February 13, 2004

• I hope it will happen, and I'm so excited by this. (it really depends on the city clerks and mayors tho)
• I find it especially encouraging in light of talk about actually trying to pass an amendment to the constitution limiting the rights of U.S. citizens. Take that!! Karate-chop intolerence *hiiiii-yaah!!*
• The True Terror.
• Phyllis Lyon, 79, left, and Del Martin, 83, embrace after being married at San Francisco City Hall on Thursday. They are the first same-sex couple to be officially married in the United States "These unlawful certificates are not worth the paper they are printed on... This is nothing more than a publicity stunt that disrespects our state law and system of government itself." -- Randy Thomasson, executive director Campaign for California Families Look at the photo, then read Mr. Thomasson's comment again. The man should be embarassed to call himself a Christian. Mayor Gavin Newsom is a hero.
• Yeah, look at them. Undermining the sanctity of marriage with their life long commitment and all.
• anastasiav: Thanks for that photo. I love older folks in love - gay, straight or otherwise and this just makes my heart soar. On topic: LOVE This!
• What do you think?
• *Proud to live in San Francisco* It's about time!
• What absolutely wonderful, heartwarming news! (And compare the happiness stemming from this to the feelings of sadness, isolation and anger being written about in homunculus's link, caused by our old friend Mr. Constitutional Amendment). Of course, I'm well aware that the whole 'breaking-the-law-for-something-you-believe-in' thing is fantastic when it's something I approve of (e.g. people loving each other), and simply wrong when it's something I don't (putting the 10 commandments up in your courtroom). But fuck it, this is such fantastic news; and anyway, I feel fairly confident in stating that any hypocrisy will be every bit as powerful, and a good deal more pernicious, from the other side of the argument...
• I find it especially encouraging in light of talk about actually trying to pass an amendment to the constitution limiting the rights of U.S. citizens An earlier post leaves me wanting pancakes.
• A Matter of Rights-- very good oped from SFGate, and the story of Phyllis and Del : >
• anastasiav: Thanks for that photo. I love older folks in love Guess their time is limited. [/hides plate of pancakes].
• *takes thom's pancakes, and puts a bride and a bride on top of the stack*
• I love that photo, it's truly heartwarming -- especially because of the looks on the faces of the people around them.
• Am I the only person paranoid enough to be afraid that between MA, SF, and Lawrence vs. Texas, the conservatives are just going to crack and do something really frightening (a la Kristallnacht)? It seems to me that lately gay people are on the verge of gaining or losing everything in the U.S. No more baby steps. It's now a case of winner take all but I can't tell who's going to win.
• I like the moon. / random comment generator
• As far as the amendment goes, the Republicans need to be real careful. Once you open up the constitution and start playing with the guts, you can't close it again until everbody agrees to. It's not like they have a mandate or anything, and the elections are awfully close.
• Mackerel: Ask the family of Harvey Milk or Matthew Sheppard what happens when gays get too "uppity." I doubt you'd see a Kristallnacht, but the KKK rode around largely unchecked until Federal power was brought to bear by Bobby Kennedy, and the FBI seem to have a very hard time finding people who mail anthrax to Democratic politicians or people who shoot Ob/Gyns who perform certain operations. The lunatics on the fringe can get away with alot if they have the tacit support of a mainstream who shake their heads and say, "Well, I don't really approve, but I can understand..."
• Bad evil conservative Christian guy here. Soooo, all respect to the lifelong gay lovers and those who support their bid for marriage, but isn't this a nice F-U to those who still want to abide by Constitutional methods for getting what they want? And flashboy, thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of your support for this in light of the outcry against Roy Moore and his crowd (or anyone who flaunts their disregard of the law). C'mon, this doesn't bother any of you?
• I'm with f8x. I'm an atypical Republican (atheist, fiscal conservative, social liberal, free-market capitalist, pro-death penalty, marginally pro-choice, anti-tax, pro-War, technocrat, pragmatist), but end-arounds on the law to get what one wants - no matter how right the cause, perhaps *especially* in a just cause like this one - only poisons the celebration when victory comes and in the interim arms the opposition during the struggle. And while it is laudable to acknowledge the cognitive dissonance Flashboy mentions, why not *try* to approach fairness and reason? Let's be different from the ignorant masses who cannot see past their own prejudices and try to rise above such ignobility?
• Soooo, all respect to the lifelong gay lovers and those who support their bid for marriage, but isn't this a nice F-U to those who still want to abide by Constitutional methods for getting what they want? How is this not abiding by the Constitution? If you're referring to the federal Constitution, there's nothing in there to prevent gay marriage, or about marriage at all, for that matter. If you're referring to the state constitution, California does not prohibit gay marriage there, either. It's only in the state statutory law that California has mandated that marriage be between a man and a woman. See my brief discussion of those laws here. [E]nd-arounds on the law to get what one wants - no matter how right the cause, perhaps *especially* in a just cause like this one - only poisons the celebration when victory comes and in the interim arms the opposition during the struggle. You mean life the sit-ins of the civil rights movement in the 1960s? The Freedom Riders? The March to Selma? I'm all for obeying the law, but sometime civil disobedience is necessary to demonstrate the immoral nature of certain laws--especially where, like here, the civil disobedience takes a non-violent form. What other law can you protest by getting married? I think that's awesome.
• Read more about equal rights for gays at the Daily Kos.
• Some of the greatest things have come from people who were willing to break the law to make a point (see: American revolution, civil rights movement, women's suffrage movement etc, etc)
• That's what I get for not previewing. So what monju said.
• My first comment in this thread agreed with Fes. As the way I look at it, the Texan Pharmacists(three were fired) not fulfilling a job duty and the city authorities overriding their job responsibilities, are both on the same parallel. One thing to note here, the ones breaking the laws are not the ones benefiting by being defiant. Which as it seems, would never lead to better things. An example, a prison guard(s) letting out criminals he/she feels is innocent. The public would waste their time crying foul at the guard(s) that could let the real issue and correction to be sidestepped in the end.
• ...the immoral nature of certain laws... Can we make sure we record this? Last time I checked, morality (at least when conservatives try and use that argument) isn't a factor.
• monju, when I say Constitutional, I mean methods for changing the law supported by the Constitution, which should cover changing both state and federal laws.
• Last time I checked, morality (at least when conservatives try and use that argument) isn't a factor. I never said it wasn't a factor. When social conservatives speak about morality, they generally speak about the morality of acts by individuals they want to prohibit. When social liberals speak about morality, at least in this context, they generalyl speak about the morality of government institutions intentionally infringing on equal rights. Two very different things. when I say Constitutional, I mean methods for changing the law supported by the Constitution, which should cover changing both state and federal laws. And again, I point you to the civil disobedience of the 1960s. Sometimes it becomes necessary to demonstrate the immoral restriction on personal liberty by the government by actively breaking that restriction. If gay couples didn't attempt to get married, but merely introduced bill after bill in the California legislature, the problem of equal rights in this matter would remain a confortably abstract problem, one that doesn't confront the status quo. When there are real gay couples, with real marriage licenses, trying to claim real government benefits, suddenly this problem becomes a whole lot more concrete. There's something to be said for gradualism, as the article I linked to above notes, but not at the expense of progress.
• Prohibitive morality (social conservativism) is necessarily tied to the laws government passes. In this case, it is about retaining the traditional characteristics of marriage and their associated values, for which government has a legitimate interest in maintaining (at least for the moment). Locke explores the value of traditional family and its role in productive and moral society. So to call this civil disobedience a moral action while simultaneously proclaiming legislation against gay marriage (or put another way, legislation upholding traditional marriage, and family) immoral, you're actually flying in the face of the original foundations for the bill of rights, which favours individuals' rights and is the basis of the Constitution.
• Hmmm. Prohibitive morality is at the base of individual rights? That seems kind of odd, don't you think. Identical arguments were made in favor of the miscegenation laws, and the laws prohibiting birth control. As society has progressed, those laws have fallen by the wayside, as should this restriction on gay marriage. As for the Constitution, you've made a pretty big claim. The Bill of Rights was not the "basis of the Constitution," as you say, but rather was a compromise added after the fact to induce the states to endorse the Constitution itself, i.e., Articles I through VII. this is evidenced by the very fact that the Bill of Rights is composed of Amendments, as was not part of the original. While the main portion of the constitution is based in part on notions of liberty, the two real driving forces behind it were federalism on one hand, and separation of powers on the other. Further, even the Bill of Rights is less about individual liberty than you might think. Remember, not a single one of the rights contained therein applied against the states until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Amendments were originally designed, in no small part, to prevent the federal government from interfering with the states in their administration of their own laws. This debate is not about the Bill of Rights. This debate is about the Fourteenth Amendment and its far reaching implications for due process and equal protection. (I would include privileges or immunities, but unfortunately, those have largely become a dead letter.) Lawrence v. Texas is but the most recent example of this. The Fourteenth Amendment exists to protect fundamental liberties; it does not give states the power to restrict those liberties and enforce prohibitive morality. Quite the opposite, in fact. Read Randy Barnett's article: Justice Kennedy's Libertarian Revolution: Lawrence v. Texas. [pdf]
• Wow monju. Remind me to get you in my corner the next time I need to make a point.
• Flipping back to a slightly earlier bit of the argument (I know little about the specific political and theoretical history of your Constitution, which makes me feel a little dumb), I think I'd like to draw a distinction between supporting something and feeling pleasure at it. There's no way that seeing those pictures could ever make me feel anything other than joy; that's not the same as to say that I think it's necessarily legal, or a smart move. I'm still unsure if this is a good idea on the part of the mayor; civil disobedience should generally be a last resort, and I'm not what you'd call 'convinced' that's the case here. One difference between this and the Roy Moore case, for me, would be that the legal striking down down of these marriages, should it occur, would be in some ways a success in itself - a clear demonstration of the law doing nothing but harm to individuals. (When I say that this would be a 'success', I obviously don't mean for the individuals concerned, for whom it would be deeply upsetting, but rather in terms of the broad political picture.) Civil disobedience that comes with the expectation of failure, but is done as a means of highlighting the unjust nature of the laws concerned, is more acceptable than simply breaking the law because you disagree with it. Which I feel was the case with Moore, who seemed to be motivated largely by an urge for publicity. But, again, maybe that's just my bias coming through - maybe a Christian right-winger (f8x?) might feel the exact opposite. Agreed with thomcatspike that there is a similarity with the Pharmacist debate - perhaps the difference is that the mayor is at least in a job where he's supposed to make policy decisions and reflect the will of the populace? Again, I dunno - you could equally spin it the other way, as was the case with Moore, to say that he of all people must uphold the law. Out of interest, what type of platform did he run on? He's recently elected, I believe - was there any hint of this coming? To sum up: oooh, I'm conflicted.
• OT: To all those participating in this thread: thanks for making it challenging, civil, and enjoyable. Maybe I'll hang out here a little more often. 8)
• Two asides to Monju's closing citation: Barnett published a much shorter version [not pdf! hallelujah] on NRO last summer, presenting the gist his analysis without footnotes etc. If instead you somehow want more detail, and an explicit treatment of proscriptive private-sphere morality versus the Fourteenth Amendment, see the amicus brief [pdf] for the case that he co-authored.
• flashboy- Gavin Newsom was recently elected, in December, in a close runoff against a Green candidate. He gained a great deal of notoriety as a member of the Board of Supervisors for promoting an initiative called "Care not Cash" to end the cash distributions to homeless people and substitute services instead. The initiative passed but was then thrown out by the court. He generally ran on a business-friendly platform, I don't recall hearing much from him about the issue of gay marriage during the campaign, but then again, in San Francisco politics, things that are labeled "progressive" elsewhere are just considered "middle of the road" here.
• Thanks for the links, monju and goetter. Monju, to clarify my understanding of the Bill of Rights, I should have said it was the basis for Constitutional protection of individual rights. That it is less about individual rights than states rights vs. federal rights is debatable, but I'm not adequately prepared to defend my assertions. On that note, however, I do have some qualms with your statement of the following:

  Remember, not a single one of the rights contained therein applied against the states until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Amendments were originally designed, in no small part, to prevent the federal government from interfering with the states in their administration of their own laws.

  Thomas Jefferson wrote that "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." Yes, states rights are a vital aspect of the Bill of Rights, but I disagree with your claims that their importance trumps those of the individual. Moreover, I would assert that the Bill of Rights was a compromise by the states on behalf of the individual, precisely so that individual rights would not be ignored in the larger Constitution. Yes, prohibitive morality was at the basis of those antiquated and (now) unconstitutional laws, but it was inappropriately applied. The Declaration of Independence is a claim of Natural Rights deriving from Natural Law that comes directly through Locke, and the arguments made therein, as well as in Locke's second Treatise, formed the basis of the civil rights movement.
• Yes, states rights are a vital aspect of the Bill of Rights, but I disagree with your claims that their importance trumps those of the individual. Let me clarify. My argument was that state's rights and the relationship between the states and the federal government were of driving importance in drafting the Bill of Rights. Although protecting individual rights may have been the impetus for doing so on the part of some states, the states had wildly different notions of what it meant to protect rights. For example, many states had established churches funded with state tax dollars well into the 1830s. State's rights now, however, have waned in importance. Particularly with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the prevailing federalism dynamic was largely turned on its head. While the Bill of Rights was intended to protect states and individuals from the federal government, it made no provision for protecting individuals from their respective state governments. That's primarily because the concern was with a tyrannical federal government, not oppression in the states. The Fourteenth Amendment, however, was drafted and ratified because the time ahd come when it was not the federal government from which we needed protecting, but rather those states which saw fit to continue the shameful legacy of slavery. In sum, individual rights became, and now remain, the center of the Bill of Rights, as it now applied against both the States and the Federal government. My confusion at your argument stems from your emphasis on individual rights. If you want to see individual rights protected, as I do, then we object to gay marriage? Yes, prohibitive morality was at the basis of those antiquated and (now) unconstitutional laws, but it was inappropriately applied. How do we know how to apply it properly? I think ultimately that's the point. Because we live in an increasingly pluralistic society, the scope of moral judgments with which we can all agree seems to be smaller and smaller. Yet, we know we wish to protect the most extensive equal freedoms possible. It seems to me that prohibiting gay marriage violates this principle.

• How do we know how to apply it properly? I think ultimately that's the point. Because we live in an increasingly pluralistic society, the scope of moral judgments with which we can all agree seems to be smaller and smaller. Yet, we know we wish to protect the most extensive equal freedoms possible. It seems to me that prohibiting gay marriage violates this principle.

  As I first asserted, individual rights stems from natural law, which is and must be the foundation for every civil law. The natural law argument, as I've stated before, is based upon the underlying traditions of marriage and family. Chapter 7 in Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government is key here. Chapter 8 then goes on to defend the formation of a political system based on a majority rule of civil law founded upon the natural law of civil and moral society. If we are to believe in the rights of individuals and defend those rights, we must also acknowledge the moral foundations of those rights, and act in accordance with them. To do otherwise is to subvert natural law (moral law); erosion of civil and social morality is the erosion of individual rights.
• For me, the comparison to our errant pharmacist is invalid simply because my objection to a medical professional refusing to provide treatment is based not in law, but in morality; doctors, nurses, et al, have a moral imperative to offer aid that was first codified before Jesus was a twinkle in his father's eye. It's been honoured, as Kimberly pointed out in tht discussion, through wars; it's honoured every time a drunk driver comes into an A&E ward and doesn't get let in a corner to die. I fail to see how a group of people getting married with a question over the legality of such is comparable. And fx8, I'm sure you'll find creating test cases like this has long been considered a normal way of finding out whether US laws are constitutional or not. Nothing exceptional here. Oh, and what monju and Kimberley have said.
• rodgerd, I haven't compared this matter to the pharmacist case, and I don't object to creating test cases to see how constitutional a law is.
• Wow. This discussion is really fascinating! Thank you to everyone (on all sides) for chiming in and really making me think. I'm wondering if anyone else notices the irony in discussing the protection of individual rights in this context. These people are practicing civil disobedience in this case because their rights are not being protected at all. There is even talk about introducing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution (no small thing by any measure) to limit rights (!) throughout the country. This is not only frightening to me on an individual level, but because (as was discussed at length by those who know much better than I) this is the federal government saying that it doesn't agree with what individual states are doing and it wants to stamp down what they're doing. Do any of us want these kind of decisions made for us by an abstracted and far-removed government? In the end and back to the point of what these people are doing, I guess I don't understand how letting homosexuals gets married actually threatens heterosexuals who are or want to get married. How does allowing this leave families with heterosexual parents unprotected? I'm honestly curious if there's anyone who can explain it to me.
• To me, Kimberly, that's not the issue. What's at stake is the moral tradition of heterosexual marriage as the basic building block of our civil society. What a gay couple doing in Massachusetts or even next door to me doesn't threaten me (or anyone), but the attempt to redefine marriage as something other than what natural law defines it as, does threaten everyone because it completely overthrows the basis of natural law, which as I've been arguing with Monju, is what our government and society, and indeed our very rights are built upon. Those self same individual rights which homosexuals are seemingly fighting for, are in fact counter to the very basis of true individual rights granted by both the Bill of Rights and natural law.
• what Kimberly said...the constitution affords us equality (or at least equal protection) and these state laws prohibiting gay marriage or even DOMA (or those creating a "separate but equal" status thru civil unions) are actually unconstitutional, and only need to be tested in court to be proven so. And I think, kimberly, some people think of "marriage" as the religious service, and not the civil marriage that endows you with rights and protections and benefits from the government. When it comes to the government, civil marriage is the only thing that counts....you have to have a license granted by a locality to receive the benefits, not a letter from a priest or rabbi, or a ketubah, or a receipt from a caterer. : >
• and f8x: "natural law" is not what our government uses to decide what rights and benefits to bestow on its citizens. We use the constitution and its amendments, as well as legal decisions. Our whole history as a nation has been about giving rights to more and more of the adult citizens of this country, from non-land-owning whites, to african-americans, to women, to 18-year-olds, etc....just think of Plessy v. Ferguson or miscegenation(?) laws or many other surpreme court decisions in the past, and what happened to them, if you think "natural law" is at all involved.
• amberglow: Where does the constitution and its amendments come from?
• it doesn't matter where they come from; it matters what they say.
• Perhaps in Locke's distant theoretical past (and I put it that way not to knock Locke) our laws have their origin in "natural law". Even if we accept for a moment, f8x, that permitting families other than Man-Wife-Children to exist is a threat to natural law, what is the real-world effect of permitting these families? You said yourself that a gay married couple is not a threat to you. Please say specifically what kinds of bad social effects could arise from gay marriage. It sounds like you do in fact feel that there is a threat.
• In other words (and i think this was amberglow's point): we have actual written laws now. What use is "natural law"?
• Good questions, rustcellar. I *personally* believe that our laws have moral reasoning behind them, their origins in natural (moral) law. The subversion of moral law through civil law, in my humble opinion, ultimately can only result in the collapse of a society. That collapse may not happen for years to come, but it will happen. And it will continue to increase as more and more of natural law is negated to accomodate our civil laws (which may benefit individuals and groups in the short term, but have a detrimental effect on society as a whole in the long term). I know, it seems rather philosophical and based more in theory than in reality - partly that's because societal degradation takes time, just as any decay process does, and so it's hard for us to envision a law (or group of laws) that could (in my way of thinking) bring down the State into ruination. It is also because of my Christian beliefs that I'm prone to thinking this way - but regardless of your faith or beliefs, you can't deny American social and legal heritage. It's that heritage that I base my arguments on. I certainly don't condemn anyone who thinks otherwise, but I do wonder if people are looking any to the future, even to the distant future.
• How do we know what the Natural Law is? Where does it come from?
• Many of us see the history of this country as an ever-reaching attempt to live up to the ideals set forth in the constitution, bringing more and more segments of society into the priviledged realm that once belonged only to land-owning whites. If that's going against natural law, or will lead to ruination, so be it.
• According the the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Natural Law is defined thusly: The term 'natural law' is ambiguous. It refers to a type of moral theory, as well as to a type of legal theory, despite the fact that the core claims of the two kinds of theory are logically independent. According to natural law ethical theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings. According to natural law legal theory, the authority of at least some legal standards necessarily derives, at least in part, from considerations having to do with the moral merit of those standards. There are a number of different kinds of natural law theories of law, differing from each other with respect to the role that morality plays in determining the authority of legal norms. Read about it here. By the way all, great discussion. I'm having fun with this.
• f8x: Perhaps I could agree with you if I believe that what's going on is actually a violation of moral law. Certainly with the things that I find immoral I fear that their propagation is a threat to society. But it's clear to me that this is not so. The things I perceive as threats are things that build barriers between people--racism, sexism, inadequate education. Gay marriage is firmly not in that category. Nobody who would enter into "traditional marriage", which as (and if) a genuine committed relationship is a wonderful thing, will be deterred from that by the legalization of gay marriage. Nobody, I believe, will "become gay" because of the passage of this law. Everyone who got married in SF or who will get married in Massachusetts, I'd guess, is firmly out already. The struggles of individuals to come to terms with their sexuality will continue without the law. The law can offer them a fully sanctioned monogamous relationship, and that I believe is a great gift. The moral argument for monagamous stable families is real and genuine, and I wish this is what Protect the Family groups were asking for. Unfortunately, what they are doing is denying state-sanctioned monogamy to those who want it.
• Okay, so if we accept the premise of natural legal theory that "the authority of at least some legal standards necessarily derives, at least in part, from considerations having to do with the moral merit of those standards," we are faced with two subsidiary questions. First, which legal standards derive their authority from their merit, and which onces are simply positive law? Second, how do we determine the moral merit of the relevant legal standards? In the present example, is a prohibition of same-sex marriage one of the legal standards that derives it's authority from it's moral merit? If so, why? What moral merit does that prohibition have, exactly? I think that ultimately this is where our positions on this diverge. To the extent I am willing to accept natural law legal theory, my moral base would be something close to the Rawlsian ideas of coextensive equal liberty. I can see no valid moral principle which would give authority on those grounds to a ban on same-sex marriages. I would guess, however, that your moral base is largely based in Christian theology. I have nothing against that, but I think it demonstrates the danger in natural law legal theory. For those with a religious bent, natural law theory means that at least some laws derive their authority from religious doctrine. That perspective violates the principles that I think should govern a pluralistic society like ours.
• Unfortunately, an argument from heritage (whether the one you're give or Roy Moore's) seems seriously misguided. Many many nations have a heritage in monarchy and despotism; England (for instance) freed itself from that through very conscious effort. Sometimes it becomes clear that what our forefathers thought was simply wrong, or that history was shaped by people who did not hold the interests of today's public at heart (be they royalists or slave-owners). I'm not taking a relativist stance; I believe there really is one right answer to this question.
• To be more concrete: Iraq (et al) were founded as Islamic nations. I would suspect that f8x as a Republican would rather it not stay that way, and instead become more secular, rather than adhering to its heritage. (I'd be with him on that one.)
• Monju: here we come to the crux of the disagreement, and it's where I respectfully shake the hand of all who disagree with me. I absolutely agree with you that my faith gives me moral principles with which I tend to judge all other things, including the law. Where I myself have come to question where to draw the line is in issues like these. I mean, according to how I interpret the Scriptures, I am not supposed to cram my faith down other people's throat, or subject them unwillingly to follow the doctrine of my faith. That this is not a Christian nation emphasizes this divide even more clearly. The laws of the land are, I believe, partially derived from a religious or spiritual doctrine, but I've tried to keep my arguments free of religious or spiritual intonation, insofar as I could while still including concepts of moral law. So, while I personally believe in the exclusive nature of heterosexual monogamy (ie, only heterosexuals can be validly 'married'), it can, I guess in the end, only come down to what I think is right vs. what the people think is right. If a vote comes to me, I'll vote against it, but I won't crusade to keep it illegal, or protest in the streets against it. What comes, will come by the will of the people (that is, a majority will).
• Apologies f8x if I've assigned you to a party. I should have said conservative, a name you've given yourself.
• Actually rustcellar, as a Republican, I would be content with the Islamic nations simply adopting a democratic government (if that's possible with that religion, I don't know). Since their heritage does not derive from natural law, I myself am in favour of secularizing the political aspect of Islam (while instituting moral foundations). Like I said, however, separating their religious precepts from their political or civil precepts may be a harder task to accomplish than acknowledging gay marriage as legitimate!
• s'okay - I'm a Republican, but I don't espouse all the Republican party lines. Conservative is the best way to describe me.
• What comes, will come by the will of the people (that is, a majority will). Actually, if that was the case, we wouldn't have desegrated the armed forces, or the schools, etc.....
• oops..make that desegregated
• The value of "natural law," I argue (as a non-lawyer, non-philosopher, non-theist), is in providing the moral-philosophical underpinnings of natural rights theory, which through Jefferson et al. pervades the framework of American government, not to mention modern liberalism through concepts of "human rights," other Western democracies, etc. All concrete arguments to natural law, especially those involving homosexuality, seem to devolve to Aquinas. So I'll make my points from Aquinas: First, Aquinas defined natural law as separate from Scripturally-revealed divine law. So any argument ultimately requiring a citation of Leviticus or 2 Timothy is not an argument to natural law proper. Second, Aquinas explicitly condemned homosexuality as violating natural law; indeed, sexual reproduction is one of the six secondary ultimate goods underlying his notion of natural law. He did so via a syllogism that today would not stand on its own (it today would be supported by circular arguments back from Scripture, i.e., divine law), since the ensuing eight hundred years have added to our knowledge of what is "natural." (Not "good," necessarily, but "natural." Witness the slew of recent news stories that I'd summarize as "Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride." The syllogism starts from what is observed in nature.) He also condoned human slavery as part of the natural order. None of this is to damn Aquinas, but only to observe that he was a philosopher of his time (the thirteenth century). Finally, Aquina's natural law ultimately stems from conscience (more properly, synderesis). Acts of enlightened conscience, such as the civil disobedience of this thread, are the ultimate expression of natural law. It is a relative standard, not an absolute -- doubly ironic in that it was originally posited as an aspect of God's universal law. Primary source: Fieser's MORAL PHILOSOPHY THROUGH THE AGES (ISBN: 0-767-41298-2). As, gulp, pirated here.
• What comes, will come by the will of the people (that is, a majority will). Sadly I agree with this, to some extent, but that will changes and events like the ones in San Francisco help or deter that change based on your personal belief system. Throughout US history it has been defiant stances like this which serve to awaken slumbering injustices. This is simply another case. As a lesbian I am torn on this issue: I don't like the idea of marriage as a whole, but I support my communities desire to have that right.
• What IgnorantSlut said. That is, I think that part of living in a "free" society means necessarily abiding by the general rule of the people. That's the ideal anyway. When you've got a system that is so far removed from the people (see: centralized government, especially electoral college, for example) the waters become somewhat muddied. However, civil disobedience is another way to express the will of the people. I think the debate going on in many states about whether or not to allow gay marriages means that the issue is open for discussion. I think mumors for a constitutional amendment proves this. If it wasn't a realistic possibility that these laws would pass in the states, there would be no point to putting in the energy to amend the constition. On the whole amendment to the constitution thing, isn't it monumentally hard to get one passed? Doesn't it take at least 2/3's of the states to ratify? Could someone enlighten me? And as to the whole sanctity of marriage thing (which has been eluded to in this thread but not actually mentioned directly) I personally don't see how homosexuality threatens the sanctity of marriage (see: Brittney Spears), but I don't really think that's the issue. The issue for me is the legal rights that come with marriage. If I were gay, I personally wouldn't care what people thought God thought of my relationship with someone else. What would matter to me would be the ability to see her when she was critically ill in the hospital, or to have her on my insurance plan if necessary. So call it marriage or civil union, whatever, but it is fundamentally wrong to deny a significant portion of the population these rights because you don't agree with their lifestyle.
• F8x - I love your thoughtfulness in discussing this issue, But (you knew there would have to be a "but", right?) I think you need to study a little constitutional history. It's my impression that the framers went out their way to form a secular government. "Separation of church and state" was intended to mean that one sect's beliefs shouldn't interfere with another's. The first lesbian couple who married in SF had been together for 50 or so years. Their happiness at being able to make vows to each other (and the vows were civil) was so touching. Can you really deny them that happiness? If you can, I can't understand how it threatens you or "marriage." They aren't advocating that only same sex marriages are right, nor are they saying that heterosexuals are evil or that they want hetrosexual marriages banned. They love and support each other, and that's not a bad thing. My impression is that "natural law" means "kill or be killed." Your definition seems to be a fundamentalist take-over of a Darwinistic term and is intended to incite fear and loathing in believers. I agree that you should go with your precepts where you are concerned, but you must know that others don't have to agree with you. Can you tell me that I HAVE to agree with everything you believe? We're equals in this country when it comes to beliefs. I can't agree that legislating religious tenents I don't agree with is good for the country. The next logical step, in your terms. seems to me to be to ban all religious thoughts that you don't agree with. If I don't agree with yours, where do we go from there? Do we ban Judaism, Islam,... I truly don't think that's what you want, but that homosexuality is an issue that has been given much more emotional presence in fundamentalist religion than it deserves.
• GramMa's feelings on the whole issue of homosexuality are sooo mixed. On the one hand, MMBLA makes me want to puke. On the other, the union of Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin is heartwarming. Let's get homosexual coupling out of the bathroom and into City Hall where it belongs! Seriously, kiddies, this is one of those issues in which everyone *assumes* their definition of a certain word is the same as anothers. ... the moral tradition of heterosexual marriage as the basic building block of our civil society. OoooohKay f8x, we've got marriage as 1. a moral tradition; 2. limited to heterosexuals; 3. an underpining for society, and 4. recognized as a legal union. Sounds to me like the marriage we got here is a a guy and a gal with a certificate, 2.5 children, both working, $100-120,000 income, mortgage and a two-car garage, pays their taxes on time and takes the kids to McDonalds on weekends, yadda yadda. Sound right? What about serial monogamy with all the little half-sibs generated? Is that brand of marriage a valid underpining for society? How about no kids at all? How about people living "common law" for years and having children? What about adulterous married couples? They're heteros, and they're legally married. Is this marriage better somehow for society than a homosexual couple committed for life to monogamy? (or as committed as most heteros are in their marriages?) Kimberly's hit the nail on the head. She deserves to have every legal right (and responsiblity!) bestowed in marriage to be given to her and her partner upon their taking the same civil vows that a hetero couple would take (if she were gay.) Stability in society? Stable, long-term relationships? Could there be a link?
• It's my impression that the framers went out their way to form a secular government. "Separation of church and state" was intended to mean that one sect's beliefs shouldn't interfere with another's. Well, that's really only a half-truth. As I noted above, the purpose of the Bill of Rights at the time of the founding was largely a federalist one. Those Amendments did not apply to the states at the time, and would not for nearly another hundred years. Instead, the First Amendment in particular only protected the states from interference from the federal government. Now, the Fourteenth Amendment changed all that of course, but it would be a mistake to ascribe those aspirations to all, or even a majority of the founders. My impression is that "natural law" means "kill or be killed." Your definition seems to be a fundamentalist take-over of a Darwinistic term and is intended to incite fear and loathing in believers. That's simply not correct. I'm not a big fan of natural law legal theory, but there's a big difference between that theory and the other kind of "natural law," better known, perhaps, as the law of the jungle. When a natural law legal theorist refers to the natural law, he means that at least some legal standards imposed by the government have the authority of the objective moral standards which undergird them. Of course, even those fundamentalists who refer to the "natural law" often times don't know which they're referring to. The truth is, as used in this context, natural law is a fairly specific, and perhaps technical, legal term of art. The problem with that theory, to my mind, at least, is it begs the question of moral standards. Sure, even if we accept that law derives its authority from objective moral rules, how do we identify those moral rules, and how do we deal with the vast amount of regulation that clearly is not derived from moral law, but is merely regulatory? I think H.L.A. Hart provided a much more lucid explanation of the authority of law in his description of legal positivism, and certainly that's the theory against which the history of American jurisprudence in the twentieth century has reacted to. Natural law theory, frankly, is somewhat of an oddity in the legal academic community, with John Finnis and only a few others giving any real weight to the theory. Let me further note that rejecting natural law legal theory does not entail rejecting moral absolutes. You can be, for example, a Christian fundamentalist and still believe that the authority of law derives from some source other that moral, e.g., the consensus and approval of the governed, or the will of the sovereign.
• monju-bosatsu - thank you for the clarification.
• Serious question: Are commonlaw marriages between same-sex couples acknowledged anywhere in the USA?
• This thread is astonishing. I was sure it was going to degenerate into MeFi-style poo-flinging, and instead it's a thoughtful and civil discussion. I certainly don't condemn anyone who thinks otherwise What heart-warming words! f8xmulder, I disagree with what you say, but I love the way you say it. I'm no expert on constitutional law and its putative basis in natural law, and as someone with a gay brother and a lesbian best friend I am completely incapable of being objective anyway, so let me just say I love the picture and hope these stupid antigay laws get tossed in history's trash can ASAP.
• beeswacky: Eleven states and the District of Columbia currently recognize common-law marriages.
• D'oh! You said "same-sex couples." Never mind. I'm pretty sure the answer is "no," but someone else will probably have a definitive answer.
• Common law rules don't apply as they were written specifically for hetero couples who intended to be married, unfortunately. Man, that'd be a great way to sneak same-sex marriage in. Also, it appears that only fourteen states and the DC recognize them.
• I've never proposed a tagline before, but... MonkeyFilter: astonishing, thoughtful and civil and its kind of a cheat, too
• thoughtful and civil the tagline, not monkeyfiler
• Thanks, languagehat. Second the trashcan solution! But, alas, according to the above link, at this point no state actually recognizes either commonlaw or traditional marriages between same sex couples. Buddhists don't have marriage ceremonies, same-sex or otherwise. But I believe in the USA opposite sex couples may find it necessary to either seek a civil marriage or acknowledge a commonlaw relationship, particularly when there are children or property involved. I'm now wondering if these laws might not be contested on grounds of religious discrimination or some such?
• i don't think so, beeswacky--it's civil marriage that counts, law and rights-wise. Meanwhile, people are lined up around the block in SF getting married, as we speak (and i've heard more are flying in from around the country). : >
• (sorry if this posts twice, I've been having a bit of trouble) f8xmulder - I respect your beliefs, and if you believe that same-sex intimate love is immoral, then you should abide by that. But arguments to Christian belief must also remember that it was Paul, not Christ, who argued against homosexuality. Christ says nothing against gay sex, but instead loved all outcasts. The natural law argument, I fear, does not hold up when you realise that homosexual behaviours, like it or not, are just as "natural" as heterosexual and reproductive actions. Over 300 vertebrates, including monkeys, flamingoes and male sheep, practice homosexual behavior. (Very interesting article, btw, for thinking about gender in general). Moral and immoral are loaded issues because we all do have different ways of forming our morality. Some people are equalists - they object on legal principles that denying gay marriage is a form of discrimination on the basis of gender. Personally, I am a humanist - I worship humans, and the basis of my morality is that things that hurt other people are immoral, while things that do not harm others are not immoral. I object to anti-gay marriage laws because the demonstratable harm caused to gays by denying them their human rights is greater than potential harm to those who would be offended at gay marriage. (continued in next post)
• Though so-called "natural law" (frankly I don't understand it, but that's okay, since I doubt its orginal proponents really did - Rosseau is a bundle of quivering contradictions, especially when it comes to gender) was in fashion during the creation of the United States, the truth is that the laws reflect not some timeless truth, but the beliefs and morals of those in power at the time of their creation. We should not be shackled by history - rather than talking about what the building blocks of our society have been, including slavery and the non-personhood of women, we should be talking about what we want to the building blocks of our society should be. I have always felt that if we keep just one of the morals of that period, the most important should be the love of liberty: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the freedom to choose whom you love without being relegated to a second-class citizenship. Freedom does comes in (at least) two kinds - freedom from and freedom to - and we will not always agree which is more important. The reason that gun control laws are so divisive is that one freedom (the freedom to own a gun, notably not enshrined in many countries outside the US) is pitted against another freedom (a freedom from violence that is escalated by the presence of guns (and I'm sorry, but I am not going to debate those facts, I already did the lit search on this a few months ago). Social welfare is a similar problem - is the freedom from poverty more or less important than the freedom to keep the fruits of one's labours? But in the case of gay marriage, the truth is that there is no conflict - the freedom to marry does not take away anyone's freedom not to marry, same-sex or opposite-sex. It does not even require that any churches perform or recognise gay marriages, though there are several in Ontario who are happily doing so - it was a church who lead our own challenge to the laws. Allowing gay marriage only grants a freedom that infringes on noone else's freedoms, (except the kiind that we many are beginning to agree are not protected, like the freedom to discriminate). (vaguely off-topic) Personally, when thinking about the ideal building blocks of my society, I would love to see constitutions that enshrine love and selflessness as the utimate ideals, the belief that concern for the welfare of the other, even the stranger, is what makes society civil. This could be the basis to a secular morality that people of all religions or none could agree upon.
• Post-script: I understand the objections to the use of civil disobediance, but as several posters have noted, this is a time-honoured (ie worked well in the past, as opposed to being just traditional) practice. And my freedom from-freedom to scale gives it a passing mark - proper civil disobediance, though of course against the written law, should harm no one. That is what makes it lawful unlawfulness. Also - I cried when I saw the photo of the two women who were the first gay couple married in the United States, tears equally of joy at their marriage and pain that they had to wait so long.
• very well put, jb
• I *heart* jb.
• jb: The natural law argument, I fear, does not hold up when you realise that homosexual behaviours, like it or not, are just as "natural" as heterosexual and reproductive actions. As noted above, though, this is not what natural law means. Natural law legal theory means means that law has authority because it comports with objective moral standards. Those moral standards may or may not be mirrored in nature. Just as homosexuality appears in nature, so to does fratricide, infanticide, incest, and cannibalism. The fact that any specific behavior appears in nature should be no argument for it's assignation of moral value. Other than that minor nit, jb, I agree completely. [btw, who broke the html in posts?]
• I bet it was Dr Zaius.
• Monju - thank you for correcting my atrocious philosophical ignorance (which, yes, I am both ashamed and (as anti-intellectualish social historian) proud of). Your point about infanticide,etc is in fact made at the bottom of the article I linked to, and I agree - just because something is "natural" doesn't make it moral. But it does stop any arguments that this behaviour is "unnatural" in the biological sense. What I would wonder though (for general discussion, not just monju)- what are these "objective moral standards" that natural law (no relation to natural) seems to ascribe to? What would the 18th and 19th century proponents of natural law consider to be the source of these moral standards? Do we believe that our society has, or do we want, objective moral standards? And if so, what do we do when some of our standards (eg freedom of personal liberty) interfeer with others (belief in only allowing heterosexual marriages)? I guess it also comes down to the fact that I do not so much disagree with as fail to comprehend how one kind of sex act is a moral standard, or in fact, how a man and a woman make a better couple or a more familyish family than a same sex couple. I grew up in a non-traditional family, with only my mother and brother - and I know that single parent families are bad, not morally, but because it puts the single parent (of either gender, but especially women) under such huge financial and parental pressure. But how would two mothers have been bad? I think I would have loved that - so would my mum, even though she isn't gay - she always wished for some adult with whom to share her burdens. We even thought that, since I lived with her for a time as a self-supporting adult, that it was a shame two non-sexual family members living as we were could not form a couple for legal purposes - she would have been eligible for preseciption coverage under my plan then. Now that was only a temporary situation, but in other families, siblings or children and parents form households all the time, with the same kind of interdependence as couples, and many of the same needs. This is in fact where I would like to see the law go - maybe the government should get out of the marriage business altogether, and only make civil unions for same-sex, hererosex or even non-sex couples who form families. Let the churches marry people - then churches that support don't have to, and churches that would like to can. PS - yes, the broken HTML is strange. At first I thought it was just me and my monster comments breaking the system, but then I realised that messages that *had* HTML were no longer working.
• I broke them last night, apparently. I'll fix them this evening if I get time.
• No fair! : ) tracicle's work, but why don't the rest of them? Or is this part of the mysterious magic that is php? Or maybe just the mysterious magic of tracicle?
• Dang it, you go away for a weekend and look what happens! Um, to recap, I, uh, I disagree with you all, alienate myself from you, and condemn you with the mighty words of Kruschev: "We will bury you!" JUST KIDDING. Thoughtful discussions, all. I'm going to start an FPP about something the original posted has spawned in my mind.
• Dear Mary (Cheney)
• Goodness - like f8x, I go away for a weekend and the bestest ever thread gets even better. languagehat: "as someone with a gay brother and a lesbian best friend I am completely incapable of being objective..." ...but you'd make a great sitcom. :-) Oh, and a suggested soundtrack for the reading of this thread: "Ban Marriage" by The Hidden Cameras. All hail the new gay-church-folk-pop heroes!
• That's an interesting letter to Ms. Cheney, and one that presupposes quite a number of things. I've heard the statement that banning gay marriage essentially demotes gays to some kind of second class citizenship status, though I've yet to hear a good argument as to WHY that is so. If gays, who aren't allowed to marry, are second class citizens, that makes married heterosexuals first class citizens. And what can first class citizens do that second class citizens can't? Get married. To my knowledge, that's the only thing that separates the first class from the second class. So apparently, worth as a citizen is no longer defined by the right to vote, to free speech, to freedom of religion, etc. etc. Bill of Rights etc., but instead has been REDEFINED as the ability to get married. That seems to me a total redefinition of citizenship, and one that should not be taken lightly. If, as this letter purports, marriage really is the key to class of citizenry, then it's not really the issue that should be addressed. What should be addressed is the attitude that basic Constitutional precepts no longer are the defining standards by which a citizen is judged. I am, of course, satirizing the situation. I'm merely pointing out how this particular culture battle's language has been used inappropriately. Anyone care to comment on this issue?
• It's not marriage in itself, f8x--it's the over 1000 federal (and state) rights and benefits (short list--i'll hunt down the full list for you) that are bestowed ONLY on people who are married that make some of us second-class.
• here's the full list--a big pdf
• In that case, amberglow, would you be happy with a civil union that gave those same benefits?
• This is an excerpt from a livejournal belonging to a queer acquaintance of mine (warning: long): I want you to try imagining this with me, okay? Just suppose you were in our shoes -- that gays were the majority and had all the "traditional" rights like marriage and the ability to be openly affectionate and so forth. - You couldn't visit your wife in the hospital if your in-laws didn't like you, since there was no legal recognition of your relationship (i.e. marriage). And maybe a doctor who didn't like your relationship could just ignore any paperwork you had that said you could visit her. - You couldn't take custody of the children you had together if she died without a lot of extra paperwork. If she was ill, you couldn't pick the children up from school without filling out extra paperwork. - If she died, you couldn't automatically inherit the house and property you had collected together over the course of your relationship, unless you spent time with a lawyer and a fair bit of money arranging wills and inheritance that couldn't be challenged by her family. - You wouldn't have the right to bury her or even know where her grave was unless her "legal" family -- her parents or siblings -- allowed you to know. - You could be forced to testify against her in court. - If one of you was American and the other not, you couldn't have a legal relationship that would allow the non-American one to immigrate here without a lot of paperwork and fuss and bother and interrogations and all sorts of other hassles. - If you kissed her on the street, you would risk being mugged for it. Or if you held her hand at a concert and someone saw you, you could be mugged or beaten for it.
• I think the language of "first class" and "second class" citizens is important, but sometimes overblown. When debating a single issue, albeit an important one, the "class" designation should probably be accompanied by the qualifier "with respect to this issue." Gays are, for example, second class citizens with respect to marriage and its associated benefits. Certainly, that can contribute to, and in the case of gays, probably does contribute to the general public's view of gays as abnormal, outside the mainstrean, etc, and in that sense, reinforces the relegation of gays to second class status generally. Admittedly, the rhetoric is sometimes clumsy and imprecise, but not wrong. On the other point, regarding civil unions versus marriages, I'm on the fence. I think Kerry has a point, in that it doesn't matter what we call it, as long as we provide for equal rights. At the same time, however, calling one a civil union and the other a marriage contributes to the relegation of gays to second class status, as I noted above. Even if the same rights are granted--which would be a victory, mind you, just not a complete one--the notion is that the union between two gay people and the union between two straight people are two different things. They are not. Further, there is a real legal question about how civil unions will be treated in states other than the ones granting them and how civil unions will be treated by the federal government for tax and other purposes. Civil unions needlessly multiply the competing legal standards, rather than working cohesively within the existing framework. More importantly, from my point of view, is that the debate between civil unions and marriages exposes a fundamental problem with limiting recognition to straight marriages: establishment of religion. Although some may argue, most opponents of gay marriage oppose it on religious grounds. For the government to acknowledge those arguments and deny equal access to marriage benefits to gays on those grounds is unacceptable to me.
• f8x: In that case, amberglow, would you be happy with a civil union that gave those same benefits? Originally I would have been, but without full faith and credit, other states won't honor them--they don't honor vermont's law...Also, if civil unions have exactly the same benefits, why not call it what it is-marriage? And are all the federal laws and regulations that mention spouses or marriage going to be rewritten? If you can make it have the exact same legal status and confer the same rights and benefits as marriage, why not just have marriage? And what monju said.
• Is the government allowed to legislate or codify morality?
• What does that mean, f8x? May the government pass laws that happen to comport with the majority's conception of morality? Sure. Take murder, for example. Is murder immoral? Yes. Is it illegal? Obviously. Does that mean that government is "legislating morality"? I'm not sure I even know what that means.
• Put another way, doesn't government have the right to pass legislation it deems 'moral'? Who defines that morality? Last I checked, we are a government of the people, which means that the people decide, in concert, those acts that it finds immoral, or against the public good. I'm just not sure that you can take religion out of the picture with that in mind. Despite the attempts to make it seem so, marriage is not solely a civil institution, but is also a religious one. I mean, let's face it, marriage as an institution is traced back to Judaism, a religion, and has been defined for millenia as sexual and social union between a man and a woman. How can any ruling about this be made without deference to these facts?
• f8x: I can be married in a Reform temple right now by a rabbi--but that won't give me any rights with the government or make any other states recognize the marriage...People have to separate the religious from the civil--it's not hard at all. Our government calls for it.
• Apparently there's a Yale professor named John Boswell who has found that marriage rites for gay men existed among medieval Christians. (Here is his wikipedia reference.)
• On the "civil union" versus "marriage" debate: The issue of recognition from state to state is one that is particular to the United States, but this debate (of whether civil unions that are marriages in all but name) is happening in many other developed countries, including Canada and the UK. But while the government continues to give straight couples "marriage licences," giving gay couples anything else would be unequal. Words do matter. Many gay couples, including those who married by the reading of the banns (a religious practice that predates licenses) in Ontario, are religious themselves and wish to be joined not only legally but in holy matrimony before God, their church and their families. They wish to be married, both civilly and religiously; denying their church the right to marry them could be seen as impinging on freedom of religion without due cause. (An example of due cause might be disallowing child marriages or forced marriages even though it means impinging on freedom of religion, on the grounds that these are practices which our society has deemed too harmful to allow. But none of these objections apply to any consensual union between two adults, and any comparison between them, as by Senator Santorum, is rhetorically dishonest, as well as being inflammatory and distasteful.) But more than that, the law is based on words. If different words are used to describe gay unions than straight, then just like segregation, these distinctions could be abused. Though a government might today grant civil unions the same legal rights as marriages, it can easily revoke those rights from civil unions, or fail to include them in future rights, which would then change the status of civil unions. With legally recognised gay marriages, those rights could not be taken away in the future without affecting all married couples equally. That said, it is the quality issue that most feel the strongest about - many of us would accept civil unions for gays, but *only* if all straight unions were also called civil unions. In fact, I suggested above that the government should probably get out of the marriage business altogether, grant civil unions to all couples, and let the churches chose what they like. Churches already exercise discretion about who they are willing to perform marriages for or not; the objections to the current state of the law is that Churches and state officials who wish to marry gay couples have been barred from exercising their freedom of religion, and the couples have been barred from partaking in an institution that is a large part of our society. (Though I don't really understand the people elsewhere who have claimed it as the fundamental institution of western society: I would have thought due process or habeas corpus might have trumped it a little - I would gladly give up marriage long before those :) A nit-picky note: how is marriage a uniquely Judeo-Christian institution? Isn't it one of those world universal institutions, like rites of passage and death rituals? There are Hindu weddings, and Chinese weddings, and I'm totally our of my league, but I'm sure anyone who knows more about anthropology could answer more about this. Of course, this whole one man-one woman thing is actually not a universal concept; there are many very different forms of marriage out there, one man-several women, one woman-several men (less common), group marriages, term-limited marriages... Beside all that, plain old monogamous, life-long gay marriages start to look awfully vanilla.
• Seems to me there are subtantial differences between the "immorality" which is (or should be) legistlated and that which isn't (or shouldn't be.) Acts such as murder, rape, stealing, and the like involve a party who harms another. Making them crimes puts the strength of the whole society behind protection of an individual or class of individuals. I see gay marriages as acts which do not harm others. I also believe that legislating against such acts harms those who are precluded from marrying and denies them some of the protection that the rest of us enjoy. Also, proscription of murder, etc., is not based solely on religious opinion. The least religious among us generally agree that murder and the like disrupt society and should be banned. Do the French still require a cival ceremony for all marriages, with a second church wedding being optional? That system, while kind of complicated, does make it very obvious that there are separate legal and religious aspects to marriage. Maybe it isn't as bad an idea as I once thought.
• Do the French still require a cival ceremony for all marriages, with a second church wedding being optional? Yes.
• Mmmmkay, hypothetical situation: Two men get married. They hire a single woman as egg donor, and a fertility clinic to take the sperm of one of the men and use it to fertilize the egg. The woman carries the fertilized egg to term, the child is born, and she gives up her right to the child, as the contract requires. The genetic father is recognized as the natural father. The other man is also considered a "father" despite having no genetic ties to the child. Let's say the second man from the example above has a brother and a sister. Are the brother and sister the uncle and aunt of the child, despite having no genetic tie to the child whatsoever? In the event of tragedy, should either of them really gain custody of the child? Under gay marriage, they could conceivably be given full rights to the child. Would that second man's father regard the child as his grandson (remember, no genetic tie)? Would they even be considered to be grandfather and grandson? I just wonder what this does to the traditional family structure.
• My Mum's brother is actually her cousin (born out of wedlock in the 40's, he was taken from his actual mother and given to his Aunt). My Grandad, therefore, has no genetic ties with his son at all, and yet raised him as a son, considers him his son etc etc. The traditional family structure has long been built on hypocrisy and lies, to be honest (or should that be in my opinion? probably). And yet society never collapsed when unmarried mothers were allowed to keep their children instead of giving them away. The family structure has been constantly changing throughout recorded history (and presumably before that too).
• and what we think of as a "traditional" family (mom, dad, and kids) is very recent--people in extended families always lived together, with aunts and uncles and grandparents all under one roof, helping raise the children, for most of our history as humans.
• amberglow: you took the words right out of my mouth/keyboard. NZ Maori tradition still holds whanau up as the traditional family unit -- it consists of immediate and extended family, not to mention honorary family. Children in Maori families are raised by parents, grandparents, cousins, aunts, sisters, and so on.
• When I say 'traditional family' I was more indicating blood relations. amberglow and tracicle, you've kind of made my point for me. Those are genetic ties you're talking about, which despite what many people seem to want to believe, are strong motivators for raising a good family. When there is no blood connection, that desire to raise a family may or may not be there, and even if it is there, it certainly isn't bound by law to do anything other than provide for the child's basic needs. Blood relations, however, have genetic predispositions to giving the child not just the minimum requirements for raising a child, but indeed provide nurturing and healthy environments for that child. The further away from that you get, the more fragmented a child's development is. That phrase "blood is thicker than water" comes to mind.
• But in purely legislative terms, f8x, gay marriage would do no more to take families away from that genetically linked bond than, say, laws which permit a person to become the legal guardians of their (divorced and remarried) spouse's children. And in terms of environmental bonding, which is just as strong if not stronger than 'genetic bonding' (who would you be more likely to recognise and care about - an unrelated person you'd grown up with, or a long-lost sibling you'd never met before?), it's significantly better for the kids to have these 'parents' from birth (gay surrogate parenthood), as opposed to adjusting to a new set half-way through the childhood (divorce and remairriage). This isn't an anti-divorce-and-remarriage rant (and I wouldn't presume to know your opinions on that issue, so it's not an accusation of any hypocrisy), just to point out that, under that specific argument, it's a more significant 'threat' to the family than gay marriage.
• flashboy, I think that divorce and gay marriage are equally detrimental to the upbringing of a child. Certainly, most of us have seen the horrible effects of divorce on children, much less the entire family. I'm not so sure you're correct about environmental bonding being stronger than genetic bonding. Got any links?
• We're adopting. That child will be my child. With all that entails.
• this site must have some for you, f8x--adoption is the biggest instance of environmental bonding, i believe. (And also, husbands and wives don't share genetic links yet many of them stay together in loving relationships even when they don't or can't have kids.)
• Not to deny adoption's benefits, which I wholeheartedly endorse, but even in cases of adoption, children often wish to know about "where they came from", who their original parents were, etc. Although this story is perhaps a weaker validation of that, due to the cultural ties as well as the blood ties, it does illustrate the strength of genetic bonding over environmental bonding. ...Wow, environmental v. genetic bonding...we've come a long way from this original thread!
• I'm not sure that genetic vs. environmental bonding distinction isn't a bit a bit over-essentialist in this particular context. The kid wants an answer to a question (maybe *the* answer to *the* question), which is "Where do I come from?", or, if you prefer, "Why am I me?" Genetics is only one part of the answer, albeit an interesting part. The genetic info is stuff my child will never find out. Since it's a crime to abandon a child in China, all the adoption stuff is done (in a manner of speaking) under the table. No records are kept on birth-mothers, as this could be used in a prosecution against them.
• My parents divorced when I was 10. My stepfather turned out to more of a father to me than my genetic father had ever been. Genetics don't determine "family" in my case. Certainly, adopted children are curious about their birth parents, but it's not clear that they abandon the adoptive relationship just because they found out who gave birth, especially when the events are distant in time. People I've known who traced down their birth parents were happy to find them, but they didn't automatically change allegience. In fact, starting the new relationship was much like finding a new connection with relatives found in genealogical research. They may have ultimately bonded with the family they didn't know had, but it was never some sort of intasnt recognition thing. And if one of them felt they owed more to the birth parent who had given them up than to the person who provided stabilty and a normal life, I'd say that they were more into drama than reality.
• I have four aunts. The ones I see most often and care about most are the ones to which I am not genetically linked, nor even linked by adoption (My least favorite aunt happens to have been adopted, but that's not why I don't like here - I don't like her because she is a snob who doesn't like my mother (her ex-sister-in-law). Yes, I am in competition for the most complex family tree). The two aunts I see most are no relation to my family, and were originally just close friends and neighbours until they became so close to my mother that our families mutually "adopted" each other (during my childhood). They call each other "sister", and my mother helped to nurse the mother of one during her last year; that aunt is the excecutor of her will, and will be guardian of my neice should anything happen to my mother. Family is about caring, not blood. One of the reasons that I do not feel very close to my father (who I am clearly genetically linked to, since I am like a female version of him) is that he did not take much responsibility for us when we were kids; I feel just as close to his wife, whom I have only known for a handful of years (and who is a delightful woman). Children will always be curious about where they come from, and intercultural adoption in particular will always have some tension. But we should see non-genetic connections as additive, rather than substitutions. Rather than replacing one culture with another, it should mean that the family has two cultures. Non-genetic family does not take away from genetic, but is more family. When I marry sometime next year, I will gain my boyfriend's huge (compared to mine) extended family, whether I want to or not : ) (They are very nice people - but so many relatives that I get confused). About the issue of gay couples and children: Having established that gayness is neither heretitary nor catching (as many children of gay couples have had to deal with the trauma of coming out as being straight no matter how much they wished they were gay and fabulous), and that stable loving parents are stable loving parents no matter what gender (as people raised by aunts, grandparents, and single parents can attest), the only issue at stake is that of role models. People have worried (though I don't know what research has been done) that, for instance, the sons of single mothers would suffer from a lack of a male role model, and vice versa - this is the idea behind the Big Brother and Big Sister programs. Personally, I think that single parent families suffer more from poverty and the difficulty of raising children without a helpmete, but then I am female and had amazing female role models my whole life. But that said, if I were having a child with another woman, and that child were male, I would make sure that he had good male role models, as would any sensible parents. But these are not grounds for denying parenthood to gays, or indeed denying children from having loving gay parents, any more than they are for making single parenthood illegal.
• A brief historical note (based on recent historiography): In the western European (and particularly in the English) context, the both the historical ideal and the norm since at least c.1500 has been in fact for the nuclear family to live as a seperate unit, rather than the extended family households seen in southern Europe and elsewhere in the world. But just because this is the household structure does not mean that it defines the family (which was/is a very complex thing), or indeed that the social network/raising network of a child was ever restricted to a single household. Non-genetic household members like servants and lodgers and members of the extended family who lived in the same household were also considered part of the nuclear family, even as closer relatives (such as parents or siblings) who lived elsewhere might be referred to as separate from "the family" (For more on this, see books by Naomi Tadmore). Also, there are non-family links, such as neighbours, who held an important but not very well understood place in early modern Western European society. That said, one of my dream projects for the distant future would be to map household structure, either ideal or actual - in early modern China the extended family household was an ideal, such as in China, though often people still lived in nuclear households out of necessity, whereas in England an independent household was the ideal, but necessity often forced relatives to live together in extended households (ie an elderly parent who is not longer independent - sound so much like today).
• Oh - and back to the morality issue, path made a very good point about the possibility of establishing a morality that is seperate from religion, and thus can transcend religious differences. The idea of a harm principle is a very good one - and much better than the utilitarian moral philosophy I have heard about. I believe that philosphers like Peter Singer* suggest that what makes the most people happy is the moral choice - but that could lead to great suffering of the minority. Whereas the harm priniciple would say that which harms the least is the most moral. Then we just have to learn how to fit harm on a bathroom scale, and we're golden : ) *I am going on a second hand account, and so am likely to get this wrong - please correct if so.
• f8xmulder: "I just wonder what this does to the traditional family structure." Your hypothetical situation happens today with gays, lesbians and straight families. Except, oh yeah, that's right, the children of gays and lesbians can be ripped from the only homes and extended families they've ever known in the event of catastrophe. I'm not sure there is a traditional family structure anymore. Seems to me that straight folks have done a bang-up job of botching that institution without any help from us queers. Equating gay marriage to divorce as detriments to raising children is really offensive. Anecdotal evidence aside, I'm sure we all know children who have been or are being raised by straight married couples in homes filled with violence, substance abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse and my favorite: apathy. How on earth is gay marriage worse than that?
• Wolof - the thing about abandoning childen in China makes me curious. Can you give us more details? And yes, your child will be yours. My natural-born child turned out to be mine, even though even our own infants are difficult to get to know. It took a while for me, and for everyone I know to get past the new-born phase. If your child is a little older, it may be easier to immediately bond. I'm happy for you. After the first while, raising my kid was the best thing that ever happened to me. I'm convinced that it would have been the same whether or not I gave birth to her. You're going to have so much fun!
• IgnorantSlut, I was not saying gay marriage = divorce. But I think that the effects of both on children are detrimental, especially in the long run. That's my personal opinion, based on what I've seen in both divorced families and in gay families. There are enough serious effects (again, only basing this on what I've seen) to both situations that I prefer not to endorse either as adequate or proper for raising children. I'm really not trying to force what I believe on you or anyone else on this site or in the world. But I am allowed to have my own opinion about the matter. If you are offended by what I say and believe...well, that's just the nature of human beings. Not all of us will agree.
• IgnorantSlut: "I'm not sure there is a traditional family structure anymore. Seems to me that straight folks have done a bang-up job of botching that institution without any help from us queers." Well, I can't say I disagree. When 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, well, that's not a flattering statistic. But I'm not defending a 50% divorce rate. I'm defending those marriages that do last, that are models for what marriage is supposed to be. I think what I'm standing up for here is a defense of a tradition and a principle of the complementary union, male and female. I mean, I am not sure how else I can defend this tradition of marriage except to say the image and status of marriage as we see it now, is far from what it should/could be. But just because it might be an unattainable thing now, or "unrealistic" in today's world, or whatever denigrators say about marriage as we currently know it, doesn't mean that it's not important to defend. That's what I'm doing.
• Interesting that of nearly 500 members here on MoFi, I'm the only one who actually defends heterosexual marriage as being the only valid "marriage". Am I a dinosaur? Does the fact that I'm only 23 make that weird? Just random thoughts...ugh, I gotta go to bed.
• Path
• f8xmulder: I don't think it makes you unusual; gay marriage is a very divided issue everywhere it is being debated. I just heard at dinner tonight how France allowed gay civil unions, but made it very difficult for gay couples to adopt. In Canada, the Liberal party seems to be divided just about down the middle on their own government's proposal to allow gay marriages - no one knows how the vote will come out. Or has it come out yet? I'm so out of the news loop. But the point is that I think most of the western world is divided on this issue, more support in one place, less in another. I believe a slight majority of Canadians support same-sex marriages [Warning: PDF], while in the United States a slight majority are against - but truth be told, both countries are very similar. The difference is only about 10 percentage points - that could be in the polling. I believe that support for same-sex marriage will continue to grow, particularly if it is allowed and becomes normalized, but it will be many many years before there is any approaching consensus, if we ever do. As for monkeyfilter - well, maybe it's something about the internet being generally secular and liberal in the personal libertarian sense (there are plenty of economic conservatives around), or maybe it's just the lilac :)
• Dinosaurs For Hire /derail Everybody's going on about the children, so I'll speak up for the [sfx: spooky chord] radical anti-family agenda. Married thirteen years to a member of the opposite sex (coincidentally, my wife can say the same thing), I have no children, no plans to have children, and no desire to foster anybody else's children. There are excellent reasons to couple that don't involve any form of childrearing. Lacking reproduction and childrearing, there is little difference between my marriage and a same-sex union, except that the gov't can't make me testify against my wife; also, if I am hit by the proverbial beer truck, my wife gets default power of attorney without having to beg and plead before some judge. I wish that my coupled gay friends enjoyed the same state-granted privileges, by whatever name the state chooses to call them.
• goetter, the only example of gay rights in any sort of legal situation, from the little I remember, was the gay woman who was mauled and subsequently killed by a dog in San Francisco. Her partner had no rights at all in that case. What was interesting was the the partner, Sharon Smith, was able to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the dog's owners -- something only done by spouses, children and parents of the deceased, or legal heirs. She settled soon after filing, but meanwhile Smith and Whipple's relationship had been recognised in court. I wonder how much influence the entire event had on the current loosening of anti-gay marriage restrictions in the SF City Hall.
• In case you were interested, here are some photos from the San Fran wedding ceremonies...
• f8xmulder: you're speculating. Divorce = BAD. It's a well documented detriment to raising a child. Gay Marriage = BAD. Unproven. If you want to object because you think it's just wrong, that's fine, and I'll gladly back your right to feel that way. But there is no proof that gay marriage is detrimental because it's not allowed.
• Based on children raised in gay families, I'm assuming (yes, I know...) that gay marriage wouldn't change the fact that many of them end up in a bad way. If anything, it would reinforce those negative statistics.
• I'll ask you to rephrase (and possibly expound on) that before showing the flashy redness of my monkey ass.
• Here's something interesting from Instapundit. My Constitutional Law class today was devoted to gay marriage -- following up on yesterday's treatment of the Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas sodomy cases, I assigned the Vermont and Massachusetts gay marriage cases. At the beginning of class I asked for a show of hands on whether gay marriage would be generally available within ten years. The answer, almost unanimously, was "yes." It seems the right is slowly, but surely loosing the debate on this issue.
• It really is inevitable, but there will be much pain and anguish until then.
• "It seems the right is slowly, but surely loosing the debate on this issue." I'd say that's about right...left...right...crap.
• "...before showing the flashy redness of my monkey ass." No thanks, I had mine already.
• f8xmulder: I seriously think that's an unfair assumption to make. On what grounds do you assume? I believe that any home, provided it's stable, safe and supportive of the child, is okay. It doesn't matter whether the caregivers are genetically related, or even the parents of the child at all, as long as the child's happiness is highest priority. It doesn't even matter if there's more than two, or less than two, or what gender or sexual orientation they are, as long as the child is cared for and loved.
• ...Should preview, really I should.
• f8xmulder - were you sneaking a peek at my ass??
• It looks likes the courts will step in soon in San Francisco. I was struck by this paragraph. Despite the long wait, the mood in the line was jubilant. Well-wishers driving by honked horns and flashed peace signs. Newlyweds emerged from City Hall to wild cheers. Couples snapped photos, primped and prepared vows. One woman who was married Sunday returned Monday with coffee and doughnuts for the waiting-weary. I have a hard time seeing how these people are a harm to society. The argument about being a harm to kids is something I don't buy. How about Catholic priests who condem homosexuality and molest alter boys.
• IgnorantSlut: No. ...Um... No.
• This is obviously a biased source, but it is first hand, so I'll throw that out as my first piece of evidence that a gay family is not a good environment for children. Interesting quote from the article: "There is no doubt that homosexuals love their children," says Suzanne Cook, a Christian who was raised in part by her divorced father living with his gay lover. "But it takes more than love to raise children in an appropriate and healthy way. We shouldn't be experimenting on another generation." From a Gay Adoption Debate & Poll: "In a study published in the January 1996 issue of Developmental Psychology, London researchers Susan Golombok and Fiona Tasker found that children raised by a homosexual parent were much more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior themselves. Based on their findings, Golombok and Tasker acknowledge that
• too late, f8x--there are many thousands of kids being brought up as we speak in gay and lesbian households--would you have them removed?
• I can dig up more of this stuff, but to me, more stats aren't going to convince anyone to believe something contrary to their already established beliefs. Nevertheless, the question I pose to you is this: Is this what we want for children to grow up with? This sort of thinking lead to, for example, the forced adoption of Aboriginal children in Australia, which was for the good of the children, of course. (background, if you're not familiar with this: 1, 2, 3, 4) We could use similar statistics to say that alcoholics shouldn't be allowed to marry (more violent than the average, by a long way), because of the effect on their children, or the working class (more likely to be criminal than the average), or the mentally ill (more violent, more criminal, more likely to be homeless than the average) or so on (enter your own minority here).
• amberglow: honestly, I doubt that anything can or even should be done. When my biggest argument is on the basis of personal morality, I certainly can't make a pluralistic judgment that will please all people and be morally right and appropriate for a secular and civil society. In fact, I daresay I'm pretty much arguing the Devil's Advocate's position -- it's simply the other side of the coin. This coin's been flipped, and landed gay side up. That's how it landed, so we'll play it that way. I'll be very interested to see what the longterm outcome of legalizing gay marriage will be. I predict the end of monogamous marriage as we know it by the middle of this century...sooner, if the cards are right.
• Families without fathers are families that have undergone major stress (spot the generalisation). I mean, chances are that if a child doesn't have a dad around, there's been a divorce or breakup leading to that state of affairs. Or, perhaps, there was no father around to begin with. I think it's more the build-up of events leading to the fatherlessness that's the problem here, as opposed to simply not have a dad around all the time. Divorce and similar breakups between parents are going to hurt a kid. We can't use fatherlessness as a reason for disallowing gay couples to adopt, I don't think. And as for the fact that gay parents mean their kids will experiment with homosexuality, this isn't uncommon. Kids experiment with sex and adult relationships from a young age. It won't turn the kids gay if they have gay parents -- it's a natural state of being. Read about the !Kung people of Africa at some point. It was expected that children in that culture would play around at sex, hetero- and homosexual.
• Small nit, dng regarding the Stolen Generation (interesting links, by the way). It's a different circumstance. The children were blood related to the Aborigines, so comparing this to taking children away from gay parents is already one step removed. I'm not defending the Aborigine adoptions, I'm simply saying it's a different circumstance. IF (that's a big if) gay children were ever forcibly removed from gay households, I doubt they would be put into a kind of slavery. Personally, adoption policies should be strictly regulated and enforced. Qualifications of the parents should be reviewed stringently, and if found to be unfit for adoption, then they shouldn't be allowed to adopt. As to your second statement, I think you're conveniently ignoring the high, high numbers relating to gay domestic violence and sexual flexibility (in terms of keeping commitment) versus the still comparably low numbers of the examples you mentioned. Or are you arguing in defense of those high numbers?
• "And as for the fact that gay parents mean their kids will experiment with homosexuality, this isn't uncommon." Doesn't mean it's healthy! Drug use and experimentation with illegal substances among teens is not uncommon, but we don't advocate that (well, some of you might). Appeals to common practice is not an indication of its rightness.
• I predict the end of monogamous marriage as we know it by the middle of this century...sooner, if the cards are right. -slight derail- f8xmulder, the institution of marriage has been slow to catch up with the enormous social, economic, political changes that have been taking place in our culture. 100 years ago, 200 years ago, a single person, living alone, had an *extremely* difficult existence without a spouse to share in the work. Marriage was a necessary economic institution. In particular, an unmarried woman faced extraordinary obstacles in terms of educational opportunity and property ownership, and forget about the right to vote. I doubt that you are suggesting that we turn back the clock. But the institution of marriage needs to evolve to survive- and I will suggest that the "traditional" marriage that developed in a mostly agrarian economy, with clearly defined traditional gender roles, a high rate of child mortality (and a much shorter lifespan for adults) needs to evolve to reflect the current reality: economically, women no longer need to be married to survive. It's time for the institution of marriage to catch up with the times. Two people willing to make a commitment to each other is no small feat and a good thing in my book, regardless of their gender or orientation. The Annual Report on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Domestic Violence highlights the occurrence of domestic violence in the homosexual community. Perhaps as mush as a 33% rate. Heterosexual marriages have a domestic violence rate around 1%. This rang false to me, and I followed the link referred to and found, on the front page, "Taken together, however, their findings suggest a domestic violence prevalence rate between 25 and 33%, comparable to the findings on prevalence in heterosexual couples. (emphasis mine.) Domestic violence cuts across all lines- ethnic, religious, socio-economic, political- everything. -end of rant-
• I fail to see why experimenting with sexuality in any form is unhealthy. We all do/did it. Comparing it to drug use isn't really constructive, unless you really feel that the dangers are similar.
• Sociological Abstracts search - keyword "Homosexual parents" - all articles relevent to the effect of gay parents on the development and happiness of their children. (maybe only 1994 forward) Ocon Domingo, Jose. "Reflections on Adoption by Homosexual Couples" - Cuadernos de Trabajo Social, 2002, 15, 93-108 "Research in Andalusia (Jesus Palacios, Yolanda Sanchez, & Encarna Sanchez, 1996) shows that adoption is preferable to institutionalization for children in Spain, but there has been little social science research published on adoption by homosexual couples. In fact, the 1978 Spanish Constitution does not permit adoption by same sex couples. Fundamental issues in this area are adding social stigma to adopted children who generally have adverse psychological histories, lack of knowledge about the development of homosexuality, & a lack of a reference for mother vs father. On the other hand, children can grow up homosexual in families with heterosexual parents, just as children's preferences on religion, politics, etc, can differ from their parents'. In the final analysis, children's rights to live protected in a family should prevail; homosexual couples may give older children or those who are hard to place a family life." Kershaw, S, "Living in a Lesbian Household: The Effects on Children", Child & Family Social Work, 2000, 5, 4, Nov, 365-371 "States that, until the early 1970s, little general concern was apparent regarding lesbians, their relationships, or their lifestyles, as long as they remained invisible. This study discusses research on the effects on children of living in a lesbian household & addresses key issues concerning the fear that children may not develop appropriately in terms of gender role behavior, that there is a greater risk of sexual abuse, & that children might experience difficulties in relationships with their peers. New studies are concerned with how these families function, especially with regard to the division of work within & outside the home. This time is described as a time of change regarding living arrangements in many types of families." Bigner, Jerry J, "Raising Our Sons: Gay Men as Fathers," Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 1999, 10, 1, 61-77 "The research literature on the parenting abilities & styles of gay fathers is examined & compared with that of nongay fathers. Attention is given to the idea of gay fathers raising sons in relation to cultural stereotypes about homosexual men & gender-role development & identity. Rather than promoting traditional masculine role development among sons, gay fathers may offer their children the advantage of serving as a model of androgyny. The benefits offered in this regard to children are discussed in relation to long-term life span development. Children of gay fathers also benefit by learning about the insidious nature of homophobic & heterosexist attitudes. By disclosing their sexual orientation & lifestyle, gay fathers help children to learn the importance of tolerance & the necessity of respecting individual differences in others."
• Haugaard, Jeffrey J; Dorman, Karen; Schustack, Amy, "Lesbian-Headed Households," Adoption Quarterly, 1998, 1, 4, 93-101 "Summarizes research on the development of children raised by their lesbian birth parents. Research indicates that such children exhibit normal gender-role, social, & behavioral development. It is suggested that findings of this research may be applicable to children raised by adoptive lesbian parents. Limitations of existing research are discussed, & suggestions for further research presented." Crosbie-Burnett, Margaret; Helmbrecht, Lawrence, "A Descriptive Empirical Study of Gay Male Stepfamilies," Family Relations, 1993, 42, 3, July, 256-262 "This descriptive study identified family dynamics associated with measures of family happiness for biological fathers, stepfathers, & adolescents in 48 European-American gay stepfamilies. The Stepfamily Adjustment Scale was modified for use with this population. For all three family members, family happiness was more highly related to stepfather inclusion in the family & to a positive step-relationship than it was to the couple's relationship, family cohesion, relationship with the ex-wife, money issues, or adolescent family-related self-efficacy. Adolescents were the most closeted & biological fathers were the least closeted." Koepke, Leslie; Hare, Jan; Moran, Patricia B, "Relationship Quality in a Sample of Lesbian Couples with Children and Child-Free Lesbian Couples," Family Relations, 1992, 41, 2, Apr, 224-229 "The purpose of this study is to examine the quality of lesbian relationships by three factors: presence of children, extent of disclosure concerning the nature of the relationship, & longevity of the relationship. Overall, findings indicate that solid & happy relationships existed for the total sample of couples. However, couples with children scored significantly higher on relationship satisfaction & sexual relationship. No differences were found by longevity of the relationship or disclosure. Implications for family educators & family practitioners are discussed." None of the articles on gay parents in Sociological abstracts came up with any systematic harm to children of gay parents.
• The fact that children of gays experiment more likely reflects the fact that they feel that they would be accepted no matter what their sexuality, straight or gay. Considering that gay adolescents have much higher rates of attempted suicide because of the social and psychological pressures of being gay in a world that often does not accept that, then it would appear that far from being a disadvantage, the openness of gay parents could save lives. Though frankly, for most children of gay parents, like my friend whose mother is lesbian, the awkward moment will be when they come out as straight. ("Mum? Mum? I have something to tell you ... I'm straight." "That's okay dear. You can't help being born straight, it's who you are, and we love you. You can get married and have children, and no one with harrass or kill you for kissing the one you love." Yup, real big trauma there.) Experimenting with homosexuality, of course, does not make one gay - many people gay or straight, pass through periods of bisexuality in their adolescence. But many will and do balk at the implict assumption that being gay is a bad thing, which is not an accepted consensus in any current Western society. In this kind of discussion we must remember that making a point based on the suposed morality or, worse, "healthyness" of homosexuality is not a very good idea - especially as you are suggesting that many of your fellow posters are like drug addicts for wishing to love the one that they love. Unhealthy is living a life without affection, with repressed desires and self-hate. In fact, one could argue that in this overpopulated world, gay sex is the most healthy. Certainly it is for women - STDs are less likely to be passed, and they avoid the problems of either continual pregnancies or nasty hormone unbalencing birth control. For men, anal sex is an issue for sexually transmitted disease, but the risks are similar to vaginal intercourse, without the aforesaid il health effects of pregnancy, or (ill health for our planet) over-population. And of course, if more of us were gay, abortion rates would go way down : )
• Finally (sorry for the 4 post epic) As for the other issues, I am confused by the link regarding gay domestic violence - I was scanning through trying to find the prevalence, but could not find it. I used to work at an epidemiology unit sorting articles, and this is often not hard to find. But instead all I found was this sentance: "Given that only 3,327 cases were reported [out of an estimated 47 million persons] in contrast to a suggested prevalence rate of 25-33%, the number of documented cases of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender domestic violence would appear to be a tiny proportion of the number of actual cases." How they acheived this suggested prevalence rate is utterly opaque to me - perhaps I have missed their justification. If so, please let me know where to find it. I would also suggest that it would be dishonest to compare all gay relationships, short or long term with only one kind of straight relationship, committed marriage. A better comparison would be with all kinds of straight relationships, including short term and commonlaw. On preview - I see that amberglow is a better reader than I (or maybe less tired), and found the interpretive bit. Interestingly, I came across a fact sheet online, with the following statement "The following statistics are from The 1999 State of Maryland Domestic Violence Annual Report (Supplement to the 1997 Crime in Maryland Uniform Crime Report) from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1997. The report includes data on five victim relationships: in 1997, 40% of victims were wives, 11% husbands, 39% female cohabitants, 9% male cohabitants, and 1% homosexual." Of course, with different percentages of these kinds of couples in society, this data cannot be easily translated into odds, but it seems to fit with the hypothesis that gay domestic violence is as common as heterosexual.
• "Experimenting with homosexuality, of course, does not make one gay - many people gay or straight, pass through periods of bisexuality in their adolescence." Doesn't this make it seem as if all sexuality is a choice? "But many will and do balk at the implict assumption that being gay is a bad thing, which is not an accepted consensus in any current Western society." No, but neither is the idea that being gay is a good thing. Consensus? Far from it. "In this kind of discussion we must remember that making a point based on the suposed morality or, worse, "healthyness" of homosexuality is not a very good idea - especially as you are suggesting that many of your fellow posters are like drug addicts for wishing to love the one that they love." Morality first. Sorry, but I can't just throw my morality out the window here. I will concede that the evidence appears to support a more general acceptance of homosexuality as normal (I say appear because I am wont to skepticism about these kinds of issues), but that doesn't affect my morality. So, no offense to all my fellow posters who are homosexuals - it's nothing against you personally - but I cannot concede that homosexuality as a behaviour, lifestyle, genetic or environmental heritage, or a choice is morally valid. Healthwise, I didn't mean to imply that homosexuals are drug addicts, or even like drug addicts. I was pointing out the fallacy of appealing to common practice, and using drug use as an example of why that fallacy is in fact a fallacy. My apologies for that misunderstanding. THAT BEING SAID: jb, your arguments vis a vis the health merits of homosexuality are simply untrue. -->>next post
• International Journal of Epidemiology, International Epidemiological Association, Oxford University, Vol. 26, 657-661, 1997 "OBJECTIVE: To assess how HIV infection and AIDS (HIV/AIDS) impacts on mortality rates for gay and bisexual men...RESULTS: Estimates of the mid-period gay and bisexual population ranged from 5406 to 16,219 for the three scenarios, and total deaths in these men from 953 to 1703. Age-specific mortality was significantly higher for gay and bisexual men than all men aged 30-44." "Among young gay and bisexual men in Vancouver, the HIV/AIDS epidemic has reduced life expectancy by up to 20 years." (Canadian Medical Association Journal) "Given the high prevalence of risk behaviours at baseline in our study, the fact that our prospective data suggest a trend toward increasing levels of unprotected anal sex is worrisome." The Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry published a study of 4,000 high school students by Harvard Medical School, which found that "gay-lesbian-bisexual youth report disproportionate risk for a variety of health risk and problem behaviors
• [continuing] Lesbian sex can transmit most STD's. Common vaginal infections can also be spread during woman-to-woman sexual contact
• 1. AIDS is a hetero plague in Africa. It's not a gay thing. 2. Correlation by itself is not sufficient to establish a causal relationship. 3. Without the social support of the institution of marriage, I might have had five years of fidelity with my wife, but I wouldn't put the smart money on it. Kind of queers the deal (so to speak) to withhold that support from gay couples, then judge them based on their infidelity. 4. Every other point is equally applicable to heterosexuals. 5. Now consider men who wear sandals. By my standards, they are immoral, as shown by their decadent unwillingness to armor the male foot for the traditional male foot-related jobs of kicking, stomping, and treading. I'm just sayin'.
• My comments regarding the "healthyness" of gay sex were facetious, and largely based on the benefits to limiting population growth. (Which has been one of the theories proposed to explain homosexual behaviour among some animals. Though, as the really interesting article I linked to LONG ago, more recent research suggests that gender is much more complicated than we had ever suposed.) That said, while acknowledging that women can share STDs with other women, the chances of infection of a virus like HIV is much greater from a man to a woman, due to the semen. Anal sex is another matter, due to the delicateness of the mucas membranes there, but the risks are equal for straight or gay anal sex. And as goetter pointed out, HIV is a heterosexual disease in Africa and Asia, where most people infected with HIV live. Women represent the fastest growing group of new HIV infections in the United States (link). If "lesbians are more prone to ovarian and endometrial cancer due to decreased number of pregnancies and decreased use of oral contraceptives", is that a greater or lesser risk than the increased risk of cervical cancer straight women have from engaging heterosexual intercourse? That is, of course, why we all have to go for pap smears every year. Probably the lesson is that if we have sex (of any flavour), we will die. If we don't have sex, we will die. As for the the risk taking behavious of gay teenagers, I wouldn't be surprised at that, considering the stress that gay teens are put under, due to the social ostracisation of gays. So should we treat the symptoms, or the the cause? As for the morality issue - maybe it is best to think about it the way Free Methodists do about drinking and dancing. They believe that drinking or dancing is immoral, and they do not engage in it. But, since the failure of temperance, they do not seek to change the behaviour of anyone not of their belief. Finally - yes, many teenagers do go through period of bisexuality or curiosity. It does not mean homosexuality is chosen, any more than a straight man chooses to find lumps of fat attractive when they are arranged just so on a woman's chest. It just means that sexuality can be fluid, particularly at adolescence. Bisexuality is also a lot more common than many people are comfortable admitting, straight or gay; some people are only ever attracted to the opposite sex, some only to the same sex, but many of us are somewhere in between - such as being generally attracted to one sex, but occasionally attracted to the other. And yet, openly bisexual people can get flack from both sides - from straights for being queer, and from gays for either fence-sitting or 'passing' (when they are in a straight relationship).
• The reason AIDS is a het plague in Africa has everything to do with a certain birth control mechanism. Which I will leave up to your ample imaginations to intuit.
• goetter, there's a difference between infidelity and promiscuity. Yes, there is promiscuity in both gay and straight communities. Statistically, however, it's much higher for gays.
• Warning: Generalizations ahead (as are all statistics). Obviously these don't apply to everyone in each group. f8x, I don't think that it's about being gay, I think it's about being male. It's a biological imperative for men to have lots of sex. In a straight couple, there's a woman involved and women are biologically inclined to nest rather than have sex with lots of men. In a gay couple, there are either two men (sex ahoy!) or two women (lesbians are the least likely to be having sex at any particular point in time). Men are just more likely to say "Yes, let's screw." (And bully for them I say, as long as there are condoms involved.) I'll say it again, the whole sanctity of marriage argument just plain annoys me. A working marriage is not determined by the gender of the participants, it's determined by their character. Compatability and willingless to compromise is based on each individual. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Christianity was based on the foundation of forgiveness and love and letting God judge others. I honestly wonder if Jesus would scorn loving couples who wanted to pledge their lives to each other no matter what gender they are. I believe what he would scorn is the ungenerous, abusive, hateful, and selfish behavior which is present in all groups. And then he would forgive. There is no reason to promote the continuted suffering and oppression of a group of people because some disagree with a lifestyle that harms no one. There is no reason to deny them the same rights others have to live and love freely and protect the people they love because of a set of particular beliefs. Where is the compassion in that?
• Gavin Newsom was inspired by George Bush. For those of you who were curious about the political aspect of the San Francisco mayor's decision. f8xmulder, you seem to be quite certain that gays are somehow different in a worse kind of a way. I'd beg to differ- some people are promiscuous, some aren't. Some people experiment and even abuse drugs and alcohol. Some people engage in risky sex practices, some don't. Some people have anger management issues and resort to physical violence, and some don't. Some of those people are straight, some are gay. Every negative aspect that you have ascribed to gays and lesbians applies equally to straights. And every positive aspect of relationships applies equally to both as well. (Remember that Statistics is the only science that allows different experts using the same figures to draw different conclusions.) I know that my perspective has been influenced by my experience- I've spent most of my adult life living in remarkably gay-friendly places (Northampton, Mass., NYC and San Francisco) and I've had plenty of time and opportunity to observe that people are pretty much just people, and that cuts across every spectrum you can imagine. Meanwhile, eyewitnesses report that the joy in City Hall is palpable, and spreading- rarely are people so happy to be standing in VERY long lines...
• Disclaimer: I'm not a Christian, but some of my best friends are Christian. Seriously. Donning my advocatus-diaboli hat, b/c I am not comfortable with the "pig-pile on f8x" dynamic: -- If some flavor of Christianity assumes that homosexuality is a grave moral sin, then a Christian can love the sinner while condemning and refusing to countenance the sin. And as a non-Christian, I don't feel comfortable in telling a Christian that, no, his definition of his religion's sin is /wrong/. -- Now, taking off that itchy bishop's miter: I am, however, quite comfortable telling them to keep it inside church where it belongs. Riddle me this: What does every(*) lesbian bring on the second date? Corollary riddle: What does every(*) gay man bring on the second date? (*)Yeah, yeah, I know.
• Civil Disobedience: the thread that just won't die - 166 comments and counting...
• Kimberly: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Christianity was based on the foundation of forgiveness and love and letting God judge others." Actually, Christianity is based on the idea that ALL people are sinners, but that redemption and salvation can be found by accepting Jesus Christ as their saviour...believing he died for their sins, and that after they accept Him, they are cleansed and free from slavery to that sin. THAT's what Christianity is based on. Yes, love of neighbor and forgiveness of sins is part of that, but let's not throw out primary tenets of Christian theology in favour of some mushy, feel-good philosophy. Sorry, not a rant at you, Kimberly, just a general rant against reductionism. "There is no reason to promote the continuted suffering and oppression of a group of people..." See, this is another sticking point I have with the gay movement. Suffering and oppression are pretty strong words, and yes, I understand that there are nuances to language, so this is going to come across sounding like a real nit, but I say let's call a spade a spade. What gays are experiencing in being denied marriage rights is more akin to social impediment, or at worst, maltreatment. Oppression and suffering is what blacks experienced in slavery. Oppression and suffering are what the Indians (I'm sorry, Native Americans) experienced. I really don't think it's what gays are experiencing. This is not a civil rights issue, despite its framing by the gay rights movement.
• Activist Tells Story of Sexual Awakening Atrios posts his thoughts on gay marriage. From what I can glean from some of my hate mail and the general conservative outcry, here is what the homophobes fear about same-sex marriage: bestiality. That is, they are utterly terrified that same-sex marriage is a slippery slope of permissive debauchery that will lead to the utter breakdown of social rules and sexual mores, to people being allowed to marry their dogs, or their own dead grandmothers, or chairs, or three hairy men from Miami Beach. Personally, I have always hated the slippery slope arguments. Instead of coming out with what they really believe, people use the slippery slope argument to frame an issue. Whether it's guns, flag burning, abortion, etc. I am tired of slippery slopes.
• f8x: Thanks for telling me where you're coming from. I was raised a Christian and I never heard it put that way so it cleared things up for me about your perspective. I still don't see how that applies to not letting homosexuals get married though. And while your examples are definitely more extreme than how the homosexual community is being treated, I stand by my oppression and suffering statement. I've seen some horrible things and have been friends with people who were truly suffering and limited because of our society's treatment of them.
• How is being denied a visit from your life-partner while in the hospital not suffering? How is having your expression of emotion dismissed by the city/state/country you live in and pay taxes to not suffering? How is being tossed out on your ass when your life-parnter of the last 30 years dies while their family assumes control of the estate not suffering? How is losing a job because you are in love with a woman not suffering? How, please justify these real-life experiences as not suffering? One of the things that being part of an oppressed people has taught me is to open my eyes to others who are oppressed. African Americans experienced different oppression from Native Americans, Women had different experiences from African Americans. It's all different, but it's common tenet is still oppression and suffering. I would never say that I have it bad, I'm lucky, but I have had bad experiences, and know men and women who have much worse situations. I would never try to jockey for place in the oppression hall of shame, but to say that gays and lesbians do not experience oppression and suffering is to dismiss what activists throughout the world have worked so hard for during the past 30 years.
• ambrosia: "f8xmulder, you seem to be quite certain that gays are somehow different in a worse kind of a way." My morality and faith indicates (to me) that this is so, yes. Before anyone jumps on me to say "That's how white people justified slavery," let me emphasize my point by explaining that I believe in what the Bible says. I've done fairly decent linguistic studies on the language used in the Bible relating to homosexuality and can come to no other conclusion but that what is written means what it says. I no more believe the Bible endorses homosexuality than it does slavery. Clearly, most people believe that it's wrong for me to think this way, for whatever reason they might have. To some, it's a case of homophobia. Nope, I don't fear or hate homosexuals. Two of my good friends are gay. To some, it's a case of me being a bigot. If sticking by my moral precepts and beliefs makes me a bigot, then so be it. However, I don't slander homosexuals, I don't hate them, I don't put burning crosses on their lawns. I also don't endorse it. If those contradictions don't make you shake violently, then we might be able to get along.
• goetter, to clarify, I really have been treated quite nicely here, and I hope I have done the same to others. This thread would never have lasted as long on MeFi, so we're doing well.
• f8x: I just want to preface this by thanking you for sticking in the conversation so long. Typically these conversations turn into total flame-bait and I feel lucky that we have you to answer some questions and stick to your guns. So here's my question: Even if the bible says homosexuality is wrong, why does that mean that marriage among homosexuals should not be legal in the United States?
• f8xmulder, I appreciate that you have such strong convictions, applaud that even though I disagree with them. You state that you have two friends that are gay. I wonder if they have had any impact on your moral precepts? Do they know that you would deny them their civil rights if the choice was yours to make? How do they feel about that? I personally don't believe much of what I read because I've been involved in enough research to know that numbers can be skewed in any number of ways. I could never believe in the bible, because I know nothing of it's author (let's not go there). I'm often confused by the blind faith of many in this book. Have you found other parts of the bible in contradiction with you beliefs? Do you accept it as the guide for your entire life? I'm honestly curious, because I do not have the same level of faith, please don't take these words as picking a snit, complete curiousity.
• This is not a civil rights issue, despite its framing by the gay rights movement. Err, actually, it is precisely a civil rights issue. Loving vs. Virginia (has to be one of the most aptly named Supreme Court cases, ever) made it clear that marriage is indeed a civil rights issue. And f8x, I do appreciate your willingness to engage on this topic.
• Sullivan, thanks for the activist link. From that story: "Growing up in a Southern Baptist family, I see (the Bible) as a great moral guideline, but it shouldn't be taken out of context." Excellent point. Now I won't feel bad about quoting Scripture if anyone asks... As to the oppression/suffering - point made.
• Ahhh too many at once! Hang on...
• Kimberly, thanks for the thanks. "Even if the bible says homosexuality is wrong, why does that mean that marriage among homosexuals should not be legal in the United States?" Well, as it stands now, unfortunately, the church and the state have their hands in the marriage pot, the state for legal stuff, and the church for the religious aspect of it. Even people who have no interest or belief in the church usually get married by a member of the clergy (even though that's not really required by the state) because the religous binding of a marriage contract does hold weight. Actually, can I call on the Reverend Donald Sensing to illuminate these points? His conclusion is the separation of the secular from the sacred marriage and allow gays to marry, something I would not necessarily be opposed to. This separation idea is the closest I can find that adequately compromises so both parties are happy. Please read them (they're well worth the time, especially in light of this thread).
• Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. That means the state can not tells churches how to dictate their doctrine. For example: we can't make the Boy Scouts take gays. It also mean that we can't impose religious views on others. I think that is the fundamental flaw with the Christian right's gay marriage argument. Once religion is taken out of the equation then what do they have left to stand on. Another problem with making gay marriage illegal. Laws are made to protect people. So who is the victim? Examples: If a car is stolen the owner of the vehicle is the victim. If someone is assaulted then then the person who got attacked is the victim. Enron embezzled money and the shareholders were the victim. Someone has to be directly affected. The only people that can be considered victims are the gay couples getting married.
• The state doesn't tell churches how to function. But if the state legalizes and enforces gay marriage, what happens to a church that chooses not to honor those marriages based on religious doctrines?
• Churches /already/ do that, f8x. To take a concrete example, I am not married to my wife in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC doesn't consider my marriage valid, for several of their reasons. And that's perfectly okay by me.
• IgnorantSlut: "I wonder if they have had any impact on your moral precepts? Do they know that you would deny them their civil rights if the choice was yours to make? How do they feel about that?" Well, it's interesting you ask that. Before I came to know about my friends' homosexuality, I was fairly sure in my religious beliefs about homosexuality, its origins and causes, but I never really thought about the social aspect of it. Since then, my religious beliefs have not changed, but I do find myself more sympathetic with gays, especially Christians who are trying to reconcile their homosexuality with their faith (which my two friends are). In talking with one of them (the other doesn't really talk about it), I've found that he pretty much agrees with me because he [currently] believes it is wrong. (Before you ask, that he struggles with it is not a contradiction to concepts of Christianity, because, as anyone who reads the Bible will know, even though we have accepted Christ and are saved from sin, we still are sinful and have sinful natures). I'd like to make a distinction between my friend's homosexuality and others, since he is not a practicing homosexual - he doesn't engage in sex with other men (again, because of his faith). He is attempting to live according to the precepts of the Bible and his own convictions, despite the fact that he is attracted to guys. So long answer to a short question. To them (or at least one of them), this is a non-issue. To them, it's about living according to the Bible, not their own desires. "I'm honestly curious, because I do not have the same level of faith, please don't take these words as picking a snit, complete curiousity." Don't worry, IS, I understand completely.
• "The state doesn't tell churches how to function. But if the state legalizes and enforces gay marriage, what happens to a church that chooses not to honor those marriages based on religious doctrines?" There already is churches for gays. If a church doesn't want to perform gay marriages then the state can't make them. The state can not impose views that are against a church's religion. The exception is if (for example) there is a religious cult that goes around committing crimes (rape, muder, incest.) The state stepped in when members of the Catholic church molested boys. There was a crime and a victim (the boys.)
• What Sullivan said - I don't give a rat's hind-quarters what I church thinks of my union. I want the rights that come from the civil recognition.
• Judges refuse to halt issuing of same-sex marriage licenses.
• And here's why. A semicolon.
• *enforces* gay marriage???
• "What Sullivan said - I don't give a rat's hind-quarters what I church thinks of my union. I want the rights that come from the civil recognition." IgnorantSlut: Are you talking about you or me? I am many things. Gay isn't one of them. Personally, I came from a Ronald Reagan-loving family. I had prejudices ingrained into me that I rejected when I became a teenager. "I don't give a rat's hind-quarters" if someone is gay.
• Sullivan - that would be me. Sorry for the confusion.
• Chicago's Mayor Daley says it's all right with him. [may require registration]
• No problem, IgnorantSlut. We just call that doing a Glenn Reynolds. I cited this before in another thread. We can make this a new monkey rule. When someone writes something that no one can figure out they are doing a Glenn Reynolds. Glenn Reynolds doesn't believe that Gavin Newsom can not paticipate in civil disobedience since he is the Mayor of San Francisco. Glenn feels that prejudice against gays is the same as prejudice against guns (which I believe are not living entities.) I've actually noted that leftish prejudice against guns is a lot like rightish prejudice against gays. I, of course, oppose both varieties of prejudice. I rather doubt, though, that we'll see "civil disobedience" by government officials in support of gun rights in San Francisco any time soon. I'm waiting for Reynolds to give his impassioned plea to protected the rights of styrofoam cups and chewing gum wrappers. Note: I know what he means. I'm just making fun of the fact that the guy ALWAYS writes confusing posts. He could not make it on his writing. Raise your hands if you read his MSNBC blog. Sorry for going off topic.
• High Cockalorum - every time I read this thread and think about saying something, by the time I get round to writing it, there's been another 30 posts and someone's already said it. Outstanding. f8x, quite some time ago, I nearly derailed the thread into a genetic vs. environmental thing - just to say that, as others pointed out, that's an over-simplification (this book covers the complex interplay between the two superbly) - but while now's not really the place any more, it's a discussion that I'd be very willing to have when the opportunity arises again... In reference to the 'gay = more promiscuous' data, I basically accept that it does seem to be currently the case (although I'd suggest that studies seeking gay males to participate have the problem of being skewed towards the 'out and proud' end of the spectrum... but that's a quibble). However, given both the current social situation and recent history, I simply can't accept that it portrays something innate in the homosexual male. Perhaps it *may* be innate (the broader 'male = promiscuous' argument), but given that homosexuality is still not openly accepted by much of society, it seems more likely to be the case that being placed outside of society frees you from society's inhibitions. Because it is still uncomfortable at the very least, and often risky, to seek relationships in wider society, you get into ghettoisation, and everything reduces to something of a meat market. Bring it into society, and boom! You got yer inhibitions back. I feel I could have put that better. Dang. Too tired. Interesting that the SF judge is clearly being deliberately nit-picky, with the semicolons and stuff - I think they realise that the marriages won't stand, but themselves want to prolong it for as long as possible. This suggests to me that the judges don't think the current law is good law. Emphasis on the word 'suggests', of course. Oh, and a final derail, or at least an unscheduled station stop. jb: "And yet, openly bisexual people can get flack from both sides" - Amen to that. If you're at all gay, straight people think you're completely gay; if you're not completely gay, gay people think you're not "proper". And don't even get me started on "greedy" or "confused". Or "just doing it to be fashionable". Grrrrr.
• Mark Morford's latest column.
• flashboy: "[snip]...it's a discussion that I'd be very willing to have when the opportunity arises again..." As a Republican president once said... No, actually, I'm quite exhausted by the prospect of another six day 150+ comment thread...let's, as you say, wait for a more opportune time.
• I don't regularly read Glenn's MSNBC columns, but when I do, I haven't really had any trouble figuring out what he's trying to say. He's definitely not the best writer out there, though. My money's still on Lileks or Steyn, both of whom coincidentally fall on my side of the political tracks (for the most part).
• We're actually at 195 as of this writing (probably 213 or so by the time I hit publish). And it's be a marvelous, glorious, multi-faceted (I have no idea how to spell that I'm too exhausted to look it up) thread. I think everyone who participated is awesome. I may not agree with everyone, but you guys rock. I'm going to go take a nap now. All this scrolling made me tired.
• next time we do one of these, we've got to get you a sidekick, f8x (not that you've been doing badly... just must get tiring). it's like the old british gameshow 'blockbusters' - it always disturbed me as to how it was fair that one team had two members while the other person was on their own...
• Monkeyfilter: All this scrolling made me tired. re: *Mark Morford's latest column* Ugh. Well, it's a good thing anyway, in spite of his autofellating dribble.
• f8xmulder: "what happens to a church that chooses not to honor those marriages based on religious doctrines?" That has in fact been an issue raised in Ontario, where gay marrages (due to a court ruling) are currently permitted. However, as goetter notes, many churches already put restrictions on who they will permit to marry within that church, and who will be recognised as married in that church. I would never want to see the laws go from allowing gay marriages to the extreme of forcing churches to marry gays - that would be just as evil/unjust as I believe that not allowing the governmental recognition of gay marriages is. This should probably be enshrined in any legislation passed to permit gay marriages, just to make that clear. It is clear, however, that there are many churches willing to marry same-sex couples, as soon as the government will register them. Though I am curious about something else - if a Catholic marries outside of the Church, and subsequently divorces - can they then marry someone inside the church as if they have never been married? -- I also had one thought - I hope that in all the excitement, people don't rush into marrying the way straight couples in Los Vegas always seem to. Some of the couples in the various articles are only 29 or 30 - that's much too young! I know this, because I'm 27, and I know I'm too young, even if I am engaged :) --- Yes - this is an insanely long thread, yet still a good one, and I would like to thank f8xmulder for giving us all much to think about, and if I could email bananas, I would send them to all.
• lol. Agreements with Kimberly on this. Ya'll have been mah-velous! I guess it's the nature of the world. Survival of the fittest. Then again, there is that old maxim, "He who runs away today, runs to fight another day." Oh wait, that was Lethal Weapon. Sorry. On preview - goetter: Thank goodness for my custom web browser. It automatically converts "autofellating" into "Noam Chomsky".
• Oh - that question about Catholic marriages has nothing to do with gay marriage - I was just wondering.
• Gay Rights Information Taken Off Site
• f8x, heh - it's a reflexive, symmetric relation.... From the vantage of the RCC, jb, they were never married. So, yes, they could subsequently marry within the Church.
• This just in. California will not accept the marriage licenses granted to thousands of same-sex couples in San Francisco because the city created its own form to remove such terms as "bride" and "groom," a state official said on Wednesday.
• Also, in order to be married a second time within the Catholic church, your first marriage must be annulled. Oh the drama in my house when my dad wanted to get married again and my mother refused to say their 18 year marriage never happened.
• Here's an interesting tidbit of information. "In fact, a 1958 Gallup poll found 97% of white Americans opposed interracial marriages, so SC was being an activist court. Though there were many ridiculuous arguments offered against miscegenation, the truth was that most white people thought is was weird and gross, just as today, many people find homosexual behaviour weird and gross."
• "If a Catholic marries outside of the Church and subsequently divorces, can they then marry someone inside the Church as if they have never been married?" goetter: I am fairly sure you are wrong. The answer is No. The Church would recognise the validity of the original marriage. It is the free consent of the parties that makes the marriage valid. The Church merely sanctifies and blesses the contract.
• Thanks for the correction, verstegan. I grossly overgeneralized, remembering (or quite possibly misremembering) some of the canon-legalistic legerdemain of the declaration of nullity aka "annulment." So long as the Church's qualities of a valid marriage are present, the Church recognizes the marriage. By default, as you say, the marriage is presumed valid. Even marriages invalid due to lack of form (Catholic marrying outside of a church) are presumed valid until challenged.
• Great discussion thread... I have half a mind to post to MetaTalk with a link to here and the words: "See? This is how it's supposed to be done!"
• So, what if a single never married Catholic marries someone who is divorced (which means the marriage isn't really valid under the Church) in a civil ceremony - and then later they divorce. Could the Catholic later marry in the RCC as if they had never been married?
• f8x - I can't find the words to express how much I admire you. If I were Christian and young, and could agree with your sentiments, I'd ask you to marry me (don't worry, i'm female.) You've taken on the best arguments I've seen for allowing gay marriages and never wavered from what you really feel. That shows a true strength of character. I disagree, but I think you're way cool. Should we give you a rest, now?
• Hey all! Unless someone brings up something super provocative, I think I'm all threaded out. I'm having a hard time getting all my off-hours work done due to this single thread - it's been way fun. Wendell: This one thread has resurrected my hope for online communities like MetaFilter. If we Monkeys can do it, well, so can the higher apes and people. path: *Smiles!* I very much appreciate a conversation in which everything I say isn't instantly agreed with. It's educational, to say the least, and I feel like I have a better handle on the arguments in favour of gay marriage. Not only to try to refute them, but also more importantly, to understand those making the arguments, and if possible, come to a mututally agreeable conclusion without damaging anyone or relegating them to a "freaks, weirdos, and heathens" category. You all are fantastic. And to reiterate, I apologize if I have inadvertently offended someone. Pax.
• peace right back atcha : >
• Attack of the Gay Agenda! [Flash]
• "So what if a single never-married Catholic marries someone who is divorced (which means the marriage isn't really valid under the Church) in a civil ceremony, and then later they divorce. Could the Catholic later marry in the RC Church?" Now we're getting into deep waters. I'm not a Catholic, nor an expert in canon law, but as no one else has come forward to answer the question I will have a go at answering it myself. The answer is probably Yes. It would not be automatic, i.e. one would have to go through the formal annulment procedure in order to get the marriage declared null and void; but in such a case there would be strong grounds for an annulment. The circumstances of the previous marriage would be taken into account, and if there were any children, they would have to be properly provided for. As a matter of interest, the situation you have outlined is precisely paralleled in Evelyn Waugh's novel Brideshead Revisited. See here for a brief discussion of the novel in relation to Catholic teaching on marriage (scroll down to the bottom of the page).
• Oh, and: what everyone else already said about the excellence and super-niceness of this discussion. Mad props to everyone, esp. f8x.
• f8xmulder: As jb notes, the (rather common, amongst opponents of gay marriage) perception that marriage is and has always been a primarily religious function is very dubious indeed; in Medieval England, for example, marraige was a common-law institution recognised by the reading of the banns. There was no religious ceremony for the wedding as such, although the custom was to have a Mass after the wedding was finished. It wasn't until the 18th century that the English Parliament acted to require a priest be involved in weddings, so it's quite the reverse in the Western legal and social tradition that I hail from: the churches used government legislation to effect a power grab to control the institution of marriage. If the churches now dislike the government's role, well, they invited them in. The popularity of Gretna Green as a place to get married arose from this, because Scotland maintained a tradition of purely secular recognition of marriage, as well as more liberal laws (not requiring under 21s to get marital permission, etc). On the matter of divorce, well, there are plenty of examples, sadly, of children being a lot better off and a lot safer a long, long way away from their genetic relatives. As for Based on children raised in gay families, I'm assuming (yes, I know...) that gay marriage wouldn't change the fact that many of them end up in a bad way. If anything, it would reinforce those negative statistics., you're in danger of making it impossible to continue civil discussion. Blandly asserting the badness of gay parents for children is not the sort of thing that makes it easy for many people (myself included) to remain positive; one might as well suggest barring Catholics from having kids because many priests are child rapists. It would unfair to Catholics, and many would probably consider it inflammatory. Of the hard info you pulled up, the only one that's actually of concern is around domestic violence. One can only consider a greater liklihood of experimentation with sexuality bad if one accepts a priori that homosexuality is evil or wrong. That you've misrepresented it's findings, possibly inadvertantly is less than ideal - if I may quote from the study "Taken together, however, their findings suggest a domestic violence prevalence rate between 25 and 33%, comparable to the findings on prevalence in heterosexual couples ( Brand and Kidd, 1986, ; Koss, 1990 ; Lockhart, White, Causby, and Isaac, 1994 ; Harms, 1995 )." Not, as you seem to assert, 33 times more prevalent than amongst heterosexuals. Moreover, the authors themselves say, "Victims of domestic violence are not uniformly provided with equal protection of the laws. Despite the availability of domestic violence protective orders for heterosexuals in all states, persons involved in abusive same-sex relationships do not have equivocal access to the same protective orders in the overwhelming majority of states." If you don't want children to grow up with domestic violence, perhaps you shouldn't oppose moves to help people deal with domestic violence in relationships?

  Actually, Christianity is based on the idea that ALL people are sinners

  Actually, it isn't. Only Western Christianity aquired the poisonous idea of Original Sin, thanks to Augustine. Eastern Roman forms remained free of its taint. [more]
• f8xmulder: Finally, monogamous marriage is hardly "traditional". Polygamy was common in many older societies, including amongst Jews. Moslems can divorce fairly trivially, and Islam supports polygamy. Spartans were expected to have a homosexual relationship in their teens and marry a woman in their twenties. The history of human relationships is vastly more complex and diverse than you're suggesting. path: The requirement for a civil ceremony exclusive of the relgious one is quite common in much of Western Europe; I believe it is the case in the Netherlands and Italy, as well. Here in New Zealand, one can be married by a registered celebrant, which most religious figures are, but there are also secular celebrants available. jb: You rock. flashboy: Don't even get me started on the perils of bisexuality. I generally love Dan Savage, but when it comes to that topic, I want to slap him silly, and he's positively bi-friendly compared to some.
• rodgerd: "Only Western Christianity aquired the poisonous idea of Original Sin, thanks to Augustine. Eastern Roman forms remained free of its taint." please to explain Romans 5:12? Not that I'm defending Augustine, but why is the concept of Original sin "poisonous"?
• rodgerd: I don't think the sin situation is quite as black and white as you're trying to make it. Although the Orthodox Church does not accept Augustine's position, according to Kallistos Ware: "But although Orthodox maintain that humans after the fall still posessed free will and were still capable of good actions, they agree with the west in believing that sin had set up a barrier which humanity by its own efforts could never break down. Sin blocked the path to union with God. Since we could not come to God, He came to us." (from here) If you really want to get your teeth into it, there's a very detailed discussion here.
• rodgered - "f8xmulder: Finally, monogamous marriage is hardly "traditional". Polygamy was common in many older societies, including amongst Jews." According to Christian tenets, monogamous marriage is the ideal as instituted by God according to Genesis 1:27,28 ("So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.") and Genesis 2:22-24 ("Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.") By this principle, too, it might be argued (at least from a religious point of view) that only heterosexual monogamous marriage is appropriate. Yes, the Jews did frequently take multiple wives (David, a man of God, had several wives, and Solomon had over 700 wives and concubines), but the Bible never endorses the taking of more than one wife. With respect to divorce, the Bible never endorses it either, though it does record that it occurred, even amongst early people. God Himself doesn't approve of it (Malachai 2:16 - ""I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself [or his wife] with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.") Then there's the answer Jesus had to divorce: that it was instituted amongst the Hebrews when they rebelled against God's commandment from Genesis (Matthew 19:4-9 - ""Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."") Clearly, we've come a long way from that, including the Christian church. But Christian, even Judeo-Christian tradition of monogamous marriage is very much an established thing.
• rodgerd: "[snip]...you're in danger of making it impossible to continue civil discussion. Blandly asserting the badness of gay parents for children is not the sort of thing that makes it easy for many people (myself included) to remain positive;" As I've stated before, my opinions are based on my moral/religious beliefs as well as personal observations, but I have not tried to force anyone to believe what I do. If anyone gets upset at me, it's because they're not willing or able to grant me that same leverage. "That you've misrepresented it's findings, possibly inadvertantly is less than ideal" While I've certainly never purposely misrepresented data for anything I've mentioned, I won't deny that I can be wrong or the data can be wrong. Since giving the matter some thought on domestic violence comparisons in gay vs. straight households, I came upon this link, which I found interesting. There's a ton of data there, not just statistics, but also profiles. It's worth at least a skim through.
• Sometimes the White House press gaggles really are better than "The Onion."

  Q Scott, two questions real quick. On Haiti, one; and then the other on gay marriage. First, on Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide believes that the White House is blaming him for the problems that are happening there now, and that's some of the reason why the administration is kind of cool to the fact of going in to help with the problems there. And also on gay marriage, has the President discussed with the Vice President his feelings about gay marriage, especially since the Vice President has a family member who is gay? MR. McCLELLAN: I think he very much knows the President's views. Q But I mean -- yes, he knows the President views. But have they -- this is a major issue. This is -- MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, April, they discuss important issues like that. Q They have. Well, could you tell us to what length and what have they said? MR. McCLELLAN: I don't get into the President's private conversations. Q No, no, but, seriously, Scott, this is a politically divisive issue. And the Vice President has a family member who is gay; the President defines marriage as man and women. Have they come together and tried to -- has the Vice President tried to discuss with him the issue of seeing it his way, or his family member's way? MR. McCLELLAN: April -- April, the President has always said it's important to treat all people with dignity and respect. But this is an issue of principle. This is an issue that he feels very strongly about. And it's taking a principled stand to protect and defend the sanctity of marriage. That's what this is about. Marriage is a fundamental, enduring institution of this country. And the President is committed to protecting it.

  I'm glad we can always count on White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to never directly answer nonNASCAR-related questions. I say this for him, at least he's consistent. I'm waiting for the moment when his head blows up behind the podium like that scene from "Scanners," from all the stress.
• he really makes Ari seem fun (he enjoyed being a bastard and not answering)...McClellan is in over his head, I think.
• ahhh : > (more great pics there too)
• Massachusetts Supreme Court Orders All Citizens To Gay Marry
• HAA! Thank god I checked the recent comments list. That's hysterical homunculus. Thanks!
• Andrew Sullivan is all over Bush's speech and he is not a happy camper. He thinks Bush is running scared and using the issue to stir his base. I agree.
• I'm still waiting for a valid answer on why Andrew Sullivan should be taken seriously. /ducks and runs, covering head
• He shouldn't, goetter. He has been defending Bush for years and now he got screwed. Counterspin has a great post on this. GILD BIRD AND SULLIVAN: Now that President Bush has officially given Andrew Sullivan, and every other gay and lesbian American a big middle finger, he suddenly realizes that Bush is a "a simple man and he divides the world into friends and foes." Well...DUH! That's what we've been saying for years. Looks like the Sullen Man had his heart broken by a guy he has been defending for three years. Brad Delong notices that Bush has changed his view on state's right to decide on gay marriage.
• "Once Steve and Ted went to Toronto and actually got married, well, I realized that the institution of marriage was such a joke that I've had one affair after another."
• Here's a WAPO poll on gay marriage.
• The Constitution according to Bush.
• Okay seriously, I thought this thing had died finally. I've been doing a lot of pondering on this whole thing. I'm not utterly convinced that gays don't have a valid political right to marriage, though I am still absolutely against it on moral grounds. However, my line of thought has been thus: My job, as a Christian, is the Great Commission (preach the Gospel to all nations, creeds, tongues, etc.). Basically, love God, love people (as Jesus put it simply). So politics shouldn't enter into it. Now politically, given our system of freedoms and equality for all, I am beginning to suspect that there might not be a way to prevent gay marriage from getting legalized. From an equality standpoint alone, I've come to think that it is the only recourse, given our love of equality and our quest to preserve civil liberties. Since happiness (or the pursuit thereof) is part of that, gays, by political measures alone, should be allowed to marry. Morally is where I am completely against it. But where do morals and politics meet? Some might say religion, but I think it's more complicated than that. Answers, I hope, will be forthcoming. Just for the record, you all have helped me to figure out my stance a little better, and you've enabled me to acknowledge where I was wrong. My feeling is that behaviour and people don't change because of laws--they change because their hearts change. That is what the Gospels are about - heart change. So that's kind of where I'm at now. And just because self-linking is a funky issue right now on MoFi, here's a little blurb I wrote on how the gay movement may have shot itself in the foot, if not the leg, with the San Francisco stunt. I welcome any comments you might have on it.
• F8x - I think that was really brave, admitting that you had thought about and changed some opinions. Whatta guy!
• Rosie O'Donnell gets in on the action
• If the Governator doesn't countenance civil disobedience, what's with the Cuban cigars?
• Does anybody have anything else to add?...
• meh
• Yes! f8x deserves our thanks in unison. I still say, "Watta a guy!" He maintains his moral beliefs but still understands the problem with denying equality to gays. How many of us are able to say that we've come to similar realizations based on discussion on an internet site, or even in person? This is my absolute favorite thread, but only because of f8x's willingness to say what he did. He's my monkey hero.