Burnt Orange Report

Byron,

All right, I'll call you a hypocrite. Dems not supporting gay marriage is OK because they are Dems, but GOPers not supporting it is unacceptable? (Of course, I am solidly against gay marriage, but that is an argument for another posting).

It seems that when it comes to issues of race, or now homosexuality, you don't really care if the Dems take a position, but when the GOP does the same it infuriates you. A few weeks back you had a post on how racists were going to sink Jindal's campaign, and that you thought that was a good thing since it would prevent the GOP from having a minority governor to prove they aren't racist. If I or Mark or Owen had said the same thing say, in 1989 when Wilder was running for Gov. of Virginia (alright, way before either of our times, but if we were around and doing this back then) you would have rightly gone ballistic. Call me cynical, but it seems you are far more concerned with supporting the Democratic party than being philosophically or intellectually coherent.

Sherk

But it's not the same thing. Many Democrats are not openly enthusiastic for gay marriage... but most are against banning it outright. While there are a few Republicans who are generally pro-gay, there's a difference. And it's a crucial difference.

And I think you are mischaracterizing, or atleast vastly oversimplifying, Byron's analysis of the Blanco-Jindal race.

I think something has to be cleared up here. The word "marriage" is the sticking point. I think all of the Democrats are pretty much on the same page as far as what they want - the legal aspects of civil marriage should be available to same-sex couples. Those who are against same-sex "marriage" are mostly against calling it "marriage".

Personally, I would love to hear some real arguments against same-sex marriage, other than the typical "longstanding tradition, blah blah blah" bullshit that the right likes to spew. All the same arguments have been made before about interracial marriage.

Hey, waddya know - I agree with Sherk. I think it's very hypocritical.

I pretty much agree with Jason; there's a huge distinction between "marriage" (a religious ceremony) and a civil union, which is nothing more than a legal status. There is no way anyone should or could tell any religion what ceremonies they should or should not perform, but I can't think of any reason (and apparently the justice system is beginning to see things this way to) that one group of citizens should be denied a legal right that others have.

I too would like to see a compelling argument against gay civil unions that didn't essentially boil down to invoking the Old Testament. There may be some, but I haven't seen them yet.

Sacred == "concerned with religion or religious purposes"

If marriage is truly sacred, as the President says, then the government should have absolutely nothing to do with it because of a small matter called the First Amendment.

Civil marriage (which is what the SJC ruled upon) is a wholly secular institution, and thus religion shouldn't enter into it but civil rights and equal protection do.

Liberals, et. al,

I think what most conservatives object to in civil unions is that the government would be granting preferential status to individuals based on the fact that they are engaging in deeply immoral behavior. Like I've said before, I don't think homosexuality should be illegal, but I don't think the government should use it's powers to promote it as a normal and acceptable "alternate lifestyle."

I wouldn't mind some sort of "civil contract" or something of that nature that grants inheritance rights, hospital visiting rights, etc. etc. to any two sane adult individuals, as long as there were no other criterion. I.e. if I wanted to get a "civil contract" with my roommate, by brother, etc. that would be allowed, as would two homosexuals who wanted the same. If you are so concerned with discrimination, why is it OK to discriminate against homosexuals, but two friends w/o a sexual relationship can be discriminated against at will? I wouldn't oppose something like that, so long as virtually anyone could get it under any circumstances. Those of you concerned about "gay rights," should find this a perfectly acceptable compromise. Those of you, however, who don't want mere tolerance, but want to use the government as an agent of social change to try to persuade people that homosexuality is normal, wouldn't accept such a compromise. It would get in the way of the much maligned but nonetheless accurately described "gay agenda" -- pushing the notion that homosexuality is devoid of moral implications and ought to be considered perfectly normal.

So which is it, what do you want: equal rights or using the government to shove homosexuality down the throats of the American people? If the first, we can come to a compromise which reaffirms the definition of marriage, but provides civil contracts to everyone under the sun. If the second, then this will be another long fought battle in the culture wars.

Sherk

Ok, I responded to some of the remarks here by updating my post with some clarifications on my position. I hope that that answers some of your questions....

Byron,

Is it that important to you that it be called "civil marriage" and be open exclusively to sexually involved couples? I ask again: would you accept leaving marriage defined the way it has been since time immemorial and instead of homosexual "marriages" have some sort of civil contract or something of that nature open to everyone, regardless of whether or not they are sexually active?

Sherk

the government would be granting preferential status

How is equal treatment preferential? This contradictory refrain from the right has always baffled me.

I think Sherk here is grasping at straws. I don't quite remember the last wedding I went to where the preacher asked "and do you promise to bang her every night, in good times and bad?"

Now I know a lot of conservatives probably get married just so they can have sex without "living in sin", but what does this say about how those people view marriage to begin with?

But I see where he is going. He is trying to say if it is OK to marry your roomate, why not your brother? It's a nice tactic to try, but it is just a distraction from the main argument. Please try again. Give a valid reason why two men/women in a committed relationship should not be able to have their relationship acknowledged by the government in the same way that a "traditional" marriage is. Since traditional marriage does not allow marriage to relatives, it isn't a valid argument to make against same-sex marriages.

Sherk,

No, in short, I wouldn't support such a system. That would be like me asking you, or any other heterosexual if they would like to just have a civil contract instead of a marriage? Your problem is that you're unable to seperate the religious and legal aspects of marriage. It is the responsibility of religion to define the morality of marriage. It is the responsibility of the state to decide the legal rights of marriage. I'll never try to tell a religion what to call marriage. I may disagree with their definition of marriage and I may encourage people from within a religious group to encourage change in their religion / denomination, but my focus is on the legal rights of civil marriage. Gay and lesbian couples should be entitled all of the same legal rights of heterosexual couples. Civil Union's are a good first step, but in the long run, lets just call it what it is: Civil Marriage.

Actually, now that I think of it Sherk, your proposal would probably do more to harm marriage than anything else proposed. If heterosexual couples could have all the same benefits of marriage without calling it marriage, what would the benefit of marriage be for heterosexuals, then? To me, your proposal would do more to harm the "sanctity of marriage" than anything gays want. All gays and lesbians want is the same civil marriage rights as heterosexuals. We want NOTHING that would in any way effect heterosexual marriage. In contrast, your proposal would have the effect of discouraging heterosexual marriage in some cases.

In the long term, it boils down to semantics.
A majority of Americans supports "same sex civil unions" but opposes "gay marriage".

Even before the ink was dry on the MA decision, the fundamentalist hard right mobilized against it. This is a more easily exploitable issue for them than abortion or school prayer.

The progressive forces should not attempt to fight doctrinaire ideology with doctrinaire ideology of its own.
We need to short circuit the neo-Puritan fanatics by coming up with some clever wording that would drive a wedge between them and mainstream Americans.

Tim- civil rights, fairness, equality. Simple as that. This is about being able to have your health care wishes respected and about being able to be left alone. As a friend of mine wrote, "Wasn't it nice when constitutional amendments were proposed to STOP the government from telling people what to do?"

I have been asking the same question as Jason Y: Would someone please, please, please tell me how allowing gays to marry will "undermine" straight marriage? Mark Davis on WBAP yesterday actually said gays would ruin the institution of marriage because of the promiscuity that exists in the gay community. If that's the only "reason", then apparently we should just outlaw straights from re-marrying after they get divorced because of infidelity, right? Still waiting for an answer, people! See more of my little rant here.

Sherk - I'm not sure how the government allowing something to happen equates promotion of that thing. Our Constitution/government provides the freedom to express any number of abbhorent sentiments but that does not mean the government encourages people to express those sentiments. That's called freedom and it's theoretically supposed to be one of the cornerstones of our nation.

I really don't intend for this to sound snarky - I am genuinely puzzled by this: why is it that conservatives tend to rail against "big government" interfering in the lives of citizens, but are more than happy to interfere in the lives of citizens when it comes to religious or moral issues? Why do they constantly maintain that the government should get out of our banks and such, but are happy to see it in our churches and bedrooms? Because it seems to me that your objection boils down to your belief that homosexuality is "deeply immoral."

And on that point: do you believe that the sexual aspect of homosexuality is the immoral part, or is it any homosexual emotional attachment?

I'm actually honestly interested in dialog on this, so please don't take it defensively...

SMurph,

I'd like respond at length to some of the comments here, but I am pretty busy today, so its going to take a while.

In brief, to your first point "I'm not sure how the government allowing something to happen equates promotion of that thing."

The problem is twofold: First marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and a women and virtually never between a man and man or woman and woman. So I strongly object to the government using its power to try to redefine such a fundamental societal and religious institution. You might disagree, but it seems pretty clear that is big government intrusion where it doesn't belong. If two men want to live together, fine, they will have to answer to a far higher power than the US gov't. But the government has no business redefining marriage to suit the whims of the homosexual activists.

Second, as to the civil contracts, whatever. What I object to is, if we are going to grant these benefit, to the govnerment discriminating in favor of immoral behavior. Look, tax benefits, visitation rights, etc. etc. aren't what marraige is about, and I couldn't care less if we extend them to everyone under the sun. It would do nothing to weaken marriage since such legal incidents of marriage are quite tangential to the institution itself. You don't get married to obtain visitation rights in the hospital. Heck, I'd love to extend maritial tax benefits to everyone -- it would virtually eliminate the death tax and generally result in less money for the government.

My objection is granting special preferential treatment to individuals engaging in homosexual acts. That is more than just "allowing something to happen." That is "promoting" homosexual behavior, providing rewards for those who engage in it, while not providing those same rewards to other individuals who do not. Why, after all, should two heterosexual male friends be denied visitation rights in hospitals, etc. Isn't that discrimination?

Gotta go,

More (much) later,

Sherk

My objection is granting special preferential treatment to individuals engaging in homosexual acts. That is more than just "allowing something to happen." That is "promoting" homosexual behavior, providing rewards for those who engage in it, while not providing those same rewards to other individuals who do not.

Come on, don't talk in euphamisms. Your objection flows from the thought of two men fucking. Yes, anal sexual intercourse seems to be this big thing that people can't get their head around- it's as if that's all gay people do, never mind that there are also lesbians. It's just the idea of the sexually deviant behavior of two guys fucking that gets at you. But of course, we have already seen where the Supreme Court stands on that one. So if you aren't just as much sickened by heterosexual anal sex, then you are hypocritical and on the wrong side of a different Supreme Court's ruling.

What kind of behavior do you want to promote? "Moralistic respect for procreation," "natural intercourse?"

First, you would then be just as guilty of shoving down our throats a moral code of behavior. Wouldn't want that now, would we?

Second, it's a utoptian arguement based on the idea that all heterosexuals have natural, procreative, loving sexual intercourse where Tab A only and always fits in Slot B. Ahem, been on any college campuses or frat houses lately?

I strongly object to the government using its power to try to redefine such a fundamental societal and religious institution. You might disagree, but it seems pretty clear that is big government intrusion where it doesn't belong.

Very well Sherk, but lets look at other "fundamental societal and religious institutions". Slavery. Subordination of women. Prohibition of interracial marriage. Etc., etc. Changing "fundamental societal and religious institutions" is never easy, but decades and centuries later our progress will be looked upon in the same way as other equality movements who fought against fundamentalist / conservative religious traditions.

But the government has no business redefining marriage to suit the whims of the homosexual activists.

Change the word "homosexual" with "Black" and you sound a lot like those who fought progress a generation ago.

My objection is granting special preferential treatment to individuals engaging in homosexual acts. That is more than just "allowing something to happen." That is "promoting" homosexual behavior, providing rewards for those who engage in it, while not providing those same rewards to other individuals who do not. Why, after all, should two heterosexual male friends be denied visitation rights in hospitals, etc. Isn't that discrimination?

It's all about sex. Jeez. If you want gays to be less sexually promiscuous, then supporting gay marriage is the obvious answer. Heterosexuals are generally less likely to be promiscuous after marriage (well I don't have a study to show it, but I don't think anyone would argue with me here), because marriage encourages monogamy. Thus gay marriage would likely have the same effect. Sherk, I respect your arguements, but its the same thing that opponents of interracial marriage made. Decades from now, I think that those who oppose gay marriage will be seen in the same light.

amendments should never, in my opinion be used to restrict the rights of American citizens - the one time it was done - prohibition - it was a complete failure)

This is a meme I have seen time and again - a false one.

Sure the first ten amendments was the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Restrictions. But since then?

XI - restricted the rights of citizens to sue their state.

XII - electoral college procedures - n/a for civil rights

XIII - abolished the right to own slaves which had previously been expressly provided by the Constitution

XIV - Section 3 abridged the rights of former Confederates to serve in government. Section 4 made the southern states jointly responsible for the debt incurred in putting down the rebellion.

XVI - Income tax! 'Nuff said.

etc etc etc

The position that an amendment to the Constitution should not be "negative" has no logical or historical value whatsoever in evaluating the merits of said proposed amendment.

Look, tax benefits, visitation rights, etc. etc. aren't what marraige is about, and I couldn't care less if we extend them to everyone under the sun. It would do nothing to weaken marriage since such legal incidents of marriage are quite tangential to the institution itself.

Right, it's all about sex (apparently).

Sounds like you need to say what marriage is about before you can make a cohesive argument.

Here is a good reference as a rebuttal against claims that marriage as we currently know it is a longstanding tradition. The most interesting to me is that there are/were Native American tribes who allowed same-sex marriages.

There are other good pages on that site too.