Marriage Trendlines

Kevin Drum looks at the trendlines in growing support for gay rights and concludes that a gay marriage referendum in California is likely to be a close-run thing. But of course whatever happens this November, this is essentially a fight the right has already lost. Individuals' views are evolving in a more pro-equality direction, but perhaps more importantly pure cohort replacement effects doom the conservative position on gay rights questions with equality enjoying overwhelming support among younger Americans.

And then of course there's the Ellen DeGeneres factor, as these days an openly lesbian woman can regularly attract a large audience of very middlebrow people and announce her engagement to a cheering studio audience.

Comments

What about the very real danger that legalizing gay marriage will make more and more kids decide to be gay?

Posted by Bill | May 16, 2008 2:29 PM

In 20 years, does anyone doubt that gay marriage will be widely accepted in the view of the law, regardless of how many people advocate for referenda banning it?

I suppose the true-believers really think that their opposition can stop gay marriage from happening, but well-informed opponents of gay marriage must realize that, at best, they're only forcing a longer public debate on the issue before it's finally aceded to.

Posted by Tyro | May 16, 2008 2:35 PM

The last thing we need is a bunch of homo fascists kidnapping our kids and turning them into Nazis! (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/9438.html)

Posted by lfv | May 16, 2008 2:38 PM

...make more and more kids decide to be gay

Go take a hard look in the mirror, Bill, because in twenty years what you see there is going to be on the wrong side of history.

Posted by Mark | May 16, 2008 2:41 PM

Tyro= I think even more opponents of gay marriage know they're just exploiting a wedge issue for short term political gain. The cultural right often does very well for themselves fighting retreat.

Posted by AJ | May 16, 2008 2:45 PM

Mark, Bill is just trolling. At least I fucking hope he is, or I'll lose even more faith in humanity.

Posted by Persia | May 16, 2008 2:45 PM

I am surprised at how moving this is to me. I mean, I truly feel a sense of pride and happiness knowing that my country is, at least once in a while, doing the right thing and operating in a way that truly makes life better for people. That's what it's all about.

Posted by abject funk | May 16, 2008 2:47 PM

Oh, Lindsay Bluth, I miss you!

Posted by Chris | May 16, 2008 2:53 PM

Yep, there is nothing quite like being exposed to the manifest normalcy of gay people on a daily basis (e.g., by watching Ellen) to counteract the feeling that gayness is taboo.

Posted by DTM | May 16, 2008 2:53 PM

These cultural war issues get feet moving in the boonies on election day but in an era of growing populism that doesn't necessarily benefit the Romney set.

I've said for a while now that gay marriage is the canary in the conservative coalition coal mine. Fiscal righties in the suburbs are likely to have gay neighbors, retailers, accountants, and so on and are embarrassed by the controversy. They donate all the money to the Party, so watch the issue go away.

Posted by Roboticghost | May 16, 2008 2:58 PM

Mark, Bill is just trolling. At least I fucking hope he is, or I'll lose even more faith in humanity.

Lighten up people, it was sarcasm.

Everyone knows kids don't "decide" to become gay, and that God just makes Satan go live inside of certain people whether they like it or not.

Posted by Bill | May 16, 2008 3:05 PM

Wonderfull.

Mathews to prong point seems to be
#1. Young people go were their led.
&
#2. Hollywood is leading them were it wants to go.

The fate accompli agrument saysc nothing about the merits of the argument.

The much larger social trend is twoard family fragmentation and its corallary of social breakdown.

With 42% illigetimacy rates the question for the youth should be "ought we redifine the foundational social institution of marriage?"

Posted by Fitz | May 16, 2008 3:06 PM

Wonderfull.

Mathews to prong point seems to be
#1. Young people go were their led.
&
#2. Hollywood is leading them were it wants to go.

The fate accompli agrument saysc nothing about the merits of the argument.

The much larger social trend is twoard family fragmentation and its corallary of social breakdown.

With 42% illigetimacy rates the question for the youth should be "ought we redifine the foundational social institution of marriage?"

Posted by Fitz | May 16, 2008 3:08 PM

Wonderfull.

Mathews two prong point seems to be
#1. Young people go were their led.
&
#2. Hollywood is leading them were it wants to go.

The fate accompli agrument saysc nothing about the merits of the argument.

The much larger social trend is twoard family fragmentation and its corallary of social breakdown.

With 42% illigetimacy rates the question for the youth should be "ought we redifine the foundational social institution of marriage?"

Posted by Fitz | May 16, 2008 3:08 PM

"I've said for a while now that gay marriage is the canary in the conservative coalition coal mine. Fiscal righties in the suburbs are likely to have gay neighbors, retailers, accountants, and so on and are embarrassed by the controversy. They donate all the money to the Party, so watch the issue go away.

Posted by Roboticghost | May 16, 2008 2:58 PM"

Good point. Plus, if their kids aren't gay, then their godchild is gay, or their best friend's kid, or their cousin or somebody is. It's just rather amusing these days watching young Republicans try to explain why they vote Republican to their gay friends: "Umm, it's not that I hate you or think you shouldn't have equal rights, but I just don't want to have my taxes raised 5% over 10 years to pay for this war I cheerlead without actually fighting."

Posted by Reality Man | May 16, 2008 3:08 PM

(sorry for multiple posts above)

"I've said for a while now that gay marriage is the canary in the conservative coalition coal mine. Fiscal righties in the suburbs are likely to have gay neighbors, retailers, accountants, and so on and are embarrassed by the controversy. They donate all the money to the Party, so watch the issue go away."

Yep - there's the defining trend, I have gay friends & retailers (I'm not sure about my accountant though.

I have seen a million different analogies toward this issue, from women's suffrage to the segregated south. The more proper an apt analogy would seem to be abortion.

The issue will continue to have real political and social resonance with succeeding generations as long as children need to know & be known by their mothers & fathers.

The importance of family formation for women, children, the poor & society will continue to resonate. The maintenance of standards will only be proved correct in the wake of marital redefinition.

As much as the left insists on framing this issue as a straw man "civil rights", the deeper more sophisticated principle will have the moral and intellectual high ground.

Posted by Fitz | May 16, 2008 3:22 PM

(sorry for multiple posts above)

"I've said for a while now that gay marriage is the canary in the conservative coalition coal mine. Fiscal righties in the suburbs are likely to have gay neighbors, retailers, accountants, and so on and are embarrassed by the controversy. They donate all the money to the Party, so watch the issue go away."

Yep - there's the defining trend, I have gay friends & retailers (I'm not sure about my accountant though.

I have seen a million different analogies toward this issue, from women's suffrage to the segregated south. The more proper an apt analogy would seem to be abortion.

The issue will continue to have real political and social resonance with succeeding generations as long as children need to know & be known by their mothers & fathers.

The importance of family formation for women, children, the poor & society will continue to resonate. The maintenance of standards will only be proved correct in the wake of marital redefinition.

As much as the left insists on framing this issue as a straw man "civil rights", the deeper more sophisticated principle will have the moral and intellectual high ground.

Posted by Fitz | May 16, 2008 3:22 PM

Fitz,

Many people, including me, view gay people wanting to get married, and in fact actually getting married, as a positive development for the institution of marriage. That is because we don't think gay people are taboo, and therefore we don't think gay people will magically corrupt whatever they touch. And that is why we don't see a need to defend marriage from gay people, and indeed see their participation in the institution of marriage as positive.

Posted by DTM | May 16, 2008 3:28 PM

I have seen a million different analogies toward this issue, from women's suffrage to the segregated south. The more proper an apt analogy would seem to be abortion.

Isn't this demonstrably false? Decades after Roe v. Wade, a talk show host wouldn't have gotten an ovation if she had announced she was getting an abortion. Yet already, gay marriage is cheered on day time talk shows. Furthermore, you don't see the sort of cohort differentiation on the issue of abortion that you see on gay marriage.

It won't do to claim that the gay marriage debate will mirror the abortion debate in the future because it already doesn't in the present and the trend lines show it only getting worse for social conservatives.

Posted by WillieStyle | May 16, 2008 3:29 PM

Fitz, since gay marriage does not in any way affect the ability of men and women to get married, you don't seem to be making much of a point.

Basically, there's lot of sound and fury now, but in the future, gay marriage will be something that in the future, people might not personally be thrilled with, but there will be little political dispute regarding its legality. And it's different than abortion because the anti-abortion movement can point to a tangible "victim" that needs to be defended by the act of changing the abortion law (the unborn child and/or the mother, depending on whom you ask).

Your claims only make sense if a gay couple marrying in any way hurts the marriage of a straight couple.

Posted by Tyro | May 16, 2008 3:32 PM

Don't know about elsewhere, but in California - old-fashioned 90 year-olds and up are pro-gay marriage. I had a neighbor, a hale and hearty woman born in 1904 who came to SoCal from Kentucky when she was a baby in a covered wagon and she was angry that gays were denied the rights that straight people have come to expect. This was a woman who thought prescription drugs were a hoax, who disdained doctors, and was about as "modern" as a ball of calico yarn.

Posted by Trevor | May 16, 2008 3:35 PM

"And that is why we don't see a need to defend marriage from gay people, and indeed see their participation in the institution of marriage as positive."

No doubt that is the line of reasoning.

But you mistakenly refer to their "participation in the institution of marriage" without realizing or conceding the fact that this changes the definition and therefore the social meaning and understanding of the institution itself.

Men and women are members of a class that can produce children. While any member of that class may not or cannot produce a child, they remain members of a class that can produce children. Same sex pairings can never produce children. They are members of a class that always and everywhere are incapable of producing children. Therefore same sex “marriage” necessarily severs marriage from procreation. It both androgynizes the institution and separates it from any necessary link to childbearing.

The homosexual movement affirms that gender is a deeply important human category. Sexual orientation as a concept presumes that gender exists and is an important category for human relationships. It would be odd to presume that gender is all important to adult romantic relationships, yet retains no significance beyond that.

Posted by Fitz | May 16, 2008 3:37 PM

WillieStyle,

Right, but the problem is that people like Fitz can't just come out and say being gay is an abomination (not anymore, at least). So, they try to recast gay people as somehow being a threat to children, since people generally believing in protecting children from harm.

The problem for people like Fitz is that gay people aren't a threat to children, nor are gay marriages, or so on. So if you untease their arguments to that effect, they always end up relying on some essentially magical ability of gay people to corrupt things.

But that is just the same sort of thinking that is behind calling gay people an abomination (taboo logic). And so with people increasingly not believing gay people are taboo, they also are becoming increasingly skeptical about these magical corruption arguments.

So, these arguments really are only a delaying tactic, and indeed are unlikely to survive much longer (from a historical perspective) than the more straightforward abomination arguments.

Posted by DTM | May 16, 2008 3:41 PM

this is essentially a fight the right has already lost.

Hm. While I take your point, Matt, I think that if you were gay you would not be so sanguine about this. My partner of 8+ years and I are frequently reminded that our relationship is second-class in this country, e.g., I'm on my partner's insurance plan but we pay taxes on my benefit because I'm "only" a domestic partner, not a spouse. There are, of course, myriad other tangible discriminations which make it clear that though progress is certainly being made, the game is not over yet, not by a long shot.

And in particular, what's scary about things like this CA referendum is that the bigots, though gradually dwindling in number (as they die off, mostly), still may have the bare majority to cement their bigotry by way of constitutional amendment and create a situation where, through the hurdles and inertia that face any legislative initiatve, it may be many years before the enactment can be overturned. Meanwhile, that's a lot of years to ask us to wait patiently for full citizenship.

Posted by Glenn | May 16, 2008 3:42 PM

The much larger social trend is twoard family fragmentation and its corallary of social breakdown.

The overwhelming social trend seems to be that the ability to write a couple of sentences without making an equal number of spelling mistakes is becoming a rare talent in the US.

Posted by novakant | May 16, 2008 3:45 PM

"It won't do to claim that the gay marriage debate will mirror the abortion debate in the future because it already doesn't in the present and the trend lines show it only getting worse for social conservatives."

We will have the considerable moral authority that comes with upholding the natural family. Of saying that children have a right to and society thrives when children are born into household with their own married Mothers & Fathers.

The opposition will have to explain how saying that "All family form is inherently equal" has not and does not undermine the standard of intact married childbearing.

Saying that two "mothers" or two "fathers" doesn’t undermine the idea that responsible procreation requires intact married childbearing & the rights of children to know & be known by their own mother & father.

Posted by Fitz | May 16, 2008 3:47 PM

Fitz, most people view marriage as a form of love and companionship and see children as a potential outgrowth of the relationship, not a means of having children.

My parents got married because they wanted to be married. While they also liked the idea of having children, eventually, if they were unable to conceive, then I'm sure they'd still be married and be living quite happily as a childless married couple. It doesn't strike me that such a situation would in any way demean the marriages of others.

Instinctually, most people understand this dimension of their own marriages and that children are a ppotential outgrowth of marriage, not the starting premise. That's why gay marriage, over time, gains acceptance.

I don't know why I keep arguing with people like Fitz, but part of the reason, I think, is because I have such a hard time understanding where people like him are coming from that I really want to see him flesh out his thought process so that I might understand it better. For the most part, his arguments just don't make much sense.

Posted by Tyro | May 16, 2008 3:48 PM

For example, see Fitz's 3:37PM post for a typical variation on the magical powers of corruption argument. Of course, it makes no real sense that gay people getting married will somehow sever the link between marriage and procreation, to the extent such a link already exists (of course, marriage has always been about regulating the relationship between the spouses as well, right back to the Code of Hammurabi). But Fitz has to come up with something like this, since again he can't just come right out and say gay people are an abomination.

Posted by DTM | May 16, 2008 3:51 PM

It both androgynizes the institution and separates it from any necessary link to childbearing.

Why is this link necessary?

...responsible procreation requires intact married childbearing & the rights of children to know & be known by their own mother & father

Huh?

Are you saying that adoption is immoral, because it violates the rights of the children to know and be known by their own mother and father?

Are you saying that if two gay men become married, I will forget who my parents are?

I don't understand the causal link between same-sex marriage and the inability of children to know who their parents are. Can you explain?

Posted by Brad L | May 16, 2008 3:52 PM

It both androgynizes the institution and separates it from any necessary link to childbearing.

Plenty of people get married, and stay married, without ever having any children. My parents, for instance.

Not having any invisible people bonds myself, I feel unqualified to make any statements on the fundamentals of marriage. But according to a stat I read on The Corner of all places, 30% of Americans support a constitutional ban on gay marriage. So it seems the theory about whether or not married gays will spoil it all for the rest of us will be tested empirically.

Posted by Roboticghost | May 16, 2008 3:54 PM

Men and women are members of a class that can produce children. While any member of that class may not or cannot produce a child, they remain members of a class that can produce children. Same sex pairings can never produce children

Because obviously such outré phenomenae such as adoption and sperm donation should be forbidden to The Gays, too! Gay people have produced children since the dawn of the human species, Fitz, get a clue.

Posted by Persia | May 16, 2008 3:56 PM

When countering the "your a bigot!" "your a bigot!" "your a bigot!" line of reasoning its important to center peoples minds on the very real change that is being proposed.

As Justice Cordy wrote in dissent,(and multiple S.C. dissents & majorities have stated) the majority of the court had -

“transmuted the "right" to marry into a right to change the institution of marriage itself.”1

"only by assuming that 'marriage' includes the union of two persons of the same sex does the court conclude that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples infringes on the 'right' of same-sex couples to 'marry'.”2

"[i]n context, all of these decisions and their discussions are about the 'fundamental' nature of the institution of marriage as it has existed and been understood in this country, not as the court has redefined it today.” 3

Maintaining that marriage's - “'fundamental' nature is derivative of the nature of the interests that underlie or are associated with it” -and that a an - “examination of those interests reveals that they are either not shared by same-sex couples or not implicated by the marriage statutes.”4

1,2,3,4, - Goodridge v. Dept. of Pub. Health,798 N.E.2d 941, 955 (Mass 2003)
(Justice Cordy dissenting)

People schooled in this debate typically refer to this as the difference between two distinct concepts of marriage.

That is:

the "Conjugal Conception of Marriage" VS the "Pure Relationship Theory"

The pure relationship theory only reaffirms adult romantic feelings and cannot speak to the realties of procreation, kinship, parenthood, nature, biology, or a call for self sacrifice and the maintenance of elemental social standards.

Posted by Fitz | May 16, 2008 3:57 PM

"Therefore same sex “marriage” necessarily severs marriage from procreation. It both androgynizes the institution and separates it from any necessary link to childbearing."

What has childbearing has to do with marriage? If that is the only rationale for legal marrriage, then couples should only marry when they have a kid, then divorce when the kids are legal adults.
I'll bet you'll get alot of pushback from the reichwingnuts on that one - means Daddy Dobson, Smitin' Pat Robertson, Pres Bush, all those bobblehead pundits have no legal right to be married anymore (ain't got no kids at home).

Posted by CParis | May 16, 2008 3:58 PM

Fitz said: Men and women are members of a class that can produce children. While any member of that class may not or cannot produce a child, they remain members of a class that can produce children.

If, as you say, someone cannot produce a child, how do they remain part of a class that can produce children? So men with testicular cancer shouldn't be allowed to marry? Women with ovarian cancer? In the end you end up splitting hairs about men or women having the meta-ability to procreate. DTM's right. You have no argument except gays are icky.

Posted by eriks | May 16, 2008 3:59 PM

30% of Americans support a constitutional ban on gay marriage

The same people who still think G.W. Bush is doing a great job, no doubt.

Posted by Persia | May 16, 2008 4:00 PM

Tyro,

From long experience, you really aren't going to get anywhere trying to make sense of their arguments, because they are just rationalizing magic.

Fitz at 3:47,

Well, since you have previously defined gay people as nonprocreative, then where is the problem? No children will be born to these people, and hence no children will be denied the right to know one of their natural parents.

Of course gay spouses might adopt, but that is also not a problem since in that case the child already has lost the ability to know their natural parents.

Posted by DTM | May 16, 2008 4:02 PM

"Because obviously such outré phenomenae such as adoption and sperm donation should be forbidden to The Gays, too! Gay people have produced children since the dawn of the human species, Fitz, get a clue."

Take a class in elemental biology Persia.

Yes gay "people" can produce children but a gay "couple" manifestly cannot.

In order for gay couples to raise children together they need to deprive those children of an intact married household bereft of either their natural mother or father.

To obviate this manifest reality and maintain it doesn’t do obvious and great damage to the public standard of intact married natural families is self delusional.

Posted by Fitz | May 16, 2008 4:04 PM

Can anyone name a couple more mismatched in terms of looks than Portia and Ellen? Billy Bob and Angelina, maybe?

Posted by Michael Bluth | May 16, 2008 4:05 PM

Fitz, then your problem is not with gay marriage per se, but the legality of gay couples (married or not) to raise children together. That is a different argument. However, it is an argument that was already lost before the gay marriage issue became a prominent one.

You haven't yet explained how it does damage to heterosexual marriages, except to simply claim that this is "obvious." Many people are quite secure in their own marriages and do not see the ability of gays to get married as hurting them. There may be some people who are annoyed that the social acclaim of being "married" may be accorded to gay couples, but that is looking at things as a zero-sum game.

Posted by Tyro | May 16, 2008 4:12 PM

Predictably, when pushed to defend his magical claims, Fitz is getting closer to just saying gay people are an abomination.

For example of course gay marriages entail the same "self sacrifice and the maintenance of elemental social standards" as straight marriages. That is unless, of course, one of your "elemental social standards" is about gay people being an abomination. Gay marriages certainly do violate that particular "social standard," which of course is the real problem here, even if Fitz won't admit it.

Posted by DTM | May 16, 2008 4:17 PM

"Men and women are members of a class that can produce children. While any member of that class may not or cannot produce a child, they remain members of a class that can produce children. Same sex pairings can never produce children. They are members of a class that always and everywhere are incapable of producing children. Therefore same sex “marriage” necessarily severs marriage from procreation. It both androgynizes the institution and separates it from any necessary link to childbearing."

(This statement again: this can be reduced to formal logical proof) The “necessary link” between childbearing and marriage, is that the later is exclusively limited to the only class of couples capable of bearing children. Once that link is broken it is the institution itself that has no necessary link to childbearing. If it (as a hypothetical) was granted ONLY to same-sex couples then it would have “necessarily no link” to childbearing.

With 42 percent illegitimacy rates I (along with supermajorities of Americans) find this to be more important standard to maintain than publicly reaffirming gay couples.

Most people are heterosexual and only opposite sex pairs can conceive children. Your standard explicitly states that a child’s natural Father (or Mother) is non-essential to marriage, that any combination of adult is sufficient. It further reinforces and locks in the notion that all family forms are inherently equal. They are not. Yes, there is a philosophical maxim that reads – “If it’s everything it’s nothing”. We can’t defend what we can’t define. You are attempting to severe marriage from its historical and biological heritage. The effect is to say that marriage is outdated and any family form including single parenting is acceptable.

As a legal matter the New York Superior Court's

Judge Graffeo noted….

“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”2

2 - Andersen v. King County (J. Graffeo concurring)

Posted by Fitz | May 16, 2008 4:20 PM

Fitz, reproduction is a component of marriage, but the central feature. Many straight couples never have children. Do you feel that their marriages are illigitimate?

And how is a gay couple adopting a child "depriving" that child of a mother and a father? If the child didn't have those gay parents, it would have a rotation of foster homes, or better yet nobody. Would that be more acceptable to you?

I can't believe any sentient human would write that "In order for gay couples to raise children together they need to deprive those children of an intact married household bereft of either their natural mother or father." Right, gay couples are raiding the homes of happily married straight couples, stealing their children, and depriving those children of their parents. No, actually, they're compassionately raising kids that wouldn't otherwise have a stable home.

Posted by greg | May 16, 2008 4:21 PM

After reading about how they're going to have to change the forms which currently have a place for the "bride" and "groom" to fill in their names, I've been thinking that not only is gay marriage not going to ruin the institution of heterosexual marriage as the critics claim, but it's also going to be beneficial by making us less constrained by traditional gender roles.

Personally, if I'm going to enter into a legally binding relationship with someone else, I'd prefer not to enter into the contract as a "woman" or a "bride" in the eyes of the government. My gender shouldn't have anything to do with my role in the agreement. I'd rather just enter into it as a human being.

Posted by former deaniac | May 16, 2008 4:21 PM

In order for gay couples to raise children together they need to deprive those children of an intact married household bereft of either their natural mother or father.

Holy shit. Life must be nice in Candyland. Let us know if you make it out to America, Fitz.

What is the percentage of American children being raised in a household with both biological parents? 50%? Maybe?

But I think your point is clear, friend. As long as divorce is illegal, gay marraige should be too. I support you 100% on that. I hope you will agree with the converse as well. Godspeed.

Posted by scythia | May 16, 2008 4:25 PM

Fitz, please explain this supposed link between gay rights and out of wedlock births. So straight people see gay people getting married and...what? Decide they don't want to anymore?

Posted by greg | May 16, 2008 4:29 PM

By the way, I want I note I fully support laws prohibiting gay couples from just stealing children from their natural parents. And everyone else in fact--no child stealing, please.

Of course, that isn't how gay couples typically end up raising children, and it should indeed be obvious that in cases such as adoption, one cannot blame the gay couple for the natural parents being unavailable for the adopted child.

I will grant, however, that when it comes to something like sperm donation or a surrogate mother, the gay couple is participating in the creation of a child that will not be raised by its natural parents (although it would be nice if people like Fitz made it clear that they thought sperm donation and surrogate mothers were abominations for straight couples too). But even then, it comes down to this question:

Would the child in question actually be better off never existing at all, rather than being raised by a gay couple (presumably including one nonnatural parent)?

Again, I think to answer "yes" to that question requires believing on some level that gay people are an abomination.

Posted by DTM | May 16, 2008 4:31 PM

"Your standard explicitly states that a child’s natural Father (or Mother) is non-essential to marriage ..."

Actually, gay marriages only imply that the married couple having natural children together is non-essential for the marriage to be valid.

Which was already true (married couples do not need to have natural children together in order for the marriage to be valid), so gay marriages don't change anything about that.

Posted by DTM | May 16, 2008 4:38 PM

Also, Fitz, I'll be sure to pass along your best wishes to my uncle. See, after my aunt's first husband skipped town, my uncle stepped in and helped raised two children he wasn't even biologically tied to.

What an abominable human being! Thinking only of himself, and the woman he loved, and two small children, while totally failing to consider the larger sociological impact of his actions on the institution of marraige!

Why, if he's not rebuked, who knows how many others will follow down his path, raising children they didn't sire, and in doing so destroying the foundations of our very way of life?

Better to throw these bastard progeny into the ocean--where they belong!!!

Posted by scythia | May 16, 2008 4:42 PM

I bring up this particular quote in order to reinforce the point I am trying to make, the status & moral authority of the author is beside my main point. It is perhaps the single most concise and well articulated understanding concerning the potential of redefining marriage.

"Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."

Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to Congress, Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC

Re Adoption
- When encountering such debates it is important to note….

According to statistics provided by both the National Survey of Family Growth and the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute there are approximately 120,000 children in the United States waiting to be adopted each year. About half of these children are adopted by family members, leaving about 60,000 children who are waiting to be adopted by non-related adoptive parents. By contrast, each year there are anywhere between 70,000 and 162,000 married couples in the United States who have either filed for adoption or in process of filing. That means that in any given year, there are between 1.2 and 2.7 married couples per waiting child. In other words, there is no child-centered need to open up adoption to homosexual couples.

"Fitz, please explain this supposed link between gay rights and out of wedlock births"

Gay 'marriage" reinforces the notion that all family forms are inherently equal and society & the state has no legitimate interest in promoting intact married childbearing.

Re: “abomination” – note: ( I have not used this word)

Posted by Fitz | May 16, 2008 4:44 PM

I eagerly await the wretching stories of these poor, stolen children, deprived of their opposite sex parents and condemned to the well-appointed dens of debauchery that those homos live in.

Posted by greg | May 16, 2008 4:45 PM

Yes gay "people" can produce children but a gay "couple" manifestly cannot.

Didn't I read recently that researchers had successfully created a mammalian embryo using two ova? If so, I'd say that the above argument is full of fail.

And anyway, one of the findings of the CA SC was that inability to procreate is not reason enough to deny someone the right to marry the person of his or her choosing. After all, we don't ban septuagenarians (or other infertile people) from marrying one another, even though they almost certainly won't be having any kiddies.

Posted by Anne | May 16, 2008 4:48 PM

The “necessary link” between childbearing and marriage, is that the later is exclusively limited to the only class of couples capable of bearing children. Once that link is broken it is the institution itself that has no necessary link to childbearing.

It should go without saying that this is a completely circular argument.

You have said: Marriage belongs to people that can bear children. Therefore, only people who can bear children should get married.

But there is no indication of why marriage should only belong to people that can have children (this is the "necessary" part that I was questioning), except for some vague reference to gay marriages creating a rise in illegitimacy (the causation here remains unexplained).

Posted by Brad L | May 16, 2008 4:49 PM

This is great news for divorce lawyers. For everyone else? Time will tell.

Question for lefties here: Is your grasp of nuance sufficient for you to understand that

1) You can think it's a bad idea to change the definition of marriage and

2) Not hate gay people?

I'd be all for civil unions for gays, giving them the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples, but the potential gains from changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions don't seem worth the potential downsides. Judging from the acceptance of gay celebrities like Ellen and the defeats referendums to legalize gay marriage routinely suffer at the polls, most Americans are in this "against gay marriage but don't hate gays" category. Why not have some respect for their opinion?

Posted by Fred | May 16, 2008 4:54 PM

Fitz,

So is every single straight couple seeking to adopt better qualified to be parents than every single gay couple seeking to adopt?

That is an absurd claim, even if you believe that all things being equal, a male-female couple is preferable to a male-male or female-female couple, because of course all else won't be equal when considering the full range of straight and gay couples seeking to adopt.

Again, I know you won't admit it, but this is typical taboo logic.

Posted by DTM | May 16, 2008 4:58 PM

The same people who still think G.W. Bush is doing a great job, no doubt

And the 30% that think the world is 7000 years old.

It seems the debate point here "Beware the gay cooties! They're after yer younguns!" and its just not playing well.

Fitz the 42% illegitimacy rate you're throwing around has a lot more to do with poverty than it does with what the exact rules of marriage are. It might behoove you and yours to tackle that first. Poor folks tend to have more kids in the first place, and economic uncertainty is more conducive to aberrant behavior, to the extent that producing kids without a government stamped marriage is aberrant.

Posted by RoboticGhost | May 16, 2008 5:01 PM

Fred--in 1948, when the CA SC struck down the ban on interracial marriages (Perez v. Sharp), popular opinion in the state was overwhelmingly against interracial marriages. Does that mean it would have been right to keep interracial couples from marrying?

(Hint: no.)

Posted by Anne | May 16, 2008 5:01 PM

I'd be all for civil unions for gays, giving them the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples

That's exactly what the CA decision does:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/15/california/index.html

It forces the gov't either to grant marraige rights regardless of sexual orientation, or remove "marraige" from the gov't vocabulary altogether.

Choice #2, IMO, is the better option, as it not recognizes conservative discontent, but further pushes gov't away from interference in private lives, and more towards its rightful role (in this case) as guarantor of contracts.

Posted by scythia | May 16, 2008 5:02 PM

Fred, I don't necessarily think that all people who oppose gay marriage hate gays. I do think that most of them are unable to justify their arguments against gay marriage. Because the justification seems to be "I just don't like it," over time people will become more accepting of the idea, and in the long term, opposition to gay marriage is a losing battle.

My main opposition to civil unions is just that it's a "compromise" position meant to appease the anti-gay bigots who do make up a significant fraction of those who oppose gay marriage, and it is better NOT to give them any concessions.

Posted by Tyro | May 16, 2008 5:04 PM

*as it recognizes, sorry.

and "marriage" is spelled like this.

Posted by scythia | May 16, 2008 5:06 PM

I'd be all for civil unions for gays, giving them the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples

California law already does this. The court found that the separate-but-equal construction did not pass muster under Equal Protection.

I'm with Scythia: leave "marriage" to the religious sphere, to be defined however a religious institution chooses, and keep civil unions as the legal version, open to all (all consenting adults, of course).

Posted by Anne | May 16, 2008 5:08 PM

it is better NOT to give them any concessions.

Totally disagree, and I was thinking of this in the shower, so I'm glad you brought this up.

I think meaningless concessions are a pretty good thing to give. It allows your opponent to save face, and significantly reduces resentment and the actions that arise therefrom.

But that being said, the point is the time to hold your ground is when you're WEAK, as the stronger party will likely take advantage of their position to push you as far back in negotiation as possible--as we've seen from 2001-06.

By contrast, when you're strong it's smart to make concessions, as you can generally control where they fall, and such magnamity will siphon the zeal of your opponents.

As I said, the Dems have gotten this 100% backward so far this decade. We're about to enter into a period of supermajority status, and it will be interesting to see if we can maintain it.

None of this should be read to mean that I support seperate-but-equal horsehit. The appropriate compromise, as I stated above, is the removal of "marriage" as a gov't sacrament.

When necessary. In CA, I'm not convinced it is...but I guarantee you Republican pollsters are looking at the Central Valley and salivating for 2020, so I'd prefer not to push those people into their arms as much as possible over the next decade.

Posted by scythia | May 16, 2008 5:16 PM

remove "marriage" from the gov't vocabulary altogether

Exactly. As far as a democratic government is concerned, marriage is a shortcut for a broad set of contracts between two individuals. The particulars concerning the individuals are none of the government's business. In a strange way, saying who can and cannot enter into a contract because of gender particulars is a kind of global sexism. Everybody loses.

Posted by RoboticGhost | May 16, 2008 5:18 PM

"That's exactly what the CA decision does"

"California law already does this."

Did either of you read the second clause of my sentence?:

"but the potential gains from changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions don't seem worth the potential downsides."

The CA decision means that, if marriage is going to remain a state institution, the definition of it needs to change to include same sex marriages. What I was referring to above was keeping the status quo for "marriage" (i.e., still between a man and a woman) and allowing civil unions with the same legal rights for gays.

Posted by Fred | May 16, 2008 5:18 PM

Question for lefties here: Is your grasp of nuance sufficient for you to understand that

1) You can think it's a bad idea to change the definition of marriage and

2) Not hate gay people?

Well, my grasp of nuance is just fine, thanks, but no, I don't understand the proposition. You think it's fine for us to have all the rights (you say), but think it's nonetheless important for the state -- not churches or religions, the state -- to publicly label our relationships as something different from different-sex ones. Maybe "hatred" is a strong word, but there is no escaping that the only reason to do so is to publicly brand our relationships as lesser ones. This "definitional argument" is something that a 5-year old would argue, if it was meant to be taken seriously. But it's not, it's just a means of rationalizing the bigotry.

And yes, I'm sorry for feeding the pigheaded troll. But forgive me, this is personal.

Posted by Glenn | May 16, 2008 5:24 PM

Question for lefties here: Is your grasp of nuance sufficient for you to understand that

1) You can think it's a bad idea to change the definition of marriage and
2) Not hate gay people?

The problem here is in the details. Why it is a bad idea almost always seems to devolve into a set of basic judgments that homosexuality is, at core, immoral.

Until someone can articulate what the bad thing is that is going to happen if we give gay people marriage rights. That's a vital component of a reasonable argument, without which it is hard to find the "nuance" that you are looking for.

I'd be all for civil unions for gays, giving them the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples, but the potential gains from changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions don't seem worth the potential downsides.

Honestly, this would probably be a compromise that most folks could happily live with. But what is the potential downside of the semantic difference?

(Personally, I would just as soon have it that the government recognizes only unions, and it is up to your religion to certify your marriage.)

Posted by Brad L | May 16, 2008 5:25 PM

Question for lefties here: Is your grasp of nuance sufficient for you to understand that

1) You can think it's a bad idea to change the definition of marriage and

2) Not hate gay people?

Well, my grasp of nuance is just fine, thanks, but no, I don't understand the proposition. You think it's fine for us to have all the rights (you say), but think it's nonetheless important for the state -- not churches or religions, the state -- to publicly label our relationships as something different from different-sex ones. Maybe "hatred" is a strong word, but there is no escaping that the only reason to do so is to publicly brand our relationships as lesser ones. This "definitional argument" is something that a 5-year old would argue, if it was meant to be taken seriously. But it's not, it's just a means of rationalizing the bigotry.

And yes, I'm sorry for feeding the pigheaded troll. But forgive me, this is personal.

Posted by Glenn | May 16, 2008 5:25 PM

What I was referring to above was keeping the status quo for "marriage" (i.e., still between a man and a woman) and allowing civil unions with the same legal rights for gays.

Yeah, well...not gonna happen, bro. Cf. Brown vs. Board of Education if Greenwald's post doesn't do it for you.

Just out of curiosity, what are these "potential downsides" of which you speak?

Posted by scythia | May 16, 2008 5:30 PM

I also think it's important not to pile on Fred, for a couple of reasons:

1. He's engaging in dialogue with us about his beliefs, and not just cutting-and-pasting legal documents to confuse and belittle ours.

2. We don't know where he's coming from, geographically. I live in CA, and I can state pretty unequivocally that the decision today was nt only legally and morally correct, but good for the state in general (as will be seen when it is reaffirmed in November--I would put the initial line at 55% in favor of same-sex marriage).

But if you live a state without civil unions, with few openly gay people, and thus few visible same-sex domestic partnerships, to take the position Fred's staking may in fact be quite progressive--especially for a conservative such as himself.

Remember, our larger job is to shift the Overton window, and we do that through engaging in dialogue with our opponents, not slamming them every time we score a point.

Magnamity in victory. All in together.

Posted by scythia | May 16, 2008 5:39 PM

The only reason I hate Ellen is because she's closing the door on me ever hooking up with Portia.

(Not like I ever had a chance, since I'm a dude, but that's just details :P )

Posted by sherifffruitfly | May 16, 2008 6:12 PM

We will have the considerable moral authority that comes with upholding the natural family.

The 'natural family' as characterised by conservatives (mother/father/dad/kids/dog/lawn) is a relatively recent and ephemeral creation, bound up with the creation of the suburban single-family dwelling.

Look at census records, and you actually see how people lived, rather than Fitz's projection of Leave It To Beaver fantasies back into time immemorial.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 16, 2008 7:02 PM

(Obviously, to Fitz, the 'father/dad' thing isn't a typo, but proof that Teh Ghey has infected my mind.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 16, 2008 7:04 PM

As a side note, it's always fun to watch all these people like Fitz, so pure & uncompromising in their civil & reasoned defense of the (perennially unrealized) ideal of marriage as institution and bulwark of civilization, instantly switch to their best "live-and-let-live" Spiel whenever the controversial issue under review happens to implicate one of their own natural preferences.

Posted by Bill | May 16, 2008 7:16 PM

the potential gains from changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions don't seem worth the potential downsides.

Strictly in terms of political expediency? Possibly not.

But if you get married in a drive-thru chapel in Vegas with an Elvis impersonator singing '(I Can't Help) Falling In Love With You' in the background, the officiant is likely an ordained Christian minister. Heck, there's a chance that your Elvis impersonator is a Baptist pastor too.

They make movies about it. And yet, it appears that the quickie wedding doesn't cause the same kind of palpitations.

I'd be glad to see a separation of church and state, in which civil and legal partnership is bestowed by a civil officiant, after which you can go to the religious or non-religious venue of your choosing for the rest. The CA decision offers that prospect.

If states collectively don't want to do it, they don't have to do it. (Utah still sells watered-down beer, after all.) But for those states that do, the issue obvious rises to the federal level, when dealing with interstate and international recognition.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 16, 2008 7:23 PM

Probably worth noting that there is a class of heterosexual couples who marry that is incapable of having children -- couples that include a member that is known to be sterile (vasectomies, hysterectomies, elderly, etc.). If procreation is that critical to the institution, it'd be a simple matter to weed out these folks. Yet no one thinks of doing it.

Posted by demisod | May 16, 2008 7:28 PM

I have been thinking about Fitz's argument and though he spends some time focusing on a "right to an intact married couple of natural parents", his sidetrip into the statistics of adoption make pretty clear that he is o.k. with non-natural parents raising children so long as they are opposite sex. The real obstacle for Fitz and his friends appear to be the concept of a child growing up relatively happily and healthfully in a family with only one parental gender instead of two.

(Parenthetically, this concern is mostly hypothetical and hypocritical since it is the rare child where there actually is any choice. Setting aside those never born because a gay couple is prevented from using artificial conception, the other children might be a gay mother or father who is forced to stay in a marriage with someone they do not love, so as to prevent them from raising a child with someone they do. I doubt whether any law would do much to keep parents from divorcing in that circumstance. And as for adoptions, how often are two otherwise qualified couples really gunning for the same child)

It might be a good time to dust off those studies tending to show that two caring parents are significant to raising a healthy child, but their gender is not. The main difference in the study I have heard of is that children raised by gay couples are more flexible regarding accepting minority sexual orientations as normal. Calling that a burden is kind of circular.

And, as many have noted, couching all arguments re marriage in terms of procreation is also inappropriate. Fitz and friends don't mind that many infertile or uninterested married straight couples don't have children because they think that we must put great effort into propping up the idea of marriage = procreation. And that idea, which apparently can survive married infertile straight couples, can't survive married gay couples. I don't find the argument compelling.

Oh and in case we are doing a head count, I am a straight man in Washington state. Good luck guys!

Posted by glennn | May 16, 2008 7:39 PM

I have been thinking about Fitz's argument and though he spends some time focusing on a "right to an intact married couple of natural parents", his sidetrip into the statistics of adoption make pretty clear that he is o.k. with non-natural parents raising children so long as they are opposite sex. The real obstacle for Fitz and his friends appear to be the concept of a child growing up relatively happily and healthfully in a family with only one parental gender instead of two.

(Parenthetically, this concern is mostly hypothetical and hypocritical since it is the rare child where there actually is any choice. Setting aside those never born because a gay couple is prevented from using artificial conception, the other children might be a gay mother or father who is forced to stay in a marriage with someone they do not love, so as to prevent them from raising a child with someone they do. I doubt whether any law would do much to keep parents from divorcing in that circumstance. And as for adoptions, how often are two otherwise qualified couples really gunning for the same child)

It might be a good time to dust off those studies tending to show that two caring parents are significant to raising a healthy child, but their gender is not. The main difference in the study I have heard of is that children raised by gay couples are more flexible regarding accepting minority sexual orientations as normal. Calling that a burden is kind of circular.

And, as many have noted, couching all arguments re marriage in terms of procreation is also inappropriate. Fitz and friends don't mind that many infertile or uninterested married straight couples don't have children because they think that we must put great effort into propping up the idea of marriage = procreation. And that idea, which apparently can survive married infertile straight couples, can't survive married gay couples. I don't find the argument compelling.

Oh and in case we are doing a head count, I am a straight man in Washington state. Good luck guys!

Posted by glennn | May 16, 2008 7:39 PM

It might be a good time to dust off those studies tending to show that two caring parents are significant to raising a healthy child, but their gender is not. The main difference in the study I have heard of is that children raised by gay couples are more flexible regarding accepting minority sexual orientations as normal. Calling that a burden is kind of circular.

You got it. And what about Iraq war widows? Are they also abominations if they choose not to marry again? What if female widows move back in with their moms, or male widowers share an apartment with their brothers? Is that a fate worse for their children then death? People have been living as single parents or in same-sex households, by accident or design, since humans first existed.

There's no special alchemy you get by putting a woman and a man together.

Posted by Persia | May 16, 2008 8:32 PM

There's no special alchemy you get by putting a woman and a man together.

I think Barry White may take issue with you there, Persia...

Posted by scythia | May 16, 2008 8:50 PM

Fred,

The problem is what you called the "potential downsides" of gay marriage (without specifying them). From long experience, people who fear there are significant "downsides" to gay people getting married are in fact depending on taboo logic--that somehow if gay people get married, it will corrupt marriage in general. And it is not like the idea that people view gay people as taboo came out of nowhere: that is a notion that has long been promoted, and is still being promoted, by many people. So this isn't really a major surprise.

Anyway, the bottomline is that we don't place these requirements on most couples wanting to get married: they don't have to want to have children or even be capable of having children, they don't have to demonstrate that they would be ideal parents in every single way if they did have children, and so on. So the sudden appearance of these requirements for marriage just when gay people want to get married is a pretty transparent double standard, and therefore unpersuasive to people not predisposed to fear gay people getting married.

Posted by DTM | May 16, 2008 8:56 PM

I think acceptance of the Sullivan-Yglesias-McArdle plural marriage is just around the corner.

Posted by millenials | May 16, 2008 9:15 PM

By the way, I do want to note that I don't think all people who oppose gay marriage are in fact using taboo logic. Specifically, for some of them this is just a matter of being good team players, with their perception being that people who favor gay rights are on the other team (Democrats, liberals, Leftists, hippies, etc.), and therefore that they should oppose gay rights.

Posted by DTM | May 16, 2008 9:40 PM

Well if marriage is only about procreation, my grandfather and his second wife were undermining marriage. I can't imagine that's true because I saw the very opposite -- folks were spurred on by their example to take their own marriages more seriously. My folks' marriage is no longer important because my brother and I are grown. Heck, my sister is illegitimately raising two children who she didn't give birth to. My cousin is raising 4 children who aren't his (while fighting in Iraq).

So Fitz, thanks for insulting multiple members of my family and their marriages. Thanks for insinuating that they're incapable of providing "the best environment" for their children. While I spend some time wondering how to be a member of a family that doesn't "undermine the institution of marriage" maybe I'll watch some Leave it to Beaver so I can see what REAL families are like.

Posted by James Hare | May 16, 2008 10:11 PM

Scythia, I'll be awfully disappointed in humanity if Barry White didn't create some special alchemy between some same-sex couples, too. ;-)

Posted by Persia | May 16, 2008 10:26 PM

Fitz: "Same sex pairings can never produce children. They are members of a class that always and everywhere are incapable of producing children. Therefore same sex “marriage” necessarily severs marriage from procreation. It both androgynizes the institution and separates it from any necessary link to childbearing."

None of this even remotely correct.

Same sex pairings can produce children by artificial insemination. While it may be biologically true that one of the parties is not directly participating in the exchange of genetic material, what possible bearing can this have on the legitimacy of the offspring from the relationship?

There is only one answer: religion, i.e., magic. Fitz believes that any change in the normal biological processes is "against God's Law". He simply doesn't have the nerve to say that here, knowing it would be trashed as idiotic.

It is the same with his notion that marriage must be tied to procreation. Not only does this bear absolutely no relationship to human sexual and cultural history, let alone the primates humans evolved from and whose sexual behavior still governs much of human sexual behavior, it clearly does not even have a logical argument basis. Marriage is a social and cultural institution. It has zero to do with the actual act of producing children.

Not to mention that marriage - and more generally, any sort of sexual or economic co-habitation - as an institution has varied so massively throughout human history that to assume the Republican and right wing Christian notion of it is somehow the only "true and correct" notion is just ludicrous.

Finally, in terms of the adjustment of children in families, the entire "nuclear family" is such a rarity in human history that it would be easy to construct an argument that most of the problems of Western society originate from the notion that children are the property of, and must be exclusively raised by, a single male and a single female. By far the vast majority of humans throughout human history have not been subjected to this arrangement and there are plenty of specialists on the subject who would argue that Western child rearing practices based on this arrangement are in fact evidence of child abuse.

There are too many morons around who think that human history started around 1900 in the US - and even then they don't know what the conditions where in 1900 in the US in reality.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 16, 2008 10:35 PM

The best way to ensure that gay marriage becomes a deeper cultural fault line and remains that way for the next few decades would be to follow the current tack of gay marriage activists and pursue this through the courts (see the abortion example). The smarter approach would be to go for civil union laws, and then after you've nailed those down in most of the nation, revisit gay marriage through referendums. It may take longer to get your way using this approach, but if you are successful this way, the issue will be much less of a cultural flash point.

Gays are generally fairly smart, so I assume most of them know this already. This raises the question of whether they deliberately seek conflict with mainstream society (hence, their tendency towards transgressive behavior). That raises a meta-question of what effects widespread acceptance of gay marriage here would have on gay culture. Could you guys handle that?

Posted by Fred | May 16, 2008 10:37 PM

Fred:

1. Civil rights issues are rarely settled through referendums (see Loving v. Virginia).

2. What about legislative remedies? The CA legislature passed initiatives that were vetoed by the Governator, who insisted the courts had to decide.

3. Why hasn't there been significant strife around gay marriage/civil unions in the states that have passed them, if judicial edicts are such a problem?

4. "Their tendency towards transgressive behavior"? Like what, being gay? Just admit you're a bigot and enjoy it.

Posted by Persia | May 16, 2008 11:00 PM

This raises the question of whether they deliberately seek conflict with mainstream society (hence, their tendency towards transgressive behavior).

And here we see Fred's cod psychology stinking like it's been left on the dockside for a month.

'Seeking conflict', by that definition, can mean 'moving to another state', 'filing taxes'. 'travelling abroad' or all manner of other vastly transgressive behaviour.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 16, 2008 11:20 PM

It may or may not be smarter from some broader political viewpoint to avoid court resolutions of this issue--there is no real way of knowing in advance. Although as Persia pointed out, California is an odd example to support this point, since the legislature passed a gay marriage law, and the Governor has said he will respect this court decision and does not support an amendment to overrule it.

But in any event, I also think it is perfectly understandable that gay couples who want to get married are not willing to take Fred's advice and be patient. And it is indeed a sad commentary on Fred as an individual that he apparently doesn't understand that rather than being motivated by a desire for conflict, a lot of gay couples just really want to get married.

Posted by DTM | May 16, 2008 11:30 PM

"Like what, being gay?"

No, like transvestism, turning gym steam rooms into sex clubs, the Halloween Parade in Greenwich Village, etc. Of course, all gays don't engage in these transgressive behaviors, but transgressivism has certainly been a prominent theme in gay culture. And sorry to disappoint you, but I have absolutely no antipathy toward gays. I've had plenty of pleasant conversations with gays in business and social contexts -- I used to cover San Francisco as part of a previous job, and there are usually some open gays at the parties I and my inamorata occasionally attend in the New York area (generally, the trendier the neighborhood, the more gays). If they started a gay Halloween parade where I live, I'd take it as a welcome sign of gentrification. I just know attention-seeking behavior when I see it.

Posted by Fred | May 16, 2008 11:41 PM

Again, it is a sad commentary on Fred as an individual that he thinks gay people who really want to get married are merely exhibiting "attention-seeking behavior".

Posted by DTM | May 16, 2008 11:44 PM

Re: I have seen a million different analogies toward this issue, from women's suffrage to the segregated south. The more proper an apt analogy would seem to be abortion.

What in the world does this have to do with abortion? Abortion stops a beating heart, as the slogan goes. Gay relationships harm no one, except maybe a handful of prudish busy-bodies who should keep their noses out of other people's business. As for mariages falling apart, that also has nothing to do with gays (except maybe in a small minority of cases where oine spuse "comes out"). Your scapegoating quite frankly stinks-- rather like the way Jews in the Middle Ages were blamed for everything from the Black Death to Crusader defeats.

Re: But you mistakenly refer to their "participation in the institution of marriage" without realizing or conceding the fact that this changes the definition and therefore the social meaning and understanding of the institution itself.

Oh bullshit! If I define "vehicle" to incude bicycles does that mean cars don't run on gas any more? You are engaging in superstitious reasoning of the sort normally found in grade B horror flicks about voodoo dolls. Marriages succeed or fail on their own strengths and weaknesses. No one gives a hoot about vague metaphysical nonsense like "the definition of marriage". They care if their spouse chaets on them, abuses them, drinks too much, is a lazy bum, a shrieking harpy, spends money like a drunken sailor, etc. No one, I repeat no one, is going to say "Gays can get maried so I guess I have to get a divorce." Start living in reality!

Re: Of course, all gays don't engage in these transgressive behaviors, but transgressivism has certainly been a prominent theme in gay culture.

"Girls gone wild", Mardi Gras, Nevada brothels, steamy story lines in afternoon soaps, the local strip club... I could go on. Transgressiveness is hardly unknown in the heterosexual world.

Posted by JonF | May 16, 2008 11:55 PM

clear inevitabilities always inspire the grandest kerfuffles, no? Shaking fists at the moon is an ardent hobby for a new minted philosophical minority. Plenty of historical examples on both sides of the fence.

Posted by roboticghost | May 17, 2008 12:29 AM

transgressivism has certainly been a prominent theme in gay culture

I'm sure you must have heard of Spring Break, Mardi Gras, the Love Parade, Girls Gone Wild, swinger clubs, brothels, hookers and internet p0rn - heterosexual people constantly indulge in every imaginable kind of "trangsressivism" both publicly and privately.

Posted by novakant | May 17, 2008 6:38 AM

And ironically the gays and lesbians who want to get married are overwhelmingly people who have left the youthful promiscuity behind (or have never indulged in it in the first place) and are ready to settle down into a bourgeois, monogamous existence.

Posted by novakant | May 17, 2008 6:45 AM

Dan Savage has a story he likes to tell about the weirdest interview he ever had: with a man in Texas who married his horse. It is actually legal in some Southern states to do this (basically the last states to have sodomy illegal, where oral sex is technically illegal and where you can't legally buy sex toys). That man was offended when Dan asked if it was a male horse or a female horse. I find a man marrying something that cannot give consent and has an IQ below a toddler's to be a lot more repugnant than two of my friends who are in love getting married.

It's also rather fitting how children raised by gay couple tend to be more emotionally stable and mature and do better in school. Not only are gays and lesbians doing a fine job as parents, they seem to be doing a better job than straight parents in general.

"The best way to ensure that gay marriage becomes a deeper cultural fault line and remains that way for the next few decades would be to follow the current tack of gay marriage activists and pursue this through the courts (see the abortion example). The smarter approach would be to go for civil union laws, and then after you've nailed those down in most of the nation, revisit gay marriage through referendums. It may take longer to get your way using this approach, but if you are successful this way, the issue will be much less of a cultural flash point."

I highly doubt that if Roe v. Wade hadn't taken place that abortion would have become legal. From a pro-choice standpoint, so what if it's controversial as long as it's legal?

Posted by Reality Man | May 17, 2008 6:47 AM

Re: I highly doubt that if Roe v. Wade hadn't taken place that abortion would have become legal.

Actually, abortion restrictions were losening up. The procedure was already fully legal in New York. Of course there would have been a patchwork of state laws but I doubt they would have been as restrictive as they originally were.

Posted by JonF | May 17, 2008 7:26 AM

JonF,

I respect your point of view on this since you're a Christian (and arguably in the most traditional branch). I am still undecided about gay marriage and the morality of homosexuality in general. That said I have a few questions before I can fully accept homosexuality and/or gay marriage.

First of all, how can we suppress and reduce the kind of transgressive behaviors mentioned above? Things like hyper-promiscuity, taking drugs to enhance sexual staying power, anonymous encounters through holes in restroom walls, anonymous liasions over the internet, orgies and other horirble activities. I know that many gay people do not engage in any of these behaviors but wouldn't it be fair to say they are less frowned upon in the gay community than 'swinging' is among straights, for example. SUpposedly there are many gay men who have upwards of hundreds or even a thousand sexual partners in a lifetime. I have also heard it said that monogamy is less common in the gay community among straights. I am concerned that accepting gay marriage is going to imply the toleration of all forms of homosexual behavior included above- how could we potentially avoid that fate?

Furthermore, I am concerned that our society has lost an apreciation of the natural and inherent differences between men and women. We have bought into the deplorable falsehood that men and women are not essentially different and that the differences are the result of culture not nature. This underlies the argument of some pro-choice folks who think that women should be 'free' to be as selfish and cruel to new life as men have historically been. HGopw do we accept homosexual relationships without accepting the lie that there are no inherent and essential differences between men and women.

FInally, how do we get around the Biblical and patristic criticism of homosexuality. In passages like the one from Jude where he warns against the men of Sodom and Gomorrah who pursued 'strange flesh'. If the Biblical case was ambiguous I would feel more comfortable accepting things like gay marriage, but as it stands I'm troubled by what seems to be a clear biblical case against homosexuality.

Posted by Hector | May 17, 2008 8:21 AM

That man was offended when Dan asked if it was a male horse or a female horse.

It must've been a male horse. As Hector and Fred can tell us, homosexuality is apparently the only 'real' vice.

hyper-promiscuity, taking drugs to enhance sexual staying power, anonymous encounters through holes in restroom walls, anonymous liasions over the internet, orgies and other horirble activities

As even you realize, straight people do a hell of a lot of these things-- hyper-promiscuous straight men are a running trope in fiction (think Quagmire in Family Guy or Barney in How I Met Your Mother). Rape is overwhelmingly committed by straight men. Sexual abuse of children, ditto. Do I have to bring up Warren Jeffs? Add in the fact that homosexuals have no right to legally sanctioned monogamy and homosexual sex was illegal in many states until 2003, and I can pretty safely say you're full of shit.

Posted by Persia | May 17, 2008 8:46 AM

Oh, and Hector?

FInally, how do we get around the Biblical and patristic criticism of homosexuality.

We do that by saying we're not a fucking theocracy. The day we start banning ham, I'm going to start worrying about the Biblical criticism of homosexuality.

Posted by Persia | May 17, 2008 8:49 AM

Re Fitz

Just as a matter of curiosity, how does Mr. Fitz feel about Vice President Cheneys' lesbian daughter becoming pregnant by artificial insemination? Does he propose that the child be taken away from her and her partner?

Posted by SLC | May 17, 2008 9:18 AM

People need to stop calling homophobia "the conservative position". Are there homophobes who are conservative, yes? But a conservative position on gay marriage would be that the state shouldn't be issuing marriage licenses anyway, since it is a religious function. The state should only grant civil unions- same sex and otherwise.

Posted by ConservativeAndAnAlly | May 17, 2008 10:15 AM

"...hyper-promiscuity, taking drugs to enhance sexual staying power, anonymous encounters through holes in restroom walls, anonymous liasions over the internet, orgies..."

Dammit. Why wasn't I born gay?

Posted by Taisa | May 17, 2008 11:37 AM

"It might be a good time to dust off those studies tending to show that two caring parents are significant to raising a healthy child, but their gender is not."

In that regard I offer some findings from the recent Iowa District Court courts decision on same-sex “marriage”. Certainly you will concede that the very experienced advocates for same-sex “marriage” who argued before the State Court would be loathe to cede foundational arguments to the opposition if they were truly contested within social science.

The Iowa State Court had noted that those advocating for same-sex “marriage” did not dispute, and frankly offered no evidence to contradict, two salient findings:

1. Social science literature demonstrates the children who are reared by a married natural mother and father have more positive outcomes in a wide variety of important factors compared to children in other adequately studied family structures- including single parent families, adopted families, step families, divorced families and the like

(note – Courts, social scientists & advocates of same-sex “marriage” themselves concede that same-sex families have not been adequately studied so that solid conclusions can be made) *

2. Children reared in a stable natural married family are likely to do better on various measures of educational attainment; exhibit fewer behavioral problems, including conduct disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, and juvenile delinquency; will not be as likely to engage in criminal behavior as adults; engage in sexual relations as teenagers, and to experience an unwed pregnancy; have a decreased risk for mental/emotional illness; have a decreased risk of physical illness and infant mortality; experience decreased risk of suicide; have a greater life expectancy; likely to benefit from high levels of parental investment, commitment, and closeness (particularly with their fathers); be victims of physical and sexual abuse; experience higher levels of family stability as adults, including a decreased divorce risk.

The argument about adoption and artificial conception are really not terribly difficult.

#1. Adoption represents the breakdown in responsible procreation by the original natural family who bore the child. In such a circumstance we try and approximate the natural family as much as possible for the good of the child.

#2. Artificial insemination by gay couples requires that a couple intentionally deprive that child of either his natural mother or father with malice aforethought. Rather than (as some fool mentions) “Is it better that the child never be born”: It is the case that the responsible thing to do is not to conceive a child outside of the married natural family. This is precisely humanities standard in discouraging illegitimacy and promoting traditional marriage as the cultural norm.

The only example left is children of divorced opposite sex couples who one or another parent is now in a same-sex relationship. In this example such children have a legal connection to their natural parent and are no worse off than any of the multitude of children living with a single custodial parent with their other natural parent living in a separate location.

Among the many potential downsides of same-sex marriage is precisely the view that children are commodities that can be commissioned or sought to fulfill adult desire, rather than the responsibility of those who conceive them. The natural right of the child to know and be known by his/her natural parent is not some ad-hock argument- Rather it is a foundational human rights concept & law.

Posted by Fitz | May 17, 2008 11:38 AM

Re: [Children reared in a stable natural married family] will not be as likely to.... engage in sexual relations as teenagers...

Fascinatingly enough, this appears to be due to biological as well as social responses. Girls who grow up without a father figure in the household have been found to experience an earlier age of first menstruation, with the accompanying risk of pre-adulthood sexual activity...it's not just a matter of making poorer choices. There is some theoretical basis in population ecology to explain why this would be so (shifting towards a more r-selective strategy).

It appears as though Heather having two mommies also puts Heather at greater risk for being violated by predatory men.

Posted by Hector | May 17, 2008 11:56 AM

Re: First of all, how can we suppress and reduce the kind of transgressive behaviors mentioned above?

I would suggest that simply frowning on these things is about all we can really do. In the end people will engage in such peccadillos as they will and there's a lot more imprtant things to busy ourselves with than policing others' sex lives.

Re: SUpposedly there are many gay men who have upwards of hundreds or even a thousand sexual partners in a lifetime.

Maybe gay prostitutes, but I'm very skeptical that most gay guys have (except in their bragging and fantasy life of course). I am gay, Hector, and I can testify that outside the hustling and escorting worlds it's not much easier to "score" than it is for straight people.

Re: We have bought into the deplorable falsehood that men and women are not essentially different and that the differences are the result of culture not nature.

Well, there are differenes of nature (like X and Y chrmosomes) but how deep do they go?
It's not as if men and women are distinct species. They have a common human nature and we need to always remember that.

Re: [How] do we accept homosexual relationships without accepting the lie that there are no inherent and essential differences between men and women.

By accepting that there are profound and inherent differences between people as individuals, and by not adopting the group-think error that treats people as mere elements within some category. I am a man, an American, a Christian, a white guy,
a gay guy, college educated, and 41. Does this mean I am bound to some stereotype about any of those categories and it is a transgression to go outside the expected?

Re: In passages like the one from Jude where he warns against the men of Sodom and Gomorrah who pursued 'strange flesh'.

I don't think that was about homosexuality at all. The actual Greek used here for "strange flesh" is "heteras sarkas". That's "heter-" as in "heterosexual". Now, I know that is a recent word, but Greek "heter-" meant "other", "different" ("strange" is an odd translation for it; in referrence to human beings "strange" is "xenos" in Greek) and I don't see how you can say that homosexuality involves going after "other" flesh. My guess is that the reference is to either some form of miscegenation (sex with forbidden foreigners) or even maybe about bestiality. As for the larger question, we have quietly dropped Biblical and patristic condemnations of the Jews, the ancient and almost universal ban on interest, and various scientific errors like geocentrism. The Holy Spirit guides the Church in the main, but does not guarantee that everything that comes from the mouths and pens of saints, bishops and theologians is 100% correct, never to be amended by better wisdom or knowledge.

Re: If the Biblical case was ambiguous I would feel more comfortable accepting things like gay marriage

In a purely theological and sacramental sense, I do not argue for gay marriage either; gay and straight relaionships have different dynamics and require different (though not wholly different) graces. For religious purposes I think something like the old adelphopoiesis rite should be dusted off and used to bless same sex relationships. Legally meanwhile, I am indifferent as to whether it is "gay marriage"or "civil unions" provided the legal treatment is equal.

Posted by JonF | May 17, 2008 12:33 PM

Isn't it fascinating, though, that Fred and Hector consider themselves self-taught experts on What Teh Gheys Are Doing With Their Genitals Right Now?

As for Fitz, continuing to repeat the word 'natural' over and fucking over does not make your argument any more convincing. Instead, it makes you look silly and shallow, just as 'appeasement' tripped up Kevin James on Hardball.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 17, 2008 12:38 PM

Dear Fitz,

Thanks for replying to my email. Your argument still fails though as a reason for states to continue to deny same gender couples the legal protections of marriage on the same basis as mixed gender couples:

//Social science literature demonstrates the children who are reared by a married natural mother and father have more positive outcomes in a wide variety of important factors compared to children in other adequately studied family structures- including single parent families, adopted families, step families, divorced families and the like

(note – Courts, social scientists & advocates of same-sex “marriage” themselves concede that same-sex families have not been adequately studied so that solid conclusions can be made) *//

Your first comparison is between mixed gender couples raising kids under stable conditions vs. mixed gender couples raising children under disturbed conditions or single parent families. Neither is a comparison to same gender couples raising children from birth and thus not an adequate reason to ban that situation.

Your second point, that same sex families have not been adequately studied simply admits you have no scientific reason for objection. However, though there have been fewer studies, those that do exist show children of same gender couples do just fine. In addition, if children of same gender couple were doing particularly badly, in Massachusetts, Canada, Spain, the Netherlands or elsewhere, I believe the social conservatives would have pointed it out.

The possibility that adoption or single parent families are less ideal outcomes apparently does not stop states from allowing them, or cause social conservatives to attempt to forbid them. It is only when a same gender couple also wants to raise a child that whatever very small distinction in child outcomes that may develop suddenly becomes a reason for intense, vitriolic political action. That suggests that a concern about children's actual well being is of less real importance to social conservatives than animus to homosexuals.

The contention that adoption should "attempt to imitate the natural family as much as possible" and therefore cannot include same gender couples again assumes that the essential point in question, that the key feature of "natural families" are the genitalia, or perhaps chromosomes, of their parents,as opposed to the ongoing love of two committed adults. You can say it as often as you want, but as pointed out, your studies do not show that that mixed gender parenting is an essential criteria, particularly one so essential that the government is justified in withholding legal protections to families that are not mixed gender.

With regard to artificial insemination, apart from the use of perjorative language "malice aforethought", your argument boils down to the contention that a same gender couple should never have kids because the kids will not have the benefit of this natural couple you love. I do not assume you suggest that the same gender couple should split up and have natural families with opposite gendered adults that they do not love simply to have this child. So, again, no children for anybody who is gay or lesbian.

And that, in the end, is what makes it so clear that your underlying motivation is a simple dislike and discounting of the worth and humanity of gay people. You really do think that it would be better not to be born than to have them as parents. You think that this point is so critical that ahead of abolishing artificial insemination, ahead of forbidding divorce, you want to stop gay couples, many of whom already have children, from at least getting the additional legal protections and stability that marriage provides.

It's not a convincing argument. In my profession, divorce attorney, I have seen lots of broken families. What most of those children needed was at least one sane adult in their lives, or two that got along with each other. It astonishes me that anybody would really think it was so hugely important what the chromosomes were of those adults.

U

Posted by glennn | May 17, 2008 12:52 PM

It's not particularly necessary, but I'd like to point out that the 'arguments against' artificial insemination and adoption are a slap in the face to infertile couples, adoptive families, and the people who give up children for adoption, who the Righties generally call 'brave and heroic' unless they're talking about any other activity than abortion.

Posted by Persia | May 17, 2008 2:55 PM

A lot of the "transgressive behaviors" described above are a function of reacting against homophobia and the closet. Think of it this way: if there had never been a history of violent racism against African-Americans in this country, would the Black Panthers have ever become influential enough that anyone outside of specialized American history seminars remember Huey P. Newton? Probably not. When you are told that what you are is evil your entire life and then you get to move to somewhere it's accepted like San Francisco (especially for older generations), don't you think it would be natural to want to be a little on the edge at a gay pride parade? Meanwhile, when I was in London during a pride parade they had a special float for out members of the London police and they weren't exactly grinding up against each other. It was tame enough that straight parents who were passing by carried their children on their shoulders so they could watch the parade. Also, a lot of straight people like taking things like ex. If straight women in large numbers were willing to participate in the straight equivalent of bathhouses, the line of straight men at the door would go around the block. If you want to see gay people "normalized," let them have the white picket fence lifestyle as an open option to them. You'll be surprised how many gays and lesbians would choose it.

Fitz, you have written a lot without saying anything. You just plain hate gay people. Admit it.

Posted by Reality Man | May 17, 2008 3:03 PM

Well, some of the gay promiscuity, especially in younger years, can be explained by a simple fact:

They're men!

Wildly generalizing, I would posit that men are quite a bit more sexually aggressive than women, so that if you have a lot of men who are into men, without women putting a damper on things, the outcome is a lot of wild sex. This could also be supported by another wild generalization, namely that lesbians behave rather differently in this regard.

Posted by novakant | May 17, 2008 4:08 PM

Reality Man,

I don't think that the hyper-promiscuity can be fairly said to be a reaction against homophobia. Things like hyper promiscuity, bath house culture, etc. flourish in places like Manhattan and San Francisco which are not known for being conservative in this regard. I think G.K. Chesterton's remark about self-conscious diabolism is a better analogy for the bath house culture.

What novakant says is of course true- it's obvious that men are more promiscuous then women. Perhaps that's part of the wisdom of the traditional understanding of marriage, that each sex has a distinct and essential nature who needs to be complementer by the other. That is the part of the reason I worry about the consequences of a general social acceptance of homosexual activity.

Posted by Hector | May 17, 2008 5:27 PM

"Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many gays that "Gay liberation was founded . . . on a 'sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,' and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a 'communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.'"4 Rotello's perception of gay promiscuity, which he criticizes, is consistent with survey results. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.5By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984.6"

Lord have mercy.

Posted by Hector | May 17, 2008 5:39 PM

In that regard I offer some findings from the recent Iowa District Court courts decision on same-sex “marriage”.

Simple rule: anyone who puts that term marriage in scare quotes when discussing this issue is a bigoted, cowardly, evil homophobe unless and until they do the following:

Go to a gay wedding, walk right up to the gay couple and explain to them that they don't have a marriage, only a "marriage". And get punched in the face, as they deserve.

Posted by Dilan Esper | May 17, 2008 8:04 PM

Hector,

If the promiscuous behavior of gay men from 1978 to 1984 bother you so much (and seriously, can you give me any other example where 22 year old statistics regarding behavior is used in an argument) than why are you against same gender marriage?

These gay men that frighten you are not going to go away, unless (and I assume against this) you are part of the radical conservative fringe that is in favor of forced behavior modification. Your solution appears to be to encourage them to marry women and settle down to monogamous sex lives with people they don't really want to have sex with. Why do you think this will happen?

Again, if your goal for whatever reason is to get gay men to stop having so damned much sex, then why not encourage them to commit to each other in legally recognized relationships? You can argue that these gay couples will inevitably cheat on each other (unlike heterosexuals) but do you think they would be even more promiscuous then if they weren't married?

And do you think getting married to straight women stops gay men from having sex with other men? Look up the concept of being on the down low.

The natural trend of your argument and Fitz' is that gay men and lesbians should either not exist or not have sex or have sex only with people they do not love. If, like me, you actually know decent gay men and women as friends, why should such goals have any weight at all?

I'd be curious as to your answers.

Posted by glennn | May 17, 2008 8:24 PM

Ooooh, Dilan called me a coward. You don't know how scared that makes me feel. I'm s---ting my pants right now I'm so scared. Gee, what ever will I do.

Hey Dilan, why don't you go to a Chaldean Christian settlement in Iraq and tell the persecuted Christians there about their invisible sky fairy. Dont forget to call the sky fairy "She". Oh I forgot, we Christians don't punch blasphemers in the face anymore, more's the pity.

Posted by Hector | May 17, 2008 9:04 PM

Ooooh, Dilan called me a coward. You don't know how scared that makes me feel. I'm s---ting my pants right now I'm so scared. Gee, what ever will I do.

Hey Dilan, why don't you go to a Chaldean Christian settlement in Iraq and tell the persecuted Christians there about their invisible sky fairy. Dont forget to call the sky fairy "She". Oh I forgot, we Christians don't punch blasphemers in the face anymore, more's the pity.

Hector, that's silly and idiotic. I have basic respect for religious diversity. Those Chaldean Christians-- and all Christians-- have the right to practice their religion, and if anyone tried to take it away, I would fight on their behalf.

In contrast, you right-wing jerks don't think gays and lesbians have any right at all to have sex with a person they love. You guys supported sodomy laws until the Supreme Court struck them down, and still criticize the decision that did so. You guys support government discrimination against gays and lesbians, as well as the right of private businesses and landlords to refuse to do business with, fire, and refuse to rent to gays and lesbians. You support kicking gays out of the military. And you support ensuring that all the governmental benefits attached to marriage are reserved exclusively for straights.

So, on the one hand, you have someone who thinks that a religious belief is BS but believes passionately in the right of people to practice it.

On the other hand you have someone who wants to use the awesome power of the state to interfere at every turn with the lives of gay people and make their lives miserable in the hope that they will convert.

That's the difference between a tolerant human being and an evil narrowminded bigoted intolerant piece of pond scum, Hector.

Posted by Dilan Esper | May 17, 2008 9:53 PM

Re: Perhaps that's part of the wisdom of the traditional understanding of marriage, that each sex has a distinct and essential nature who needs to be complementer by the other.

Except that gay people don't need or want to be complemented by the opposite gender: their need is to be complemented by someone of their own gender. And as with everyone, some random person will not do either: while I don't buy into the romantic myth that there's a Mr/Ms. Perfectly Right for everyone, for sure most of us have a very narrow range of people with whom we can have a successful relationship. Again, Hector, you are thinking of people as members of categories not as individuals, who are unique unto themselves while partaking of the same human nature.

Re: and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.

Key word here is "claimed". One might also wonder about the definition of "sex" being used here.

Posted by JonF | May 17, 2008 9:54 PM

Fred,
When you asked whether we lefties got the "nuance" of not changing the definition of marriage, but not being against gays, did you really just mean that you thought it might be a loser tactically (as opposed to lobbying for identical "civil unions")?

If so, the only thing I'd say is that of course they do. In fact, I'd venture to say that this very discussion is quite the hot topic. Generally speaking, people that get into discussions of best tactics would likely consider themselves fellow travelers, and there's plenty of room for such nuance.

If not, though, please bear in mind that we're all stuck reading things like Fitz wrote (and, in this thread, this represents the opposing view):

Among the many potential downsides of same-sex marriage is precisely the view that children are commodities that can be commissioned or sought to fulfill adult desire...

I mean, really, WTF? Nuance really does seem to be lacking here.

Posted by Brad L | May 17, 2008 11:25 PM

"Simple rule: anyone who puts that term marriage in scare quotes when discussing this issue is a bigoted, cowardly, evil homophobe unless and until they do the following:"

I put the word marriage in quotes because the word has an actual definition and meaning that is important to understand if any civil debate can be conducted in a civilized and sophisticated way.

It is not meant to scare anyone. Dilan’s moral grandstanding is meant to obfuscate the issue in contention. Multiple courts and good faith actors that are same-sex "marriage" concede that we are changing the definition of a foundational social institution.

Honest dialogue cannot commence when the very terms of debate on the actual change being sought are hidden from view by using words imprecisely. Perhaps some would prefer “genderless marriage” – perhaps a more accurate term.

The unequivocal truth of the matter is that at the end of the day we won’t have traditional marriage & gay “marriage” in California. We will have a new SINGLE understanding of marriage that either will or wont be a genderless construct.

Every single one of the 70% of black children born into Fatherless homes should punch Dilan in the face for his banal lack of ethics & inabilty to be a morally serious person.

Posted by Fitz | May 18, 2008 12:59 PM

JonF,

Well, of course the study relies on people's claims. All research into human sexuality suffers from the same problem, unless you want to put a cop in every bedroom. The point is, however, that about 25% of gay men in 1984 were apparently comfortable with _claiming_ to have had over 1000 sexual partners. I don't think that 25% of straight men claim to have slept with 1000 women. What a horrible degradation of the human person and what a vicious parody of Christian sexuality. Reminiscent of the Black Mass.

Of course I'm not saying that this is typical of gay men now or in the 1980s. But we should acknowledge that there is a subculture in the gay community, perhaps a small one, that revels in the worst forms of perversion and promiscuity. And until I feel sure that all of us, gay and straight, are willing to try and work together to suppress and de-legitimize the San Francisco bath house culture, I cannot feel comfortable with our society endorsing homosexuality.

Dilan, I don't need to be lectured on morality from someone who endorses abortion and the toleration of San Francisco bath house culture. At the end of the day the church will go on while your nonsense about second wave feminism, whatever that is, will be here today and gone tomorrow.

Posted by Hector | May 18, 2008 1:12 PM

Brad L.

“I mean, really, WTF? Nuance really does seem to be lacking here.”

Very well – “Nuance” as follows….

This is always and immediately obvious. It has been recognized by multiple courts in the U.S. and international European Courts.

It is the right of the Child (not adults) to know and be known by his or her natural parents. Adoption presupposes that this system has legitimately broken down with the state certifying that this Childs natural home is insufficient and a new set of legal parents is required.

So yes- as I said,

“Among the many potential downsides of same-sex marriage is precisely the view that children are commodities that can be commissioned or sought to fulfill adult desire...”

U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 16 declares the right to marry based on the traditional definition of marriage, and states that such a family is "the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."

"The widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly for its establishment and while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children." The expression "the natural and fundamental group unit" refers to the natural combination of a man and a woman required to create a child.

Article 16

1.Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

2.Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

3.The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
The Convention states in Article 7 that the child has "as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents".

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Article 10.1 on family and marriage states that:

Article 7
1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.
2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.

Article 8
1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.
2. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity.

Article 9
1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.

Posted by Fitz | May 18, 2008 1:23 PM

Hector,

How does denying legal protections to same gender couples currently wishing to commit to caring for each other help to delegitimatize promiscuity? You claim not to want to "endorse" homosexuality as long as some portion of gay men have more sex than you think proper. Well why not endorse that portion of gay men and lesbians who want to publicly state their commitment to one other person? Again, your arguments against same gender marriage are simply an excuse to express your loathing for gay sex, regardless of the lack of logical connection.

Fitz,

It's nice that you and the U.N. and the European Courts wants to protect families. So why not help to protect those families currently existing, consisting of two adults of the same gender caring for children? These families exist. They need the help of legal protections. Wishing that they had never happened or would go away (or should be split up and the children redistributed?) does not change that. You are hypocritical in pretending to care for theoretical children and not for these real children.

And I should note that European courts apparently have no problem with marriage rights for same gender couples in the Netherlands or Denmark.

And Fitz, remind me again how those fatherless black children are helped when up the street a single black mother is prevented from marrying her single female black or white lover. Do you think that black mother would simply break down and marry a man, despite her sexual orientation, because you and your friends have forbidden the alternative?

Finally, Fitz and Hector, we now have several years of actual experience with same gender marriage in Massachusetts, Canada, The Netherlands, South Africa, Spain and for all I know other countries. Can you point to any specific record of harm to the children in those countries as a direct result? Not an abstract concern over the "redefinition of marriage" but specific material harm to actual children because their countries have extended legal protections to same gender couples?

Posted by glennn | May 18, 2008 1:50 PM

Glenn N,

Do you really think that 'several years' is enough to assess the good and bad in a policy? When Zhou Enlai was asked his assessment of the French Revolution, he said, 'It's too early tell'. Indeed.

I don't blame monogamous gay couples for the promiscuity of other gay men. However, before issuing a blanket social endorsement of homosexuality I do want to know how we can suppress and de-legitimize the bath house culture. Accepting the promiscuity and immorality of the San Francisco bath houses is a price that I am not willing to pay simply to avoid being called a 'bigot'.

I would like to be supportive, accepting and encouraging of those gay couples who decide that they want to commit to each other in monogamous and committed relationships. However I am only willing to do it in such a way that does not open the doors to the hyper promiscuous lifestyle. And
I would prefer to do so on the basis of someone making a solid, _Biblical_ and _Christian_ case for why homosexuality is not a sin, as JonF started to do above.

Posted by Hector | May 18, 2008 2:12 PM

Re: It is the right of the Child (not adults) to know and be known by his or her natural parents.

And gay marriage does not prevent this from happening asI presume the same laws will obtain in cases of same sex parnets adopying a child as apply generally. I'm not sure what laws apply in cases of in vitro fertilization, but I strongly suspect they too will be no different for same sex couples as for everyone else. Where's the problem here?

Posted by JonF | May 18, 2008 2:12 PM

"The widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly for its establishment and while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children."

The expression "the natural and fundamental group unit" refers to the natural combination of a man and a woman required to create a child.

Actually, if you look at the sentence you provided, it merely says that the family is the fundamental unit of society. You have helpfully provided interpretation that this means man+woman to the exclusion of other familial possibilities, but its not actually in the text you provide.

It is certainly not a view that I would subscribe to, but you have also failed to convince me that the UN feels the way that you do, nor explained why I should be convinced of your view if the UN did agree. Do you submit to their ultimate moral authority?

Regarding "knowing their children," you have also failed to explain how gay adoption/reproductive rights are any different than straight adoption rights. How they, in any real sense, change the equation.

Posted by Brad L | May 18, 2008 5:03 PM

Hector,

Would you wait 210 years to decide whether it is or is not a good idea to get rid of the French monarchy?

If you are correct that legalization of same gender marriage causes terrible problems then shouldn't we seem some evidence of it in the several countries and states that have taken this step?

How does denying same gender marriage advance your goal of delegitimatizing bathhouse culture? Seriously? Don't you think you could accept that committed gay couple exist and need legal protections without at the same time feeling that you are endorsing promiscuity?

Your argument appears to be along the lines of:

Promiscuous gay sex is bad

Promiscuous gay sex is conducted by gay people

Legalizing same gender marriage helps gay people

Therefore legalizing same gender marriage helps promiscuous gay sex and must be stopped.

The logic is not watertight.

Finally, you personally may need a Biblical argument to convince yourself to agree to some public policy step. Why should the rest of us?

And I'd guess that the many people who over the course of hundreds of years wrote the Bible were probably not supportive of gays and lesbians or perhaps all that interested. So if you're waiting for a biblical analysis clearly telling you to relax and be o.k. with same gender marriage, you may have a long wait.

On the other hand, a fairly strong theme in many biblical texts is to value and love each person in their equality before god. Spending precious time that could be used to actually help the poor and oppressed in order to stop same gender marriage doesn't go that direction.

But, if you want, stick to Leviticus and be happy. Just tell the rest of us why a literal adherence to some parts of Leviticus is crucial, but obeying other parts (pork anyone?) isn't.

Posted by glennn | May 18, 2008 7:31 PM

Uh, Glenn, I would not base any belief of mine strictly on the Old Testament. I base my faith primarily on the New. Sadly for you, the New Testament includes sereval severe criticisms of homosexuality. For example,

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." Jude 1:7.

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." Romans 1:26-27.

Posted by Hector | May 18, 2008 8:06 PM

Note how Fitz -- 'natural! natural! natural!' -- elides the clauses, because he's either a bad reader or disgracefully dishonest. I'll be generous, and assume questionable literacy and comprehension skills.

The UDHR states that the family is the fundamental group unit of society. It does not state that the family == the Cleavers.

What a silly, shallow thing Fitz is, with his bullshit nostalgia trip for a state of nature that never was.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 18, 2008 9:14 PM

Hector,

So you don't base your beliefs on the Old Testament. Good to know. Makes you unlike other evangelicals.

As for Jude:

//"The second of the clobber passages is another reference to Sodom and Gomorrah. In the King James Version of the Bible it reads:

Note 7. When quoting the clobber passages, we have chosen to use the King James Version, because this is the translation most often quoted by Christians who use these passages against gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.

“Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” (Jude 7 (See note 7.))

When we read this verse in modern America, having been raised in a culture that despises gays and refers to them as “queer,” it is easy to assume Jude’s reference to “going after strange flesh” must mean homosexuality. For many heterosexual people, it seems unnatural or strange for a person to desire intimacy with someone of the same sex. However, well-informed theologians will tell you this is not what Jude was talking about.

At the time the book of Jude was written, many believed some of the women of Sodom had engaged in intercourse with male angels. This belief was probably derived from Genesis 6:1, 2 and 4, where we are told the “Sons of God”(angels) took the daughters of humans as wives. This was the final act which brought God’s judgment on the earth in the form of a great flood. And it seems some Jewish writers believed this was also the sin which sealed Sodom’s fate.

Note 8. For an excellent discussion of this, see Nissinen, pages 91 to 93. In these pages, Nissinen discusses Jewish writings from 200 to 1 bc which associate the sin of the people of Sodom with that of people before the flood of Noah.

Note 9. For example, see JND. Kelly, A commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude (Harper and Row, New York, 1969), pages 258-259; Fred Craddock, First and Second Peter and Jude (Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, 1995), page 139; Richard Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (Word Books, Waco, 1983), page 54; Michael Green, The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude (Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, 1987), page 180; CEB. Cranfield, I and II Peter and Jude (SCM Press, London, 1960), page 159; and Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament (Harper, San Francisco, 1996), page 404.

According to first century legend, some of the women of Sodom (and other wicked ancient cities) were thought to have had sex with beings who were made of different flesh — angelic flesh. (See note 8.) This is what Jude was referring to when he talked about “going after strange flesh.” He was referring to heterosexual sex between male angels and human women, not homosexual sex between humans. Many theologians, including many conservatives, interpret the passage this way. (See note 9.)

Again we ask, does this passage apply to the question we bring to Scripture? And we must answer that it has nothing to say about whether it is possible for two humans of the same sex to have an intimate, loving relationship with the blessing of God.//"

Now, as for Romans:

Romans 1 may seem daunting when first approached because it is written in a rhetorical style most modern readers are not used to. Paul, the writer of Romans, was trained as a scholar of Greek classics and Hebrew literature, and his style may seem obscure to those of us (like Tyler) who enjoy reading Dear Abby and USA Today. The pertinent passage reads as follows in the King James Version:

“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful.” (Romans 1:21-28)

Though it may come as a surprise, we consider this to be the easiest of the clobber passages to interpret. This is because Paul, in his classically trained style, thoroughly explains the factual assumptions and rationale behind his condemnation of the behavior described here. This makes it easy for us to answer our question: Does this passage apply to inherently same-gender-attracted people who are living in loving, committed relationships?

If we follow the passage, step-by-step, we find Paul is moving through a logical progression. He is talking about people who:

1. Refused to acknowledge and glorify God. (v. 21)
2. Began worshipping idols (images of created things, rather than the Creator). (v. 23)
3. Were more interested in earthly pursuits than spiritual pursuits. (v. 25)
4. Gave up their natural, i.e., innate, passion for the opposite sex in an unbounded search for pleasure. (v. 26-27)
5. Lived lives full of covetousness, malice, envy, strife, slander, disrespect for parents, pride, and hatred of God. (v. 29-31)

Note 2. Greenberg, David F., The Construction of Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press, 1988), and Nissinen, Martti, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1998). Nissinen documents how Paul, like other Jewish scholars of his day, would have associated homosexual practices with temple prostitution (pages 42 and 106). Nissinen also discusses the sex practices of the people in Corinth (where Paul is supposed to have written Romans) on pages 110 and 113. On pages 95-106 of his book, Greenberg presents a thorough discussion of the known examples of male cult prostitution in the ancient near east. Pages 158-160 also discuss the unbridled promiscuity of first-century Roman culture.

The model of homosexual behavior Paul was addressing here is explicitly associated with idol worship (probably temple prostitution (See note 2.)), and with people who, in an unbridled search for pleasure (or because of religious rituals associated with their idolatry), broke away from their natural sexual orientation, participating in promiscuous sex with anyone available.

There are, no doubt, modern people who engage in homosexual sex for reasons similar to those identified in Romans 1. If someone began with a clear heterosexual orientation, but rejected God and began experimenting with gay sex simply as a way of experiencing a new set of pleasures, then this passage may apply to that person. But this is not the experience of the vast majority of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. Consider Tyler’s story:

From the time Tyler was a very young man his main desire was to do God’s will. He was raised by missionary parents, and at the age of five he acknowledged his need for God and prayed for Jesus to come into his heart. He didn’t understand exactly what that meant, but he always tried to live a life that glorified God. In high school, his friends thought of him as different because his faith in God and in the teachings of his church did not allow him to drink and dance. When a girl asked him to the prom, he went, but he made sure they started the date by praying together. Unlike the people condemned in Romans 1, Tyler acknowledged, glorified, and worshipped God. For him, spiritual pursuits were much more important than earthly pleasures.

However, by the time Tyler decided to go to a Christian college, he was already having feelings of attraction toward men and knew he was not attracted to women. He believed these feelings were wrong, so he suppressed his natural attractions and told himself he must be asexual. And, when he finally acknowledged his attraction to men during his fourth year of college, it was not during a search for unbounded sexual pleasure or in the context of pagan worship rituals. It was during a night of intense prayer when he was questioning whether he should try to pursue a relationship with a female friend. During that time of prayer, Tyler was strongly impressed that he needed, instead, to deal with his innate attraction to men.

For Tyler, a Christian child of missionaries, his first reaction was to seek spiritual advice. He immediately went to a trusted professor and soon began therapy with one of the counselors at his Christian school. For the next several years, he continued to remain celibate as he wrestled with Scripture and with his church’s teachings, trying to find out how he should live as a gay man. He tried always to live a life free of covetousness, malice, envy, strife, and pride. And, even when Tyler came to the conclusion that Scripture affirmed him as an innately gay individual, his respect for the teaching of his parents and his love of God convinced him to remain a virgin until meeting his spouse, Rob.

Jeff’s story is similar. And we know of hundreds of other gay people who could tell stories of struggling with their same-sex attractions while diligently serving God. These are not idolaters, people who hated God and pursued their own desire for new and greater sexual thrills. These are lovers of God who, nevertheless, have been attracted to people of the same sex from early in life. They are innate (i.e., natural) homosexuals.

Paul simply does not address our model of stable, loving homosexual relationships among people of faith. It might be fair to ask, “If Paul had known some people are innately homosexual and if he had been aware of stable, loving gay relationships among devout people of faith, would he still have disapproved?” However, any answer we came up with would be fanciful speculation, because the fact is Paul did not address this issue in his letter to the Romans. He was addressing a different set of facts and, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, issued a ruling applicable to those facts. We must look elsewhere in Scripture for guidance on our question.//"

Now Hector, tell me again how any of this relates to stopping same-gender couples in committed relationships from getting legal protection. Is this what St. Paul and Jude were against?

Does keeping committed same-gender couples in legal twilight makes them more or less likely to be promiscuous bathhouse users?

And finally, are you flat out stating that you are a theocrat? If St. Paul is against something does that mean California, must be against it too? How about those of us, gay and straight, who think the state should have some better reason for its rules as to what did or did not upset St. Paul?

Posted by glennn | May 18, 2008 9:55 PM