Check out this video. Look at how uncomfortable John McCain gets when Ellen asks him simply why she and her partner can’t have the same recognition as their fellow citizens. This is the kind of thing that can’t hold for long (and no, the Democratic candidates aren’t much better but they don’t exhibit the glee in attacks on gay Americans that the right does). Sure, you will have people who dig themselves into the dirt, some for honest reasons and others for political opportunism, but at the end of the day you’re telling a fellow American that they’re not as American as the rest of us. And that never works in the long run. Because we’re a better country than that.
Look at how uncomfortable John McCain gets when Ellen asks him simply why she and her partner can’t have the same recognition as their fellow citizens.
To be fair, McCain quite often looks like that.
But also, McCain quite often doesn’t give an answer (politicians are like that). And there’s no good answer for the Right Wing position on Gay Marriage. All he says is, “Well, I and many others respectfully disagree.” But he never says why. He just sheepishly laughs and hopes the conversation moves on like it does on Russert.
Look at McCain’s response to Obama’s direct criticism of opposing the GI Bill (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2008_05_18_archive.html#6586061105877910308 among other places). What the hell is that? Besides Sound and fury signifying douchebaggey, I mean.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/gay_marriage_support_and_oppos.php
is interesting too.
Whoever is Prez next time could really get out in front of this and come out looking like a wise and just and good leader.
Here in the UK, we have civil partnerships. Elton John has one, for example. They provide the framework for inheritence etc. and they can be celebrated like a wedding. It’s marriage, and it isn’t. Is this sort of thing what California have? Ellen saying about ‘you can sit there’ makes me think not.
Barack has the same position on this issue as well, doesn’t he?
Bryan – If the UK’s civil partnership laws provide the exact same legal benefits as heterosexual marriage, then that’s exactly what California says they should have. People keep getting hung up on the terminology.
Here’s my question: does Sir Elton call it his “civil partnership” or does he call it his “marriage”? Frankly, I feel that the way to acceptance of gay “marriage” is to simply obtain the rights structure and then start usinbg the word until it passes into vernacular.
Sometimes when the anti-gay-marriage pols comment they say they’re for preserving the “sanctity of marriage.” Typical of my frustration with the MSM is that no one questions whether federal or state law is supposed to guard “sanctity”, a religious term.
Most pols could care less, no corporate wealth at stake here; so they’re just riding the wave of public opinion, Dems and GOP both. Glad even Obama temporized with his “civil union” preference. To do otherwise would be suicidal for his campaign.
The US isn’t socially ready, the majority of us anyway, for gay marriage. Until we are, it’s a semantics game.
Bryan…
I think the majority of Americans would support a civil union law like yours. I also think that the majority of homosexual Americans would not think that this is good enough. Certainly not the majority of politically active homosexual Americans. Finally, I think that if you took an identical law and inserted the word “marriage” for “civil union,” the majority of Americans would oppose it.
These are just my hunches based reading and listening. I may be wrong and often am.
I heard this clip on XM. My hat’s off to Ellen for making a point without burning him at the stake. Then she finished off with a joke…what a gracious host.
Ellen has a bully pulpit, she’s popular and smart. You wouldn’t want to antagonize her audience.
The emergence of openly gay, and yes, popular celebrities such as Ellen and Sir Elton makes it harder to pander to the hate crowd without antagonizing their fans.
And Scratch, will you be the first to explain to me how a same sex couple getting married, and I mean MARRIED, would affect the sanctity of my stable, 22-year marriage? The staggering divorce rate among heterosexuals certainly hasn’t affected mine.
Repack – I’m not sure scratch is saying he “agrees” with the premise that homosexual marriage is an “attack” on the institution. He’s just stating that this seems to be an overriding opinion in America.
We all know scratch to hold political views in opposition to what most of us here feel, but I don’t think he’s opened himself up to being somebody who can answer that question, thus far.
(Then again, maybe he has expressed as such before and your memory is clearer than mine.)
Hi Repack…
Your nickname evokes interesting imagery in this thread, but I digress…
There are those who believe that there is an important religious aspect to marriage, based upon both “blessings from God” and upon the natural purpose of mating, which is to create children. Humans are an interesting case in the animal kingdom, as many of our laws and customs are based upon this and other natural purposes, while other laws and customs are based on intellectual ideas that we created ourselves. This issue is so controversial because it really falls squarely on the line between these two sources of law. What is mating and what is marriage? The question cannot be answered without drawing both from nature and from man-made law.
Like it or not, for centuries or more, the idea of a man and a woman mating with the blessing of government has been a central piece of society, every bit as powerful as the idea that a mother and father have a right to keep and raise the children they bear. Only in the past few decades has that ancient idea of marriage been seriously challenged [as far as I know...I'm not an anthropologist or sociologist.] So it’s neither shocking nor disappointing that the majority of our society have not yet come to grips with this sort of change. But I do not think this will be the case forever.
To answer your question, I do not think that a same-sex marriage effects the sanctity of your stable, 22-year heterosexual marriage (congratulations if you were referring to yourself.) But inclusion of same-sex unions in the same category of legal standing as heterosexual marriages would challenge the notion that marriage itself is based on a natural process that has been revered for ages. On the other hand, recognition of same-sex unions–but not identified as “marriage”–for every imaginable legal privilege is something that would be acceptable to a great many, if not most, heterosexual Americans. I wonder if it would be acceptable to homosexual Americans?
My question, scratch, is that once you allow a committed homosexual couple to have all of the same rights as a heterosexual married couple, how do you stop them from calling it a marriage?
Sure, in the archives of city hall, far from the public eye, it will be listed on the public record as a “civil union” or whatnot.
But in their everyday life, that gay couple can call their union a “marriage,” and there’s precious little any legislation can do about that. The naysayers can screech “Nuh-uh, it’s not a marriage” all they want, but ultimately the emptiness of that semantic argument will fail.
Think about how often you may have referred to a generic paper tissue as a Kleenex, or unwittingly said you’d Xerox something before running it through a Ricoh copier. Gay “marriage” is all about branding.
“The US isn’t socially ready, the majority of us anyway, for gay marriage. Until we are, it’s a semantics game.”
I saw a poll recently that made me very hopeful. The opposition to gay marriage and dropped quite steadily, and it about 55% while support is at 40%.
Combine support for gay marriage and civil unions, and the numbers are reversed.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/gay_marriage_support_and_oppos.php
Even if you had a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, it probably wouldn’t pass. (It definitely wouldn’t pass, outside some dirty trick campaign.) I feel confident predicting that within a decade, it will be legal in most states that didn’t previously ban it. And maybe even a few of those will have reversed their bans.
Spider…
EXACTLY!
There are a lot of powerful ideas behind it, but the word itself is just a word. BOTH sides are hung up on it! Which is more important, the label or the legal privileges it provides?
Bill O’Reilly has a non-threatening example he frequently uses to express his support for civil unions: he has two aunts who have lived together for years as mutually supportive partners. They should be allowed to declare a spouse-like privilege for matters relating to next-of-kin, etc, but nobody is interested in calling this a marriage. What’s the difference?
I agree…and watching gay activists miss the point that the legal privileges are more important than the word (which, again, they will be free to use if they want in their daily life–First Amendment and all) is certainly one of the more frustrating aspects from this side of the debate.
watching gay activists miss the point that the legal privileges are more important than the word (which, again, they will be free to use if they want in their daily life–First Amendment and all) is certainly one of the more frustrating aspects from this side of the debate.
Seriously. I can understand the frustration and desire for complete vindication that comes from having been oppressed and insulted for so long. But the “It’s not enough that I get what I want, but you also have to acknowledge that I deserve it.” attitude I’ve seen from several in support of “gay rights” is counter productive.
Get the equivalent legal standing, let the “other side”" call it whatever they find palatable. And then, once it’s all settled, start referring to it as a marriage if you want. Eventually the term will enter the vernacular.
Remember when “gay” meant joyful?
“But inclusion of same-sex unions in the same category of legal standing as heterosexual marriages would challenge the notion that marriage itself is based on a natural process that has been revered for ages.”
Marriage is not based on a natural process. The natural process I assume you are referring to is mating and child birth. Marriage, however, is not based on mating itself but the idea that children are better raised by two parents who will be together forever.
The mating part if the natural process. The marriage part — two parent, life time partners — is cultural, that is, man-made. In other words, the natural process is child birth. The cultural process is child rearing. The best methods and means of raising children is, then, entirely mutable, subject to changing social, cultural and political ideas.
As for the difference between civil unions and marriage, it isn’t just a matter of semantics when the state gets involved in granting official sanction.
Scratch writes:
I think the majority of Americans would support a civil union law like yours. I also think that the majority of homosexual Americans would not think that this is good enough.
The reason why they don’t think it’s good enough is because it isn’t, which is precisely what the California Supreme Court decided as well. The Court didn’t care if the state of California officially sanctioned marriages or not. It just can’t officially sanction some some couples as married to the exclusion of others. The application of selective official sanction establishes a two-tiered system of recognition even if the rights are exactly the same. It is unconstitutional.
There are two solutions to this dilemma. Either the state recognizes all two-couple partnerships as marriages or it recognizes no partnerships as marriages. If, in other words, it’s good enough for gays to call themselves married in private, even if the state does not recognize them as married, why can’t straight couples to do the same thing? If it’s okay for gays, why is not okay for straights?
The answer is because anti-gay marriage advocates want their cultural and religious beliefs to be recognized by the state to the exclusion of the cultural and religious beliefs of gays. And again, that kind of exclusionary recognition — even if all rights are still equal — is unconstitutional. Simple as that.
So why aren’t anti-gay marriage advocates arguing that the state should get out of the marriage recognition business entirely and leave it up to individuals to get their recognition from their church or other spiritual community? Why do they want the state involved at all?
Fafaroo…
Why do they want the state involved at all?
Because they want the state to grant special privileges to married couples, and they want married couples to consist of one man and one woman.
“Because they want the state to grant special privileges to married couples, and they want married couples to consist of one man and one woman.”
And that is unconstitutional.
That also doesn’t answer the question why straight couples can’t live without state recognition if gay couples are expected to.
So why do straight couples 1) need state recognition 2) why can’t they live without it?
Fafaroo…
I think there is a very good argument that it is not unconstitutional in the context of legal/constitutional recognition of a natural condition. We also have laws that grant special privileges to the parents of a child but not to genuinely caring adults who are not the child’s parents, or to siblings but not to very good friends who grew up like siblings. Again, it comes down to the idea that marriage is the legal recognition of a natural condition. Homosexuality, as natural as it may be, is not derived from the same natural condition from which marriage is derived.
Scratch – You just referred to the government giving married couples “special privileges,” which I find telling, since that same phrase has been used by anti-gay rights opponents for years–”these gays are asking for special privileges!”
Good point Spider. However, the “special privileges” to which I referred are actually the codification in law of customs that have been around for centuries, eg the idea of “next of kin” and the things that go along with it. Hey, maybe homosexual couples could refer to each other as “kin,” and satisfy their need for recognition of their bond.
Scratch,
Marriage is not a “natural condition.” It is a social, cultural and legal institution. That is, it is an entirely man-made construct.
Even if you want to argue that there is a certain natural drive in some mammals, such as ourselves, to mate for life, that doesn’t change the fact that marriage, it’s definitions and applications, is still a social, cultural and legal construct.
And again, why, if it’s okay for gays to be happy with referring to themselves as “kin,” or “married” or whatever without state recognition, why isn’t okay for straight couples to be happy with the same?
The mere longevity of a custom or law is no grounds on which to argue it’s justice or, in this case, it’s constitutionality.
Whoever asked, I think Elton John refers to his “partner” and himself as “married”.
The civil partnerships we have in the UK do provide for the O’Reilly aunts as well. I had been thinking about pension payouts, but I had forgotten about child custody altogher. Again, in this case, I feel there is some use in a child staying with the surviving partner, and the surviving partner being able to co-register as a parent.
Fafaroo…
I believe that marriage as we know it is the legal recognition and sanction of the natural process of mating.
Many of your arguments have clear merit with which I do not disagree in principle, but I believe society changes like a glacier while you are hoping for an avalanche.
If you are talking about the pace of societal change, you really should be looking at the chronology of the gay rights movement overall which would means current discussions of gay marriage have been about 40 years in the making, taking the Stonewall riots in 1969 as the beginning of the modern gay rights movement. Granted, not a long time in terms of societal change but it’s not like all this came out of thin air five years ago or something.
That said, whether it’s better to change slowly or quickly is irrelevant to the questions I am asking about the constitutionality of a two-tiered system of state recognition of marriage.
Why on earth, does the state need to recognize and sanction the natural process of mating? Mating, as it were, can and does occur without it everyday.
Children can be born and raised without state recognition of the parents status as a couple. In other words, state recognition of “marriage,” as opposed to a civil union, is entirely unnecessary for a couple or bear or adopt a child and raise it.
I can fall in love with someone, enter into a civil union with them, have a child with them and raise the kid successfully all without us being recognized as “married” by the state. How exactly does state recognition of our union as a marriage change anything, except that it grants a special recognition of our union to the exclusion of others? How does excluding other couples from recognition of their unions make me a better parent? It doesn’t and so any law that is so exclusionary is unconstitutional. I don’t know how else to put it and it doesn’t matter whether society won’t be ready to accept that fact until 20 years from now. The fact remains the same today and so the courts are obliged to act accordingly.
Fafaroo…
Most of the need for special recognition for marriages is common sense. For example, if I am unconscious in a hospital it makes sense to allow a person to whom I have committed my life to make decisions on my behalf. It also makes sense to not automatically grant that right to someone who is a friend or claims to be a friend just based on their say so. My prior commitment to that person is a good and sensible litmus test for whether the state should allow that person to act in my behalf. I think an awful lot of Americans–possibly a majority–would have no problem extending these traditional rights to anyone designated in an act of commitment.
Another example is the concept of community property, and the related idea of an automatic beneficiary in the case of death. These are not considerations that are needed so much as they just make sense for two people who have committed their lives to each other.
The concept of “marriage” is centuries old, and most people, including homosexual Americans, understand that the traditional concept is a man and a woman. The examples of privilege above are not needed in order for a marriage to exist, but they certainly address issues that are faced by thousands of married couples each and every day in almost every society on Earth. And with proper handling, I think many or most people in the U.S. would support the extension of these privileges to any pair of adults who wish to commit to each other. But to call that commitment a “marriage” is to suddenly undo what people have understood the term to mean for the entire duration of modern society.
If I may offer a crude analogy, I see little difference between this and a movement to allow people to walk around naked. Is it “wrong” to be naked? Do naked people deserve fewer rights? Am I hurting anybody if I walk around naked (well…I actually would hurt people, but just speaking in general?) The simple fact is there is nothing wrong with being naked. I would not be rude to a naked person I encountered on the street. And yet, most people would not support a change in our laws to acknowledge the rights of people to walk around naked. Why? Because for centuries, the norm across the planet has been for people to wear clothes when they are out and about.
And for centuries the norm was to keep fellow human beings as slaves.
And for centuries the norm was to consider women not full citizens.
We’ve done a lot of things for centuries, but that doesn’t make those things right or a reason to stand against change.
If we applied that old kind of thinking prehistoric man would have thrown away fire because walking around in the dark was the “traditional” thing to do.
Scratch,
Civil unions that include all the legal rights and issues you lay out are what were talking about here.
In all of my posts I am assuming that couples in a civil union have the same rights as couple in a marriage.
If a gay couple in a civil union has all the same rights and legal protections as a straight couple in a marriage, there is no reason for the state to still officially recognize one couple as married and the other as not, unless, of course, the term “marriage” is in itself considered a special right that only straight couples should get. The California Supreme Court found that, all other rights and legal protections being equal, it was still unconstitutinal to establish a two-tiered system of state recognition.
Either the state recognizes all legally-bound couples as married, or it doesn’t. It’s that simple.
Now, if you want to argue that gay couples are not entitled to the legal protections of visitation rights and community property, you are making an entirely different argument. Do you think that two gay people who want to enter into a legally bound and committed relationship should be allowed to have visitation rights, community property or other legal protections and responsibilities that straight couples can get just by filing a piece of paper with city hall?
Oliver…
Can I sign you up for my campaign to legalize public nakedness, so we can change the centuries old tradition that unlawfully provides rights for clothed citizens that are not provided to the unclothed? It begins with a door to door outreach.
Fafaroo: yes.
yes to what?
It begins with a door to door outreach.
Don’t you point that thing at me.
Do you think that two gay people who want to enter into a legally bound and committed relationship should be allowed to have visitation rights, community property or other legal protections and responsibilities that straight couples can get just by filing a piece of paper with city hall?
Yes.
The difference, I think, is in the spiritual and emotional meaning that the word “marriage” has, as opposed to a “civil union” – which evokes images of an unemotional legal contract. You can argue that it’s a matter of semantics all you want, but that does not change the fact that it is hurtful for most gay couples to be told that their relationship is unworthy of being called a marriage.
Not to mention the fact that it ignores the growing number of religious communities that do perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples.
Now, if the state wants to get out of the marriage business altogether and administer civil contracts for all couples – straight or gay – then that would be an equitable solution.
Scratch,
the nudity analogy is not the same thing because we’re talking about constitutionality here. Laws against nudity apply equally to everyone. They do not discriminate by race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, what have you. No one can legally walk around naked wherever they want. That said, there are designated areas where people can walk around naked like nude beaches: http://www.sfbg.com/nudebeaches/sanfrancisco.php
One reason why these areas are tolerated, as I understand it, is because public nudity, is a free speech issue in terms of personal expression. There are plenty of nude protester groups, for instance, who use public nudity as a form of political speech. Community standards always apply, however, and there are limits to where and what someone can do while nude.
So…we’re actually in agreement here as to what should happen, we’re largely just discussing how it’s gonna.
“Again, it comes down to the idea that marriage is the legal recognition of a natural condition. ”
As has already been argued, this is simply not true. The current marriage convention – man/woman of any race, above the age of 18, and consentual – is purely a social construct. Not only is it fairly recent, it’s almost unique to western society.
The constructs that preceded this current standard include polygamy, marriage with children, and forced/arranged marriages – much of which still happens in third world countries. So no, marriage is not some extension of our natural condition. Monogamy isn’t particularly natural, nor is marriage necessary for child-rearing.
Laws against nudity apply equally to everyone.
No they don’t. They unfairly discriminate against people who want to be naked. The same can be said of laws governing marriage: everyone is equally entitled to engage in heterosexual marriage. Everybody is equally prohibited from engaging in homosexual marriage.
No one can legally walk around naked wherever they want.
Right! And similarly, no one can legally engage in homosexual marriage. Do you see that you have assumed that it is OK to have laws against walking around naked in public? Is that because of a centuries-old social tradition under which you were raised?
I am really becoming enamored of my nakedness analogy. It has all the hallmarks of the issue at hand: it touches on sexuality but is not exclusively about sex; there is nothing “wrong” with being naked; most people feel uncomfortable seeing another person naked in public, though they may find it difficult to express why if pressed. Most people–dang near all of them–take it as a given natural fact that people should not walk around naked.
everyone is equally entitled to engage in heterosexual marriage. Everybody is equally prohibited from engaging in homosexual marriage.
Exactly. And that’s wrong.
Is that because of a centuries-old social tradition under which you were raised?
No, it’s because I don’t want to see my high school librarian butt-naked in the supermarket.
“Is it “wrong” to be naked? Do naked people deserve fewer rights? Am I hurting anybody if I walk around naked..?
Well, in my case, walking around naked might cause the laydeez to bump into objects in their path and grown men to cry bitter tears, possibly resulting in car crashes and suicides.*
*Yeah, I wish.
Scratch,
If you care to understand the origin of my handle, it is from my personal claim to fame, which is mountain biking. Click the link to my website. That’s why I have one.
Now back to the subject at hand. HOW DOES A GAY OR LESBIAN MARRIAGE AFFECT, OR IN ANY WAY CHEAPEN MY STABLE, 22-YEAR MARRIAGE?
My brother is gay. It isn’t catching.
If I may offer a crude analogy, I see little difference between this and a movement to allow people to walk around naked.
Oh. My. God. What an idiot.
Hi AW…
If you would care to elaborate, I may be able to help you understand.
Repack…good story to go with the name! How cool to be in on the beginning of something big.
“I am really becoming enamored of my nakedness analogy.”
Yeah, well, that makes sense giving how much actual thought you seem to have put into it.
Laws against public nudity do not discriminate based on the age, gender, religion, sexual orientation or race of the person who wants to get naked on Main Street. Like any freedom of speech issue, it is the content of the speech or expression — in this case nudity — that is weighed against community decency standards and not who actually does the speaking.
Laws that exclude gay couples from state recognition as “married” base the exclusion on the who, not on the what. That is, the laws aren’t against marriage, they are against gay marriage, in particular. In other words, laws that recognize straight marriage but not gay marriage discriminate based on sexual orientation, that is, they exclude one portion of the community based on who they are. Again, the California Supreme Court found that this kind of exclusionary recognition was unconstitutional. If someone passed a law saying only straight people could be naked in public, that too, would be struck down, not on the basis of public nudity, because of it’s clear discriminatory nature.
One of the reasons why you think the nudity analogy makes sense is because you really don’t understand the issues involved in gay marriage and you really don’t understand how the Constitution works.
“Because for centuries, the norm across the planet has been for people to wear clothes when they are out and about.”
The traditional definition of marriage people are fighting to defend is barely more than 40 years old.
McCain is older than the traditional definition of marriage.
C.S…40 years old? Where is that information from?
Fafaroo…
Thanks for the thoughtful response. You are probably not surprised that I stand by the analogy. The reason it is such a powerful analogy, in my opinion, is that it is so easy for a reasonable and well-meaning person to fall into the trap of presuming that “of course, obviously, people can’t walk around naked.”
I think your response exposes two flaws in your thinking. First of all, you claim that the laws regarding marriage apply only to heterosexual people (or that a ban applies only to homosexuals.) That is not true. Any homosexual person may marry a person of the opposite gender, while no heterosexual person may marry a person of the same gender. It truly is not the who, but the what, as you put it so well. I’m not trying to be cute here…I could easily claim that laws banning public nakedness apply only to nudists, couldn’t I? Because nudists are the only people who want to be naked in public. Similarly, it does so happen that homosexuals are the only people who want to marry a person of the same gender, yet the law applies to both hetero- and homosexuals just as public nakedness laws apply equally to nudists and, ern, clothists. The reason you are caught in this trap? Your definition of marriage apparently includes adults of the same gender making a commitment to each other. But like it or not, neither society nor the law have ever (as far as I know) recognized this definition (save for a few locales in recent years.) The traditional definition has been–right or wrong–a man and a woman.
The second flaw is found in your claim that the desire to be naked in public is “weighed against community decency standards…” You understand, of course, that a great many people feel that two people of the same gender getting married is indecent? So I believe that what has happened is that the idea of public nakedness violates your ideas of decency. As an exercise, imagine how you would feel seeing an unattractive person naked in public, and then see if you can imagine how others might experience that same feeling if they saw two men kissing in public. The latter might not violate your ideas of decency, but for many others it does. Can you see that? If you are prepared to call those people hateful or bigoted, then you must be prepared to explain why your sense of decency in the issue of public nakedness does not make you yourself a hateful bigot.
“Any homosexual person may marry a person of the opposite gender, while no heterosexual person may marry a person of the same gender.”
You lost me here. To the list of things you really don’t understand, including the Constitution, we now have to add homosexuality itself.
Fafaroo…
I have a pretty good grasp of homosexuality.
Let me make it as simple as possible: Until recently, marriage has been understood to mean a commitment between a man and a woman. So a commitment between people of the same gender is not covered by any law that deals with marriage. Thus, homosexual people are not prohibited by law from entering into a marriage as it has been defined by custom for centuries. Of course, they have no interest in doing so.
Scratch: “C.S…40 years old? Where is that information from?”
From 1967 when the definition of marriage changed to, “between a man and a woman” from, “between a man and a woman of the same race.” Before that, it was less than a century before the previous major change in definition as it used to be, “between a man and a woman of the white race” as blacks were not allowed to get marriage, even to each other.
By the way, the exact same arguments were used in the 1960s to keep interracial marriages illegal. The exact same arguments. Yes, that includes the inability to have kids.
Scratch: “I have a pretty good grasp of homosexuality.”
… Does someone want to and a joke here?
Scratch: “Let me make it as simple as possible: Until recently, marriage has been understood to mean a commitment between a man and a woman. So a commitment between people of the same gender is not covered by any law that deals with marriage. Thus, homosexual people are not prohibited by law from entering into a marriage as it has been defined by custom for centuries. Of course, they have no interest in doing so.”
Let me be equally as simple. You are wrong. You are wrong about how traditional the definition of marriage is. Marriage hasn’t been defined as between a man and a woman for very long, nor has it always been defined as just between a man and a woman.
“Of course, they have no interest in doing so.”
Hmmm, I wonder why a gay man would have no interest in marrying a woman. Or why a lesbian would have no interest in marrying a man. It boggles the mind …
You’ve really out done yourself here scratch.
CSS: Well done, sir.
mambochicken23: “CSS: Well done, sir.”
Thank Tom Tomorrow. He made that point in a strip a while back and until then the obvious hadn’t dawned on me. Of course, he didn’t add the McCain bit, but I’m sure I’m not the first person to say McCain is older than the ‘traditional’ definition of marriage.
Because nudists are the only people who want to be naked in public. Similarly, it does so happen that homosexuals are the only people who want to marry a person of the same gender
In other words, your analogy revolves around the assumption that my love for my partner is nothing more than a corny hobby.
As an exercise, imagine how you would feel seeing an unattractive person naked in public
I wouldn’t give a toss.
But apparently you think you would be justified in demanding that all ugly and disfigured people wear masks.
C.S.: I note that in all your various definitions of marriage, the one constant is the bit about the man and the woman.
AW.: In other words, your analogy revolves around the assumption that my love for my partner is nothing more than a corny hobby. Not at all. But why do you dismiss nakedness, which is undeniably the natural state of things, as a “corny hobby?” Can you articulate why it is that you think people should be required by law to hand man-made objects from their bodies when they appear in public?
I am absolutely not trying to equate homosexuality to nudism. I am pointing out that the concept of what is “normal and acceptable” in a marriage is very similar to what is “normal and acceptable” in standards of clothing. That is, they are both based on long-standing and very deeply-seated traditions about how things are donr in society. THat doesn’t make one “right” and the other “wrong,” but it does help to explain why defense of one position or the other will often completely elude a person who sees things differently, as has happened in this thread.
By the way, the exact same arguments were used in the 1960s to keep interracial marriages illegal. The exact same arguments.
Interesting. I hear many of the exact same arguments being used to prevent people from walking around naked as have been used to prevent homosexual people from getting married.
Scratch,
You obviously, still, don’t understand the constitutional difference between public nudity and marriage and I don’t really see the point in trying to argue you out of your beloved sophistry. Like I wouldn’t want to rip a security blanket away from a child.
Again, no one, regardless of gender, age, race religion, etc. has a right to be naked in public, although there are exceptions to the general ban as it nude beaches or asa a matter of free speech.
At present, only straight people can get married while gay people can’t. To suggest that if gay people want to get married, they just have to marry someone of the opposite gender is to entirely misunderstand the nature of homosexuality. It’s like saying that jim crow laws weren’t unconstitutional because if blacks wanted to sit at the front of the bus, all they had to do was be white. If you can’t understand that simple, basic fact, you’re hopeless.
The number of years a rule, law, tradition or custom has existed is also no argument in favor of its justice or its continuation. It’s like arguing that we shouldn’t have gotten rid of slavery because, you know, it’s been around so long. Granted, the longer a law has been in place the harder it is for people to get used to the idea that it’s gone. Change can be shocking, no one is denying that. But the degree of shock involved is also no reason to continue supporting an unjust law. You really feel okay with telling people that can’t have their constitutional rights until everyone is cool with it? Sorry. The Constitution doesn’t work that way. We have a constitutional process that can take time, moving from legislature to courts and back again, but that process should not be suspended simply because some people don’t like change or are afraid of it.
Scratch: “I have a pretty good grasp of homosexuality.”
… Does someone want to and a joke here?
I don’t think there’s any need, except to say heheh.
“Any homosexual person may marry a person of the opposite gender, while no heterosexual person may marry a person of the same gender.”
In other words, they should pretend to be something they are not, and enter into a union with no love or commitment based on a lie. Yeah, that’s sanctity, all right.
“C.S.: I note that in all your various definitions of marriage, the one constant is the bit about the man and the woman.”
Two points…
1.) The potential changes in the demographics of marriage between allowing interracial marriage is much greater than the potential change after allowing same-sex marriage.
2.) And you are still wrong. buzzle.com/editorials/7-17-2004-56743.asp The Catholic church performed same-sex marriages up to the 14th century, and that’s not to mention the many other cultures that had / have same sex marriage.
And as a bonus…
3.) You are still arguing tradition is a legitimate excuse to tell someone they are not allowed to marry the person they want. Tradition is not enough. You have to explain why a law should be in effect now.
Not at all. But why do you dismiss nakedness, which is undeniably the natural state of things, as a “corny hobby?”
In our society, nudism IS a hobby. My fleeting judgment of it as corny is irrelevant to my point.
Can you articulate why it is that you think people should be required by law to hand man-made objects from their bodies when they appear in public?
You utter imbecile, I just said that I DON’T. Ideally, nudism WOULD be legal. The reason that nudism is banned is that people are worried it would make it difficult to prosecute the guy who insists on stroking himself while walking naked through the primary school playground. And as nudists do not suffer from being required to wear clothes in public, there is no pressing need for making the complicated change in laws. Okay? Not an ideal situation, not fair on nudists — but neither is it even vaguely comparable to the humiliation of one’s relationship having no legal status even after decades of companionship. Your arguments are not just bad, they are preposterous and insulting.
I do not believe this