by Tina Grazier
Newsflash: Hillary Clinton is definitely considering a run for the presidency. She issued a statement today in support of gay marriage:
“I support it personally and as a matter of policy and law, embedded in a broader effort to advance equality and opportunity for LGBT Americans and all Americans”
As I was contemplating what this means for her personally, I also had a few thoughts about the legal argument that the LGBT community is being denied a basic right if the Defense of Marriage Act, the law that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, is upheld by the Supreme Court later this year.
Marriage is one way that people choose to define their lives but it isn’t the only way that people choose to abide together. Seniors that have lost a spouse often choose to live with another widow or widower to share expenses and companionship. Single persons often decide to “shack up”, rather than commit to marriage. Groups of people choose to live together because the economy or their personal financial situation doesn’t allow an independent living arrangement. The legal and traditional definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman does not discriminate simply because any one man can marry any one woman and no one is forced into marriage.
Concerns expressed by the LGBT community center around tax advantages, healthcare coverage for dependents, and visitation and decision rights at hospitals that married couples enjoy. The LGBT community is correct that this isn’t fair. Our tax and healthcare (insurance) laws do discriminate. They discriminate against LGBT’s and they discriminate in a lot of other ways as well. Something should be done about it.
The logical solution would be to get the government out of people’s independent business. Our tax laws should not create categories of people so that different rules apply to different groups. Likewise any individual should be able to purchase healthcare coverage for any other person he chooses to cover and decisions about who can visit, or who will be a designated decision maker, when an individual is in the hospital should be private decisions.
The argument against traditional marriage is not a civil liberties argument. It is a social engineering argument. There is no need to destroy the marriage definition to address the concerns of the LGBT community.
The American people have shown the LGBT community a great deal of tolerance and inclusiveness over the years following the exit from “the closet”. Both socially and in matters of legal decisions accommodations have been made. The question is, does the LGBT community have the same capacity for tolerance and inclusion of those who value traditional marriage to compromise and work to change the tax and healthcare laws to put an end to discrimination and to create greater equality in tax and healthcare laws?
Unfortunately the political energy may be too great for the left to allow this to be resolved. Hillary is depending on the posturing that Christians who defend traditional marriage are hateful rather than principled to help her get elected. Man it would be lovely to end the war on marriage and stop the divisive argument but I doubt this will end any time soon. Democrats ask conservative republicans to deny their faith in God…what of their core beliefs are they willing to give up son we can all just get along? None that I have ever noticed. So…it will continue to be a verbal war.
P.S. What’s Love Got to Do with It? – Tina Turner
“Absolutely Nothin”! – Temptations (re: War)
Tina: “The legal and traditional definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman does not discriminate simply because any one man can marry any one woman…”
There are a few reasons this argument will not hold up in court.
1) Framing the issue in terms of gender, rather than sexual orientation, is actually counter-productive for your side. Gender discrimination is subject to a higher level of scrutiny in federal court. Sexual orientation is not (though it probably will be some day soon). Gender discrimination has also been ruled unconstitutional, and the state needs to have a very compelling interest in order to justify such discrimination. Marriage equality opponents haven’t provided any compelling state interest that justifies prohibiting two people of the same sex from having their marriages federally recognized.
2) This argument is, logically speaking, identical to arguments made by the state of Virginia in the case of Loving v. Virginia, in which the Supreme Court ruled that marriage was a civil right, and bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional. Here’s an excerpt of the state’s argument:
“Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=388&invol=1
Spoiler alert: They lost.
The state of Virginia argued that the law did not unfairly discriminate because it applied to members of both races equally. You argue that current marriage law does not unfairly discriminate because it applies to members of both genders equally. Do you see how the arguments are built on the same logical foundation?
3) Your argument begs the question: Why can’t two men or two women marry? I’ve already pointed out that the state has no compelling interest in refusing to recognize such marriages. Same-sex marriages provide the same benefits to society that opposite-sex marriages provide. Before you say “same-sex marriages don’t produce children,” let me point out that that’s irrelevant, because we do not require that opposite-sex marriages be able to produce children. Besides, producing children is very easy to do without getting married; procreation is not a benefit of marriage, responsible child-rearing is. Gay couples are currently raising children together in most states, and no studies have shown significantly negative outcomes (not that this would matter, since we don’t disqualify bad parents from marrying). Their children deserve the protection and increased security that having married parents offers. Gay couples are committing to each other, taking care of each other in sickness and health, and depending on each other so they don’t have to depend on the state. This has real, tangible benefits for society. They are living together as married couples, just like straight marriages. Many of them ARE married, even if the law doesn’t recognize that.
Your side has yet to produce a logical reason why they should be denied the same benefits (rights, actually, according to the Supreme Court) as the majority, simply on the basis of their gender composition. The discrimination they experience is real, and it is completely arbitrary. And you can stop it.
Tina: “Democrats ask conservative republicans to deny their faith in God…”
No, that’s not true. You can believe whatever you want without intruding on the rights of others. For example, the Catholic Church does not recognize most second marriages, but they have not to my knowledge waged a campaign to stop the government from recognizing second marriages. Newt Gingrich is currently married to his former mistress from his previous marriage, which violates both my morals and those of most religions, but I don’t believe we should pass a law saying that such couples can’t receive federal marriage benefits.
That’s the great thing about America: we’re a pluralistic society, and our rights only end where the rights of other begin. The idea that your beliefs are being oppressed because other people get to do something you disagree with is a huge indicator of unexamined privilege.
Chris I am perfectly happy to acknowledge same sex families. Marriage, in my opinion, is an impossible union for two people of the same sex or same gender. There is a reason it’s referred to as a “union”.
This post is an expression of my personal opinion about the things that have caused the definition of marriage to become a national issue. The gay community originally insisted that what they were engaging in was a different “lifestyle choice”. Their word not mine. A lifestyle is not a marriage.
Our tax laws with respect to married couples and certain laws that affect healthcare coverage are the primary factors that made this an issue. People should be free to insure whomever they want. Tax law should be simple and nondiscriminatory. People should be free to designate whomever they want to make healthcare decisions. They should be free to decide who can visit them in the hospital and who cannot.
Progressives (in the name of fairness and driven by emotion) looked for a quick fix to these problems. Marriage was not only a quick fix but could also be used politically. It doesn’t matter that the fix happens to seriously offend traditional Christians. (Although, strangely, many of them will defend Muslims whose religion doesn’t recognize LGBT’s or allow them even basic rights.)
My opinion is that our government should get out of the way by simplifying the tax code and getting out of healthcare entirely. Government intrusion into the private affairs of citizens is creating unnecessary division. It conveniently allows activists on the left to disrespect and demonize voices defending traditional marriage when most are simply defending the tenets of their faith. Calling them hateful or phobic is bigoted and unhelpful…but as I said, politically useful.
If government removed itself from intrusion people would be free to call their relationship whatever they want. It would allow those who intend to faithfully follow the Bible to do so without being targeted as hateful. Everyone could, once again, get on with his own life, mind his own business and, I believe, calm would be restored.
Tina: “Chris I am perfectly happy to acknowledge same sex families. Marriage, in my opinion, is an impossible union for two people of the same sex or same gender.”
I have a few responses to this point, and I’m not sure which to make first, so this might be a little jumbled.
First, let me point out that we are talking about civil marriage here. It is obviously not impossible for a same-sex couple to have a civil marriage; the fact that they’re already doing this in many states proves that it is quite possible. It would also be very possible to ensure that they get all of the federal benefits of marriage (with perhaps the sole exception of presumption of paternity) as well.
An example of an impossible marriage, I would say, would be between Rush Limbaugh and his sofa.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/limbaugh-mockingly-compares-gay-marriage-to-loving-his-couch-if-i-could-marry-my-sofa-i-might-think-about-it/
I hate to break this to Rush, but sofas cannot sign a marriage contract; they do not get hospital visitation rights or tax breaks; they are not consenting adults, but rather, pieces of furniture, though I can see how someone with Rush’s history would fail to understand the difference.
Tina, I understand that you have a personal and at least partially religiously informed definition of What Marriage Is, and you are entitled to that definition.
I think we have a tendency to talk past each other on this issue because when we talk about marriage, we’re talking about two different things. You’re talking about a platonic ideal of marriage, one that has been handed down by God. I see marriage as a human social creation, designed to serve human needs. The institution has changed in huge ways before as our social order has changed. One of the biggest was the acceptance of women as equals in society and in marriage; one could easily argue that this “redefined” marriage in an unprecedented way, at least in “Western” society. This change led to the acceptance of gay people as having equal dignity to straight people, and the equal dignity of their relationships as well. This calls for another change to marriage law. Since men and women are no longer seen as having separate roles in society and marriage, and since the state is required to treat them equally, it no longer makes sense for the state to say that only a man and a woman can marry. That is arbitrary sex discrimination, and serves no rational public purpose.
Everyone has their own personal definition of marriage. It varies from person to person, couple to couple. In a pluralistic society, it’s best to give people options whenever possible. Especially with sensitive issues having to do with religious belief.
“Our tax laws with respect to married couples and certain laws that affect healthcare coverage are the primary factors that made this an issue. People should be free to insure whomever they want. Tax law should be simple and nondiscriminatory. People should be free to designate whomever they want to make healthcare decisions. They should be free to decide who can visit them in the hospital and who cannot…My opinion is that our government should get out of the way by simplifying the tax code and getting out of healthcare entirely…If government removed itself from intrusion people would be free to call their relationship whatever they want.”
Tina, marriage is about a lot more than taxes and healthcare. There are 1,138 different benefits that come from civil marriage. Most of them cannot be privately contracted. You will never convince a majority of heterosexual couples to give up these benefits. The proposal to “just get the government out of the marriage business”–which is almost always coupled with the recommendation that we don’t recognize same-sex marriages in the meantime–is totally impractical. As an argument, it plays at equality without ever requiring the person making the argument to actually *do* anything to ensure that equality is acheived.
“It would allow those who intend to faithfully follow the Bible to do so without being targeted as hateful.”
But you’re not just asking to “faithfully follow the Bible.” You will still be perfectly able to follow Biblical teachings on marriage even when same-sex marriage is federally recognized. What you’re saying is that you should impose Biblical teachings on the rest of society. And not even all of it–not even most of it regarding marriage law!–just the part about homosexuality. You don’t argue that we should ban marriages such as Newt Gingrich’s marriage to his former mistress. You don’t argue that we should outlaw premarital sex. You do want to make divorce harder, but not as hard as the Bible recommends. This strikes many people–even many young Christians–as odd. It makes them think that you are simply using the Bible as an excuse, and that you really do have a specific problem with gay people, that you think their sexual sins are somehow worse than the sexual sins of straight people. It’s a double standard and it hurts your entire argument.
You are free to follow Biblical teaching in your own life and marriage even when same-sex marriage is federally recognized. No one will call you a hater or a bigot for doing so. But when you try to force others to follow your religious beliefs, that’s when we have a problem.
“Everyone could, once again, get on with his own life, mind his own business and, I believe, calm would be restored.”
Tina, when you voted to forcibly annul the marriages of complete strangers back in 2008, did you *really* see your actions as those of a person “get[ting] on with [her] own life” or “mind[ing] [her] own business?” Because…that’s not what you were doing. At all.
Chris: “…they do not get hospital visitation rights or tax breaks…”
My point exactly. It is the laws that govern healthcare and tax law that discriminate.
“I can see how someone with Rush’s history would fail to understand the difference.”
Nice try Chris. 1800 282-2882.
“There are 1,138 different benefits that come from civil marriage. Most of them cannot be privately contracted.”
I’d like a few examples that do not fall under healthcare and tax laws. There is no way to refute your claim without specifics.
“You will never convince a majority of heterosexual couples to give up these benefits.”
Benefits? What benefits? Like I said, I can’t refute the claim unless you actually make one.
Married couples are sometimes at a disadvantage as well. I haven’t bothered to count the ways but I do recall when I opened my shop if I made too much money it would throw us into a higher tax rate. This was an unfair disincentive for me to make money!
Let’s face it the government intrudes way to much into the affairs of citizens!
“The proposal to “just get the government out of the marriage business”–which is almost always coupled with the recommendation that we don’t recognize same-sex marriages in the meantime–is totally impractical. As an argument, it plays at equality without ever requiring the person making the argument to actually *do* anything to ensure that equality is acheived.”
I do not agree that marriage is a right. I do not agree that marriage can be engaged in by people of the same sex, multiples of people, or any other configuration that is likely waiting in the wings to be codified. Therefore from my perspective you have no argument.
I do believe that once “we” open the gate to “gay marriage” it will not be the only configuration that “we” must make legal so as to not discriminate unfairly. The problem is that America was once a nation of free individuals and now American has become a giant “we” with big government used as the force to control how “we” may or may not live.
Marriage is a contract wherein two people of the opposite sex agree to remain together and provide a secure home for the children they bear together. This was the purpose for marriage and we have done enough already to tear at the fabric of the traditional family that is the fundamental basis for civilized society. We have ripped at the marriage law making it easy to both enter into and end a marriage. We have coarsened society and degraded established moral underpinnings to make anything acceptable and to facilitate political/legal change. But society has not improved with this change. We have women choosing to have children without benefit of marriage and the streets are filled with children who don’t know and never had the benefit of a father in the home. We have prisons filled to the brim and adult children that have not been adequately prepared to accept adult responsibilities. This isn’t just about my religious beliefs, Chris. This is about the strength of our society…and it’s about the language. Marriage isn’t anything “we” say it is…but it will be in thirty years if we fail to preserve it now.
We have spoken before about families with different configurations, adoptive parents, second family marriages, same sex couples with family who live together and share a home. I personally have respect for their choices and believe they deserve to be treated with dignity. I don’t think they should be discriminated against. That is why I point to the tax, regulatory, and healthcare laws as the problem.
“What you’re saying is that you should impose Biblical teachings on the rest of society.”
No, what I am saying is the government should be neutral. Our government has thousands and thousands of laws that discriminate…none of us is treated equally under the law! The more rules they write the more division we seem to have.
If “benefits” are the problem then I say eliminate the discrimination in the benefits and eliminate the the taxes laws that discriminate.
“You don’t argue that we should outlaw premarital sex.”
I argue that government should be neutral and hands off. As for premarital sex, easy divorce and other modern day mores, including the gay lifestyle, I don’t prefer to use the law to decide what people can and cannot do. I don’t think it’s necessary for anyone to know or be interested in how other people choose to live. I would look to people to start being more responsible toward each other and toward all children. We have, IMHO, gone too far in the direction of moral decay and sexual display. What was once considered matters of personal choice and private personal business is now all out in the open.
I believe children deserve a childhood, a time of innocence, and whenever possible, to know and live with the two people who joined together to bring them into the world. I believe our society should encourage that for the good of future generations and society as a whole. My position happens to be centered from Bible teaching but it is not exclusive to religious thought.
There is a lot of evidence that the break up of the traditional family, particularly in the black community in America, has been very destructive.
“But when you try to force others to follow your religious beliefs, that’s when we have a problem.”
I will remind you that it is not I who is forcing a belief or a change. Marriage as between one man and one woman is a union/contract that has been recognized for centuries.
It is the gay community that is forcing change. I am simply defending marriage as it has been understood and accepted…even by the gay community that once called their’s a “personal choice” or a “lifestyle choice”.
If you are going to back the gay communities activism against traditional marriage you should at least be honorable enough to stand behind the fact that it is their activism that frames the topic as everybody’s business and shoves it into every home and every school house and every church.
“…when you voted to forcibly annul the marriages of complete strangers back in 2008, did you *really* see your actions as those of a person “get[ting] on with [her] own life” or “mind[ing] [her] own business? Because…that’s not what you were doing. At all.”
Spare me the drama!
I saw myself as someone that had been forced to take a stand that, as uncomfortable as it was, had to be taken.
I was in favor of the concessions and changes that have been made in California to accommodate the gay community and for the very reasons you have enumerated. Our tax, regulatory, and healthcare laws should not discriminate or make life decisions impossible.
I believed that the creation of civil unions was an acceptable compromise in California. But as with every leftist cause, when concession after accommodation after concession is made it is never enough.
It’s like this with everything progressive and if you had experience under your belt to notice, you might actually see that all of the meddling has screwed the country up big time.
In “progressive world” there are never enough taxes, regulations, or controls to force and shape society. The cause de jeour is a never-ending expensive court battle and at the heart of everything they do. Sorry Chris, IMHO, they have pushed too far this time.
They have done the same with abortion which was at the time of Roe going to be RARE…now school administrators deciding with/for an underage child without his parents knowledge or permission for her to have an abortion is acceptable in some schools. Lowering the age of consent to please the pedophiles is on the horizon. “Marriage” between two or three people is standing just around the corner.
You are naive enough to think this is all about civil rights and the law…fairness and all that. It is not! The radicals in your party want to fundamentally transform America. This is how they do it…by incremental change.
It’s fairly clear that I may not win this argument, that many people will see what I have to say as old fashioned, out of touch, or insensitive. But I stand by my position. And, at least for now, I still have the right to express my opinion and defend my position.
Watching Bloomy in New York, Obama/Reid in DC, DiFi, Boxer and the rest I’m not sure how long free expression will continue.
Tina: “I’d like a few examples that do not fall under healthcare and tax laws. There is no way to refute your claim without specifics.”
I find it shocking that, after years of publically opposing same-sex marriage, debating with marriage equality supporters, voting to forcibly annull same-sex marriages which had already been done…you’re now admitting that, hey, you don’t actually have any idea what’s at stake for gays and lesbians when it comes to this issue. Apparently, you never felt the need to inform yourself about what, exactly, you were taking away from these people. You should be ashamed of this.
Here is a table from the Government Accounting Office which outlines the 1,138 federal benefits of marriage. It does not list every benefit, but simply groups them into categories. You will see that marriage law has a lot to do with veteran’s benefits, Social Security, Medicare, immigration, court cases, survivor’s benefits, insurance, employee’s rights, and many other aspects of life. It’s not just about taxes and visitation rights, though those are not small concerns.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
“I do not agree that marriage is a right.”
In all fairness, it doesn’t really matter whether you think marriage is a right. The Supreme Court is bound by legal precedence, and they ruled in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is indeed a civil right. You may not agree, but in the eyes of the law, this is no longer an open question.
Had the court not ruled that marriage was a right, states would not only still be allowed to ban interracial marriages, they would also be able to put all sorts of restrictions on who can and cannot marry. Perhaps some states would finally get serious about that whole “marriage is for procreation” thing that SSM opponents like to pretend to believe, and ban the elderly or infertile from marrying. By your logic, that would be perfectly constitutional, since marriage is not a right.
Luckily, your view that marriage is not a right was rejected by the courts half a century ago. I keep telling you, Americans are not interested in fighting the battles of the 20th century. Insisting that we do so is going to kill your party.
“I do not agree that marriage can be engaged in by people of the same sex, multiples of people, or any other configuration that is likely waiting in the wings to be codified. Therefore from my perspective you have no argument.”
That’s because you’re talking about “What Marriage Means to Me,” which is good for a personal essay, but won’t hold up in court. My argument doesn’t need to please you or fit into your personal, subjective idea of What Marriage Is. I have a *legal* argument on my side, and you do not. Since we are talking about civil marriage, you should consider this a problem.
“The problem is that America was once a nation of free individuals and now American has become a giant “we” with big government used as the force to control how “we” may or may not live.”
No, the problem is that you want to hold on to a nostalgic idea of a time when “America was once a nation of free individuals,” but you can’t pinpoint exactly when this was, since the “big government” you hate started to grow around the same time as Jim Crow laws were repealed. The time you speak of never really existed. If you disagree, please tell me what years you are referring to.
“Marriage is a contract wherein two people of the opposite sex agree to remain together and provide a secure home for the children they bear together.”
So…are childless marriages not real marriages, then? Come to think of it, I’ve never even heard children mentioned in the marriage vows at any ceremony I’ve been to. I am sure many married couples do pledge to raise children together, but many do not, and the law certainly does not require it. So forbidding same-sex couples from marrying on the basis that they cannot procreate is nonsensical.
“No, what I am saying is the government should be neutral.”
Not recognizing same-sex marriages is not a neutral position. The neutral positon is to allow both same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples to legally marry.
“If “benefits” are the problem then I say eliminate the discrimination in the benefits…”
I find it very odd that someone who claims to want to promote and strengthen marriage…wants the government to totally disincentivize the institution.
I can’t believe I actually have to explain this, but let me tell you what will happen if you take all of the federal benefits out of marriage: less people will get married! You will have more people cohabitating, which has been correlated with less success for children of such couples. You will have more open relationships and infidelity, since people will think, “Hey, we never made it official.” You will have huge conflicts over inheritance, visitation rights, taxes, social security, survivor’s benefits, immigration, insurance, and all the other issues I mentioned earlier. None of these are easily resolvable. And even if they were by themselves, it would still be harder to deal with each of these issues seperately than it is to simply bundle them under the umbrella of “marriage.”
But this is all a moot point anyway, since your opinion is so radical and impossible to implement that it will likely never happen. Again: you will never convince the majority of married couples to give up all the benefits of marriage.
There are people who agree with you that we should take away all the government benefits of marriage, but these people are usually far-left, and against the institution of marriage entirely. While I think their main goal is ridiculous, I at least respect some of them (like my brother) who argue that, *in the meantime*, we should allow same-sex married couples to receive all the same benefits that opposite-sex married couples do. That is an equal solution. Your proposal–that we get rid of all marriage benefits entirely, and while we wait for that absurd pipe dream to come true, don’t allow same-sex couples to legally marry–is not equal. It entrenches legal discrimination for no reasonable public purpose.
“I believe children deserve a childhood, a time of innocence, and whenever possible, to know and live with the two people who joined together to bring them into the world. I believe our society should encourage that for the good of future generations and society as a whole.”
I agree wholeheartedly. But marriage equality does not impede on that goal in any way.
“There is a lot of evidence that the break up of the traditional family, particularly in the black community in America, has been very destructive.”
Yes, which is why we should strengthen ALL families, not just the ones you approve of.
“I will remind you that it is not I who is forcing a belief or a change. Marriage as between one man and one woman is a union/contract that has been recognized for centuries.
It is the gay community that is forcing change.”
A change that in no way affects your life. You do not get to compare your interference into the personal lives and decisions of others to…people making decisions that you do not agree with. You don’t have any right to stop a “change” that does not harm of affect you, just because you disagree with it, when that change is to recognize the constitutional rights of your fellow citizens. Your rights end where others’ begin.
“I am simply defending marriage as it has been understood and accepted…”
No, you’re not. Marriage between a man and a woman is not in any danger. You can still marry someone of the opposite sex when same-sex marriage is enacted. You are mistaking an expansion of rights for an encroachment on your own. This is a symptom of unexamined privilege.
And you know what? The state of Virginia also thought it was “defending marriage as it has been understood and accepted.” So did those who opposed women’s suffrage. So did those who opposed women working outside the home, or gaining any kind of rights of their own. The “tradition” argument is not compelling. It has been tarnished by association with extremely bigoted movements.
“If you are going to back the gay communities activism against traditional marriage”
Once again: They are not “against” traditional marriage. That is a total lie. You still have the right to enter into an opposite-sex marriage. Your ability to do so is in no way impeded. Setting up “traditional marriage” and same-sex marriage as competitors is a totally dishonest way of framing the issue. They aren’t competing for space.
“you should at least be honorable enough to stand behind the fact that it is their activism that frames the topic as everybody’s business and shoves it into every home and every school house and every church.”
Ridiculous. Let them marry, and it won’t be an issue any more.
“Spare me the drama!”
Show me some empathy.
“I saw myself as someone that had been forced to take a stand that, as uncomfortable as it was, had to be taken.”
I’m sure these people felt the same way.
http://tinyurl.com/d7qzu6j
http://tinyurl.com/brao2kp
http://tinyurl.com/dxfxw8j
There have always been people compelled to take a stand against equal rights. In the end, you all lose.
“I was in favor of the concessions and changes that have been made in California to accommodate the gay community and for the very reasons you have enumerated.”
They don’t want your “accomodations” or your “concessions.” Jesus. They want equality. Separate is never equal. Read a book some time.
“I believed that the creation of civil unions was an acceptable compromise in California. But as with every leftist cause, when concession after accommodation after concession is made it is never enough.”
You’re damn right it isn’t enough. Equality will be enough. Anything less is un-American.
“Lowering the age of consent to please the pedophiles is on the horizon.”
And what is it about the acceptance of gay marriage that makes this seem more likely to be successful to you? This is a complete non-sequiter unless you believe that gay people are comparable to pedophiles. Perhaps you, like Rush, don’t understand this whole “consenting adult” thing. A marriage between two consenting adults is *fundamentally unlike* a marriage between an adult and a child, who cannot consent. There is no point in comparing the two. Arguing that one will lead to another is illogical.
““Marriage” between two or three people is standing just around the corner.”
This actually would be impossible, at least under our current framework. The rights and benefits of marriage would have to be completely restructured in order to fit polyamorous groups into the system.
Ironically, your argument–that we should eliminate marriage benefits entirely, so as not to discriminate between married and non-married people–actually makes poly marriage more likely to be accepted, because it eliminates the structural obstacles that polyamorous people would have to face in order to restructure marriage to apply to them. So…congratulations on that spectacular failure.
“You are naive enough to think this is all about civil rights and the law…fairness and all that. It is not! The radicals in your party want to fundamentally transform America. This is how they do it…by incremental change.”
Not all change is bad.
“It’s fairly clear that I may not win this argument,”
You won’t.
“that many people will see what I have to say as old fashioned, out of touch, or insensitive.”
Have you ever stopped to consider that your argument might simply be *illogical?* Seriously, I can’t find one point against same-sex marriage you have made where the premises add up to the conclusion. All of them contain non-sequiters and leaps of logic. It’s not just that your position is old-fashioned, out of touch, or insensitive. It is all of those things, but more importantly, upon evaluation it just *doesn’t make sense.* That is why you will lose this argument: on the merits. Not because of the PC police, or modern sensibilities, or an aversion to tradition, but through that most timeless and fair of murderers: reason.
I close with a quote enshrined on the Jefferson Memorial, which seems so fitting for today:
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” –Thomas Jefferson
One more thing, Tina: Since you are so against Big Government intervention in marriage, can I assume you are crossing your fingers, hoping that the Supreme Court will overturn the Defense of Marriage Act today? After all, DOMA asserts that there is a federal definition of marriage, and that the federal government gets to decide who is and isn’t married, even though traditionally that right has been reserved to the states.
Since you are such an advocate for decisions being made at the most local level possible, do you stand against DOMA’s clear violation of states’ rights?
Or are you OK with it, since it bans gay marriage?
Chris: “…you’re now admitting that, hey, you don’t actually have any idea what’s at stake for gays and lesbians when it comes to this issue.:
You made a statement Chris without backing it up. I ask for examples so we can discuss them and this is the best you can do?
“…1,138 federal benefits of marriage. It does not list every benefit, but simply groups them into categories. You will see that marriage law has a lot to do with veteran’s benefits, Social Security, Medicare, immigration, court cases, survivor’s benefits, insurance, employee’s rights, and many other aspects of life. It’s not just about taxes and visitation rights, though those are not small concerns.”
Once again, the problem is not marriage law. The problem is that our tax, healthcare and other laws and regulations discriminate. Lifestyle preference isn’t the only area where these laws discriminate. They discriminate in a very big way against the rich!
This was my original premise, the actual title of the piece, which I’m certain you, being a stickler for titles, have noticed!
“The Supreme Court is bound by legal precedence, and they ruled in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is indeed a civil right. You may not agree, but in the eyes of the law, this is no longer an open question.”
While it is accurate to say that the court respects and is influenced by precedence, I don’t believe it is accurate to say that the court is bound by legal precedence.
A court decision that determined what two consenting adults do in private is their own business…that they have a right to do whatever they both consent to in their home may or may not translate to marriage. I found remarks made by Justice Sotomayor interesting today.
The Wall Street Journal:
“Had the court not ruled that marriage was a right, states would not only still be allowed to ban interracial marriages…”
The court ruled that black men and women could marry white men and women. The ruling was about the fundamental “human” right of a blacks person. When they made that ruling the terms “gay marriage” and “same sex marriage” were not in the lexicon. It was understood by everyone that marriage was a contract between one man and one woman. So the assumption that the courts meaning was that marriage itself is a right is, I believe, mistaken.
Wikipedia:
Notice that the ruling overturned a previous court decision (precedence).
“You’re damn right it isn’t enough. Equality will be enough. Anything less is un-American.”
It’s a damn shame that people that have been brave enough to come out of the closet and declare their different lifestyle choices as valid do not feel confident enough to go ahead and live that life. Suddenly a different lifestyle isn’t so hot and centuries of history regarding marriage must be ignored so that government benefits can be secured…and oh yeah, because they love each other.
People make all kinds of lifestyle choices that mean they also give up certain things. People who enter the military get to give up some basic rights and freedoms. People who choose to be priests give up the perks of marriage. People who become surgeons must spend a lot more time and expense to establish a career. In the process they miss out on a lot of meals, sleep and parties and they usually end up with a chunk of debt. People choose to divorce. The change means a different set of rules will apply and life will not be the same. Life is not fair for anyone and our laws discriminate in many and various ways.
“And what is it about the acceptance of gay marriage that makes this seem more likely to be successful to you…”
See Sotomayer above. It isn’t about gay marriage but what changing the definition of marriage would mean. Chris my arguments are not made from any emotional position. I don’t have any desire to see people hurt. I think it is important to get this right because I think that the ruling could open a big door that could lead to further destruction of our society and harm to the children of that society.
“The time you speak of never really existed. If you disagree, please tell me what years you are referring to.”
Prior to 1935 the people of this nation were much freer than we are today. After 1965 the federal government grew very fast. In general terms people were individuals living with a much smaller federal government. It isn’t about nostalgia. It is about the heritage of this nation, the republic we were given, and the freedom that individuals are guaranteed under the Constitution.
“…forbidding same-sex couples from marrying on the basis that they cannot procreate is nonsensical.”
Forbidding? Oh I see, what was once an explicitly defined word, agreed to by everyone, traditionally intertwined with procreation and the establishment of family, extended family and ancestral ties, and has been considered the cornerstone of modern civilization must now be changed because sometimes there are exceptions. Nobody has forbidden anyone from entering into marriage. Marriage is a word with specific meaning. You are attempting to change that word and in the process change what it means for all people. It isn’t just the word marriage either. Some gays are demanding that official birth certificates must be changed…mother and father are no longer acceptable. They want them changed to “parent one and parent two”. Other words will need altering. Wife and husband for instance. As a matter of personal use it may not make a bit of difference but when it comes to documents change will come.
“I can’t believe I actually have to explain this…”
Well perhaps that’s because you are behaving like an arrogant a**!
“…let me tell you what will happen if you take all of the federal benefits out of marriage: less people will get married! ”
Well you certainly do represent the dependency wing of your generation!
Before federal benefits, back in the olden days, practically nobody ever married or had children and provided for them themselves. Nobody understood what marriage was either. Nope! Everybody looked to Uncle Sam to provide and they were all bunch of helpless narcissistic do nothings with their hands out!
What you describe Chris is a generation without moral underpinnings, without standards, and without a sense of personal responsibility. good luck with that. But as long as we get whatever we want as soon as we demand it…what could possibly go wrong. And they called the boomer generation selfish! We ain’t seen nothing yet. Your generation perfectly reflects big government as described by President Ronald Reagan…a baby with “…a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”
“The “tradition” argument is not compelling.”
Yeah because the alternative is working out so well for America. The changes that were pushed by radicals in my generation have brought us broken homes, grown children without the ability to take care of themselves, single mothers dependent on government instead of husbands, prisons filled to the brim, alcohol and drug related problems, epidemic sexual diseases, young children having sex in school, teachers of both sexes engaging in sexual relations with their students, women murdering their own children, teens so confused about what is important in life they are tuning out completely and turning to violence as a means to “being important”…must I go on? Unfortunately I could go on; it’s that bad!
“It has been tarnished by association with extremely bigoted movements.” Women working in their homes was not a “movement” designed by bigoted men. It was what people did. It was how they lived. Emotional women designed a movement because they needed a cause to feel important and an organization to legitimize their bullying tactics. Individual women actually did the work necessary to expand their horizons. They could have done it without a lot of the hystrionics…in fact most of them did. They did it by going back to school or applying for jobs that they wouldn’t have thought to apply for before.
“They are not “against” traditional marriage.”
I said they were waging war against traditional marriage. Once the definition is changed marriage as we have known it will never be the same. You cannot pretend that since they want the definition changed they do not want to change what is meant by the word. That’s ludicrous!
We are not interchangeable generic human units…we are male and female human beings. The difference between the sexes is an important element of traditional marriage…even when there are exceptions as when a man and a woman cannot reproduce.
“Show me some empathy”
I have shown empathy. But your request suggests that this issue is based purely in emotion. I don’t think that is the approach we should take when considering the laws of the land. How I feel about gay people or the3 challenges they face because of their choice to live differently isn’t the issue. We are all human beings with challenges…why are their challenges so special that they demand a fundamental change to a word and its traditional specific meaning? Why do their challenges require that everyone else just roll over and accept a definition they made up?
Just because you can’t understand my position doesn’t mean it isn’t logical. Two men acting as if one of them is female is fairly illogical biologically speaking but we are not allowed to consider that aspect of the issue…that is off limits. It is totally not PC. Children know best.
Please remember that Jefferson lived in a time when terms like “gay marriage were never uttered. The quote is lovely but not necessarily appropriate to this discussion. Gay marriage is quite possibly a trend that, like many trends, will one day lose its attraction and go out of style. Changing the definition of marriage and marriage itself should be preserved and for the reasons I have articulated.
It is unfortunate from my perspective that DOMA was ever necessary.
As most people who honor the laws of the land will do, I will accept whatever the Supreme Court decides. I can’t say the same will be true for those on the extreme progressive left should things not go the way they prefer. They have already shown they have no respect for traditions, for the established Constitutional method for making laws, or the decisions and will of the people and the courts.
I stand by my assertion that the marriage law does not discriminate. Tax laws and healthcare laws do discriminate unfairly for families that are not traditional…that should be changed. I have not suggested that all of the laws must be “thrown out” but I do suggest we’d all be better served if they were simplified.
Tina: “Prior to 1935 the people of this nation were much freer than we are today.”
I had a long, point-by-point reply planned, but do I really need to reply to anything other than this insane statement to show how morally corrupt your ideology is?
I mean, for God’s sake, Tina. You’re actually saying that our nation was more free when Jim Crow laws were still in place in most of the South. When lynchings were common. When black people couldn’t get a fair trial, eat at the same lunch counters or go to the same theaters as white people, or marry a white person. When most sports teams and colleges were segregated by race and gender. When only 5% of women went to college. When only a fourth of women were gainfully employed, mostly in domestic jobs or as teachers or nurses. When “Irish Need Not Apply” signs were common. When anti-Semitism in America was common. When anti-Asian racism was common and enshrined into law. When child labor was legal. When birth control was illegal. When providing information about birth control was illegal. When the state could regulate what kinds of consensual sex acts a husband and wife could engage in, but marital rape was perfectly legal. When there were almost no women, blacks or Jews in Congress. When gays were forced to stay in the closet. When poor working conditions and low wages were standard.
And you think we’re less free because the government taxes rich people more and gives too much money to poor people. Boo fucking hoo.
Your definition of “freedom” is alien to most Americans. You can’t acknowledge or appreciate the huge gains we have made in ensuring freedom since 1935 because you only care about freedom for the privileged. Your understanding of history is abysmal. How can I expect you to understand that gays have a right to marry when you clearly don’t care about human rights at all? You claim to care about Constitutional rights, but you think that our Constitutional rights were better protected in 1935 than they are now. That is insane. You are beyond help at this point.
I feel the need to go back and respond point by point, since there are so many other errors of fact and logic in Tina’s last comment.
“You made a statement Chris without backing it up. I ask for examples so we can discuss them and this is the best you can do?”
Tina, my point was that the statement “Marriage is about more than just taxation and hospital visitations” shouldn’t really NEED to be backed up when talking to an adult who has been (and maybe still is, you’ve been vague on that point) married. You should already know this. Especially since you voted to take away federal marriage benefits from a group of citizens you morally disapprove of, I would expect you to know what, exactly, you were voting to take away. It is irrational and callous for you to have voted the way you did on Prop 8 without researching the benefits of marriage yourself and finding out what you were stealing from your fellow Californians.
But I did back my statement up anyway with the GAO chart, so your comment doesn’t make sense anyway.
“Once again, the problem is not marriage law. The problem is that our tax, healthcare and other laws and regulations discriminate.”
So we should get rid of survivor’s benefits, then, since they discriminate between married and unmarried people? The law should treat married couples the same way we treat strangers? Immigrants who marry citizens should get no preferential treatment when it comes to immigration? Married people should have to draw up private contracts for everything, including visitation rights, inheritance, insurance…? Why? So you can make some point about small government?
You haven’t thought this through at all.
“Lifestyle preference isn’t the only area where these laws discriminate. They discriminate in a very big way against the rich!”
Save the Rich!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_M8fOwHnwg0
I hope you’re enjoying your transformation into a cartoon stereotype of a Republican.
“A court decision that determined what two consenting adults do in private is their own business…that they have a right to do whatever they both consent to in their home may or may not translate to marriage.”
You’re talking about Lawrence v. Texas now, not Loving v. Virginia. Try and stay on topic.
“The court ruled that black men and women could marry white men and women. The ruling was about the fundamental “human” right of a blacks person. When they made that ruling the terms “gay marriage” and “same sex marriage” were not in the lexicon. It was understood by everyone that marriage was a contract between one man and one woman. So the assumption that the courts meaning was that marriage itself is a right is, I believe, mistaken.”
Had you read further into the Wikipedia page you quoted right after this statement, you would see that the court did clearly say that marriage was “one of the basic civil rights of man.” So you are mistaken: the court did rule that marriage is a civil right.
“Notice that the ruling overturned a previous court decision (precedence).”
Sure, precedence can be overturned, but there has to be a very compelling Constitutional reason, something the anti-gays have not offered. Once rights are granted to a minority group, they are very rarely revoked by the courts.
“It’s a damn shame that people that have been brave enough to come out of the closet and declare their different lifestyle choices as valid do not feel confident enough to go ahead and live that life. Suddenly a different lifestyle isn’t so hot”
Tina, FYI, no one still refers to homosexuality as a “lifestyle choice.” Homosexuality is not a choice. You are very confused on this issue.
“See Sotomayer above. It isn’t about gay marriage but what changing the definition of marriage would mean.”
But as I keep telling you, the definition of marriage has changed tons of times throughout history. Had the definition of marriage never changed, you would be the legal property of your husband, who would be able to take as many wives as he wanted, and you would have no rights of your own. When changes were made to this system, opponents of equality also invoked the slippery slope fallacy. “Where will it end? With women voting or running the country? Maybe they’ll institute a matriarchy, and become lesbian witches!” Let me defer to Joe Shaw’s recent post on the slippery slope:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/outsidebox/2013/03/28/slippery-slope-syndrome/
“Forbidding? Oh I see, what was once an explicitly defined word, agreed to by everyone,”
Marriage has NEVER had one meaning that was agreed to by everyone! Marriage has always meant different things to different people, both between and within cultures. It is absurd to argue otherwise.
“Some gays are demanding that official birth certificates must be changed…mother and father are no longer acceptable. They want them changed to “parent one and parent two”.”
So…deal with that then. If your main problem with allowing gay marriage is that you think it will lead to other problems, then focus on the actual problems.
“Other words will need altering. Wife and husband for instance. As a matter of personal use it may not make a bit of difference but when it comes to documents change will come.”
Even if I accepted this…what difference does that make to your life? What do you care what is written on a government document?
Tina, the consequences you’re bringing up that you think will come from gay marriage (maybe, some day) are so ephemeral, intangible and just plain trivial that I can’t take them seriously. Especially when weighed against the very tangible, real harms that same-sex couples are experiencing right now, in the real, non-hypothetical world.
“Well you certainly do represent the dependency wing of your generation!
Before federal benefits, back in the olden days, practically nobody ever married or had children and provided for them themselves. Nobody understood what marriage was either. Nope! Everybody looked to Uncle Sam to provide and they were all bunch of helpless narcissistic do nothings with their hands out!”
So, Tina, can I assume that when you got married, you and your husband chose to forgo a civil marriage, and only married in the eyes of the church? You didn’t take advantage of any of the federal or state benefits of marriage?
If not, then you don’t get to bitch about others getting these benefits. That would make you a gigantic hypocrite. (Though I suppose you’re used to that by now.)
My point was that, when you de-incentivize something, you get less of it, and when you incentivize something, you get more of it. I thought this was a commonly accepted principle on both the right and left. But apparently now, when I say it, it’s Big Government socialism.
“Yeah because the alternative is working out so well for America. The changes that were pushed by radicals in my generation have brought us broken homes, grown children without the ability to take care of themselves, single mothers dependent on government instead of husbands, prisons filled to the brim, alcohol and drug related problems, epidemic sexual diseases, young children having sex in school, teachers of both sexes engaging in sexual relations with their students, women murdering their own children, teens so confused about what is important in life they are tuning out completely and turning to violence as a means to “being important”…must I go on? Unfortunately I could go on; it’s that bad!”
So…deal with those problems. Gay marriage has nothing to do with them.
I’ll also point out that the “radicals” also brought an end to a lot of the problems I mentioned that existed in this country prior to 1935.
“Women working in their homes was not a “movement” designed by bigoted men.”
I didn’t say that.
I said that those who tried to keep women from having the option to work outside the home was a bigoted movement. As a woman who works outside the home, you can’t possible disagree.
“Emotional women designed a movement because they needed a cause to feel important and an organization to legitimize their bullying tactics.”
Jesus H….
“Individual women actually did the work necessary to expand their horizons. They could have done it without a lot of the hystrionics…in fact most of them did.”
“Hystrionics?”
Yeah, no, I agree. The same is true of the Founding Fathers. I mean, did they really have to dump all that tea in the harbor? Think about how that hit the profits of the East India Trading Company. But I am sure they thought this act of terrorism and thuggery was justified by their class warfare mindset! Pure Alinsky-ite tactics, that was.
And then to start an actual war, just because they emotionally felt like they weren’t being treated as free citizens? What drama queens. I am sure eventually the British Empire would have started to treat the colonists better, if they were good and didn’t act like such whiny, entitled brats all the time.
After all, the redcoats weren’t bigots! Taxing the colonists without representation was just how things were done in those days. It was tradition. I am tired of people being branded as bigots just because they believe in traditional monarchy! Why did the Founders feel the need to change the definition of what citizens were in order to fulfill their personal desires? Citizens are subjects of the crown. That is what they had been for centuries. And they wanted to change that definition just to accomodate their selfish lifestyle choices? Not on my watch!
Individuals who worked hard and took their lumps would have eventually been free from the crown. And then later, slavery would have ended by the free market, there was no need for that hysterical Abe Lincoln to start a Civil War. And segregation would have ended by itself; why did MLK have to whine about it all the time? And women would have eventually been allowed to vote. Y’know, when we got around to it.
Hopefully you see my point, Tina. Your attitude is what blunts progress. Nothing would ever get done without those you label “hysterical” and “radicals.” You should be as grateful to the women who fought for your right to vote and own a business as you are to the Founders who paved the way for you to have those rights.
“I have shown empathy.”
No. Annulling the marriages of people you don’t like is not “empathy.” Nor is saying “spare the drama” when I accurately describe what you have taken from these people.
“But your request suggests that this issue is based purely in emotion.”
No, it does not. It suggests that empathy is one component. It does not suggest that empathy is the only thing my position is based on, especially when I have given plenty of logical reasons why same-sex marriage should be legally recognized.
“Just because you can’t understand my position doesn’t mean it isn’t logical.”
Just because I point out your position isn’t logical doesn’t mean I don’t understand it. I understand it perfectly. I have given it a lot of thought. More than you have, evidently. That’s how I know it isn’t logical.
“Two men acting as if one of them is female is fairly illogical biologically speaking”
What. Are. You. Talking. About.
Are you actually saying that gay marriage is about “two men acting as as if one of them is female?”
How are you not constantly embarassed by the ignorance you reveal here?
“Please remember that Jefferson lived in a time when terms like “gay marriage were never uttered.”
But that’s exactly the point. Jefferson was wise enough to know that there were things to come in future generations that he could not predict. All the Founders did. That’s why they wrote such a flexible document and created a system that was open to frequent change. Jefferson advocated for a rebellion every 20 years! He wasn’t about keeping institutions pure out of tradition. The Constitution preserves rights, it doesn’t lay down rules written in stone; that’s not at all what the Founders were about.
That’s why Jefferson says that we need to use reason and new insight, not just tradition, to make law. He knew that future generations would know and understand things he couldn’t. I doubt Jefferson could have predicted that women would some day be viewed as equals to men and attend men’s colleges, but that doesn’t mean we never should have done that. Hell, Jefferson owned slaves! But his brillians was in constructing a document and a system that would be receptive to positive change. The founders did not acheive equal rights in their time, but they laid the foundation for equal rights to be acheived. That’s how they created the greatest system the world has ever seen.
To say that the quote is inapplicable because Jefferson didn’t know of the term “gay marriage” is to completely fail to understand the quote.
“It is unfortunate from my perspective that DOMA was ever necessary.”
What a complete cop-out. Just admit that you are pro-federal control when it gets you the result you want.
Tina, your “They should have just waited for their rights to come to them, the dirty hippies” position reminds me of a powerful poem by Langston Hughes, “Democracy:”
Democracy will not come
Today, this year
Nor ever
Through compromise and fear.
I have as much right
As the other fellow has
To stand
On my two feet
And own the land.
I tire so of hearing people say,
Let things take their course.
Tomorrow is another day.
I do not need my freedom when I’m dead.
I cannot live on tomorrow’s bread.
Freedom
Is a strong seed
Planted
In a great need.
I live here, too.
I want freedom
Just as you.
I don’t have a lot of time so I will respond to a few points now and hopefully return to some of the others later. I’ll start with old business.
An original assertion by you:
…was responded to by me with:
After which you wrote:
Not only have you avoided having to defend your position, that “most of them cannot be privately contracted,” but you avoided defending it by making disparaging remarks about my awareness of gay issues. This is a pattern of behavior that is prevalent among progressives, a bullying tactic that is both ugly and offensive.
The purpose in asking for an example was to open discussion about how the problems coul be solved. Your entire position rests on the notion that only by granting marriage to gays (as a right) can these problems be solved…it’s a crisis of discrimination and the courts must fix it!
But demanding a change to centuries of understanding about the meaning and definition of marriage to solve these issues for the LGBT community is actually an extreme, radical approach to problem solving. What you are saying is that if “most cannot privately be contracted” the only solution is to change the definition and meaning of marriage…and that is a lie.
The tax, healthcare, and inheritance laws that are at issue can be changed through the Constitutionally created legislative process. This is the appropriate process for addressing the 1,138 problems you refused to name.
As with Roe the LGBT community once again chooses to bypass that Constitutional process that grants all Americans a voice in the process.
In your latest comment you have chosen to once again resort to insult in order to converse about this. You wrote:
I heard from a tax perspective, its generally better to not be married, thats why so many oldsters do not remarry and just live together. -jack
Tina: “Not only have you avoided having to defend your position, that “most of them cannot be privately contracted,””
Tina, I defended my position by linking to a table by the Government Accounting Office summarizing 13 different categories of marriage benefits. I didn’t specifically explain which ones cannot be privately contracted, because I didn’t know that was what you were asking.
But it should be pretty easy for you, if you were to look at that list, to figure out which benefits cannot be privately contracted. For instance, spouses have the right to refuse to testify against one another in court. This right cannot be privately contracted through anything else other than marriage. Immigrant spouses have priority in immigration; that cannot be privately contracted through anything else other than marriage. Social Security survivor’s benefits cannot be privately contracted through anything else other than marriage. And what about family medical leave? You often compare gay couples to “roommates,” but employers don’t have to give you time off to deal with your sick roommate.
Now, you could argue that we should make it so that all of these things can be privately contracted without marriage. But that would do two things: 1) It would create more bureaucracy, more documents to sign, more government employees, more hassle for couples, and more red tape. And 2) It would persuade some people to believe that marriage really isn’t all that important, since they can get all of the benefits elsewhere.
I don’t see how either of these results could sound appealing to me. They don’t sound appealing to me, and I’m not the one constantly wailing about Big Government and the decline in marriage rates.
I don’t understand how someone who has spent years arguing that she wants to preserve and strengthen traditional marriage, now says she wants the government to totally de-incentivize the institution. I thought a basic conservative principle was that we should incentivize and promote good behavior. I’ve always agreed with this aspect of conservative thought. And now you’re going to abandon that?
“but you avoided defending it by making disparaging remarks about my awareness of gay issues. This is a pattern of behavior that is prevalent among progressives, a bullying tactic that is both ugly and offensive.”
Tina, you DID show a lack of awareness of gay issues. Pointing that out is not “bullying,” and it’s incredibly oversensitive and, one might say, PC of you to take it that way. There is nothing inappropriate about pointing out when someone has voted on a proposition without first informing themselves about what they were voting on. Especially when said proposition was over an issue that specifically targeted a minority group, and which was promoted by a campaign that was driven at least in part by moral disapproval and animus. (Go ahead, try and claim it wasn’t. I will counter with plenty of quotes from the Prop 8 campaign comparing gay people to child molestors and people who practice bestiality, and then we’ll see whether they were driven by animus or not.)
“The purpose in asking for an example was to open discussion about how the problems coul be solved. Your entire position rests on the notion that only by granting marriage to gays (as a right) can these problems be solved…it’s a crisis of discrimination and the courts must fix it!”
It is the only way the problem can be solved, just as integration was the only way the problems of segregation could be solved.
Your solution of “get rid of the marriage benefits” is impractical and will never pass, and even if it were ever enacted, would lead to many problems you haven’t anticipated.
“But demanding a change to centuries of understanding about the meaning and definition of marriage”
One more time:
People have already demanded a change to centuries of understanding about the meaning and definition of marriage. They were called women’s rights activists. By demanding that women be treated as equals to their husbands, they were demanding “a change to centuries of understanding about the meaning and definition of marriage,” which in those days meant that a wife was the legal property of her husband. And they were right to do so. Centuries of understanding about the meaning and definition of marriage was *wrong.* It did not agree with the Constitution or the notion that all people (not just men) are created equal.
Enough with the appeals to tradition. That shit wouldn’t fly with the founding fathers. The traditionalists, in their day, were those who wanted the colonies to remain loyal to the British Empire. The Founders were not traditionalists, they were forward thinkers. We have barely begun putting their radical notion that all people are entitled to equal rights into practice. Jim Crow laws weren’t repealed until nearly 200 years after they wrote the Constitution. That’s how ahead of their time these guys were! So enough of this “for centuries” BS. That’s not an argument for why we should keep doing something.
“What you are saying is that if “most cannot privately be contracted” the only solution is to change the definition and meaning of marriage…and that is a lie.”
Your definition and meaning of marriage is your own. I have my own. Ask ten people on the street what marriage is, and you’ll get ten different answers. You are allowed to keep your definition; no one can take it away from you. Similarly, you are not allowed to take the definitions of others away from them. In a free country, we give people options. Choices. Freedom. You don’t get to define a social institution for everybody. Worry about yourself.
“The tax, healthcare, and inheritance laws that are at issue can be changed through the Constitutionally created legislative process.”
Yes, let’s waste taxpayer money and many decades on an impractical plan to repeal all 1,138 marriage benefits that Congress has approved (through the Constitutionally created legislative process, I might add) throughout our country’s history in order to solve a non-existant problem that virtually no one cares about but you.
I mean, really? Are you high?
“This is the appropriate process for addressing the 1,138 problems you refused to name.”
I named several different categories. I am not going to name all 1,138 benefits. You do have access to the Internet, if you are really curious, you can look them up yourself.
“As with Roe the LGBT community once again chooses to bypass that Constitutional process that grants all Americans a voice in the process.”
That’s because, as with Roe, we are talking about a human right. Human rights are not supposed to be subject to a vote. That’s in the Constitution too.
“I also believe I have been quite clear about my married status. I have written about the business my husband and I run together on many occasions…not that my marriage status should be at issue in this discussion.”
Oh, of course not. The marital status of gay people should be an issue that everyone gets to vote on, but how dare anyone question your own!
I think the word “privilege” in the dictionary should have a big picture of your face next to it.
“I voted in defense of marriage…the word and the centuries old definition.”
No, you didn’t. Unless there was a vote to preserve the definition of marriage as “the legal ownership of a wife by her husband,” you did not vote to preserve the “centuries old definition” of marriage.
I have now pointed out to you several times that the “traditional, centuries old definition” of marriage was one in which women were not considered equals to their husbands, with equal rights, and yet you keep repeating your claim that you are trying to preserve this definition. If you make this claim again, you will be guilty of lying.
“Although I think the Bible is the word of God and serves as a moral guide to those with an ear to hear, I do not think it is my place to impose my beliefs on others and my belief DOES NOT suggest that I should have negative or hateful attitudes toward those who choose to live differently. It has nothing to do with how I feel about people. I love people…all people, as my faith also instructs me to do.”
Love is shown through actions more than words, Tina. You can say you love people all you want, but your actions are not loving.
“That wasn’t my original intention but since you brought it up, why do we put up with government treating us like small child slaves? We are capable of handling our affairs as adults. government intrusion drives the cost for everything UP! it imposes laws that by their very nature discriminate! Big government involvement in our affairs is a vehicle for buying votes and power. It is not the system of freedom that was devised by the brilliant founding Fathers…It’s astounding how quickly people have rushed to make government their dictator.”
Tina, since you believe that the marriage benefits we have been discussing make people “small child slaves” to the government, which has become their “dictator;” that they represent an “intrusion” that drives costs up; that they are simply used to buy votes and power; that they are discriminatory; and that they are the antithesis of what the Founders wanted…then I will ask you again:
Have you and your husband chosen to forgo the government benefits of marriage? Do you have a civil marriage, recognized by the government? Or did you nobly choose to marry outside of the intrusive, oppressive eye of the law, with its Big Government regulations?
Please answer this question; it is crucial to evaluating the sincerity of your position.