteria have been altered. So there is NO reason to assume that yet another in what it frankly a fairly REGULAR change in the criteria for legal marriage would suddenly result in an uncontrolled change of other criteria without reason. It has never happened before, and change is endemic in the institution of marriage. So to assert (without argument) that all the OTHER dozens of changes were fine but THIS change will lead to chaos doesn't even make basic sense.

Besides, there was a time when Polygamy WAS legal. Why did that legality not lead us down the slippery slope of allowing gay marriage 140 years ago?



So I repeat, there is simply NO LINK WHATSOEVER between the legalisation of gay marriage and the baffling assertion that legalising one thing would somehow automatically lead to the legalisation of an assortment of unrelated illegal acts. Nor has there been the slightest attempt to evidence or explain this assertion, just made and moved on. Well, it doesn't work that way.


Thus, unless you are prepared to actually argue that assertion with, you know, an actual argument, relevant evidence or pertinent information, AND deal with the obvious legal and historical evidence against it, please do not bring it up again.

If you honestly believe that your examples support your argument, that's fine. They don't, but it's nice if you believe it. We should all believe in our arguments. Restrooms are segregated into male and female because of the different needs of the opposite sexes. It is not illegal for companies to install unisex restrooms--there is no law either way. This is a really absurd argument and I honestly can't believe I'm arguing about it. The resulting splitting of restrooms for each gender is simply a result of modesty. If a guy wants to file suit that he doesn't receive the same benefits as women, it would be extremely difficult to prove. Not quite the same as a gay couple wanting the same benefits offered to opposite sex couples, wouldn't you say?

Incidentally, I would like to throw my hat into the ring in support of removing government from the marriage equation altogether. The argument that the state has an interest in marriage is ridiculous. I don't know of a single person who says, "Let's get married for the tax benefits!" If they do, I'd question their marriage to begin with (and, frankly, reduces the sanctity of marriage as a result).

As it currently stands, with the state sanctioning marriages and issuing civil licenses, I see no reason to keep gay couples from wedding. The burden of proof lies on those who argue against it--how would allowing this hurt anybody? Since gay marriage has been legalized elsewhere and nothing has changed, there seems to be no argument against its legalization. I would love to argue this in front of a court and express the ideas mentioned in this forum. The judges in the New Jersey case are not activist in any way. It is their duty as the judicial branch to protect the minorities. Our Founding Fathers set it up this way for a reason.

Oh, by the way, no, this will not be a big issue in the 2006 election cycle. The only places it will affect are those states where constitutional amendments are on the ballot.

Allow me to interject just for a moment.

I don't think inanimate objects have anything to do with your version of the slippery slope argument. Us bigots who are wrong on this issue have made our arguments based on consenting adults. This debate has nothing to do with objects and/or species that are not able to consent to the union.

By the way, no matter how much you say it isn't so, gays can marry. They can marry a person of the opposite sex just like I can. They are forbidden to marry siblings just like me. Clearly, there is no discrimination. Hoever, assuming people are allowed to marry people of the same sex, does this not give them an additional right? I've not heard anybody state that once you marry someone of the same sex, you forever relinquish your ability to marry a person of the opposie sex if they ever should get divorced.

Wouldn't this be a special right?

I have to disagree and admit that I dont see your logic. I believe the bathroom separation is basically a comfort level thing, mostly for women. Perhaps gay marriage discrimination is basically a comfort level thing, for men.

The way I see it, its a basic civil rights issue. We have ourselves in a polemic because we have anti-discrimination laws in the US, Federally sanctioned, and when we moved from 'religious marriage' to government sanctioned civil marriage, it means we must ahere to our basic laws which mean we do not dicriminate as a secular society between race or gender, and civil marriage WAS already agreed upon as a basic human right. WE do discriminate between objects, animals and people, so noone can ever marry a goat or their dog, a tree or the moon and stars. That slippery slope is not an issue.

Polygamy. In Utah officials have turned their heads and many in power are polygamists themselves, or sanction the practice. There are BIG problems with Morman polygamy. Young girls are married to older uncles (incest) or other men in the order. Given no education beyond the 8th grade, they are brainwashed all their lives, given no access to the outside world. Thier menstrual cycles are clocked and they become virtual baby makers from the age of about 14.
The welfare system in Utah picks up many of these families and their medical costs, as single mothers,
although the Morman elders are wealthy and own all known businesses in Utah.

This is child slavery which exists within the USA and noone cares a smidgen about it. ( This is because it is mostly girls and women who suffer this unspeakable practice) I have not seen a conservative or liberal 'outpouring' of concern about this almost religiously sanctioned practice.
It has been all over the news, on Oprah, sanctioned by the Utah state government by denial. Noone in our government cares about this. http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exe...ew.cgi/35/12276 This is only one, google Colorado City, or Polygamist communities.

On the other hand, I dont believe that consenting adults who decide to live in mutual communities, having one or more wives or husbands is a threat either, so add me to your list of 'threat to marriage' Blackstone, and a slippery slope person.
I DO have problems with 'imposed' polygamy, as in child slavery, but I dont know how to negotiate between the two within the law, so I think polygamy should still be outlawed, but I know from my experience that a person can love more than one person and actually decide to live in a threesome or
communal situation and it can be a logical, adult decision.

However, if you think gay marriage will lead to lawlessness, polygamy and incest, too late, we have it, not in its best state as adult and consensual, but as child slavery, pedophilia and not a single legislator has seen fit to lift a finger against it. Not to mention the stats of rape and violent crime and abuse against women and children in this country. That includes the oh- too-pious -priests preaching religious values, and doing little boys on the side.

We as heterosexuals already have a myriad of barbarities we seem to inflict toward women and children all over the place without worrying about a gay marriage threat. A threat to what exactly? A male power trip?As a female I cant imagine it getting any worse, only better.

Artemise- as a male, one that has been married to a female TWICE- I can't see what is threatened either - I am pretty sure the folks against it are truly afraid of thier own possible sexual identities- I am not threatened by women, men, gays, or blacks- I just don't, and never have seen, the need to allow them less of something for those reasons. To say that gays are not being discriminated is a facetious and silly arguement, especially when, one gay male, laying dying in the bed, and his partner of 20+ years, can't have the same rights as a married couple, and automatically be allowed to make life and death decisions on health care treatment, or, even worse, not allowed access at all, due to the "real" family being able to automatically make these decsions- BECAUSE, AS IT STANDS NOW, THAT OTHER PARTNER IS LEGALLY EXCLUDED-

that is a real world example, something that happens every week, probably every day, in this country. It is wrong and immoral and unethical to deny those partners the same access to thier loved ones in their time of need or even death the same rights opposite sex couples have.

DR- you can try to argue around it, dance around on a head of a pin and all- but that is a REAL injustice being done there- and the ones done to hetero sexual marriage are all imagined, silly little fears, for who knows what reason.

I have to disagree and admit that I dont see your logic. I believe the bathroom separation is basically a comfort level thing, mostly for women. Perhaps gay marriage discrimination is basically a comfort level thing, for men.

The way I see it, its a basic civil rights issue. We have ourselves in a polemic because we have anti-discrimination laws in the US, Federal law, and when we moved from religious marriage to government sanctioned civil marriage, it means we must ahere to our basic laws which mean we do not dicriminate as a secular society between race or gender, and civil marriage WAS already agreed upon as a basic human right. WE do discriminate between objects, animals and people, so noone can ev