A free society (for anyone but the rich and powerful at least) is one of the things that conservatives have always opposed. As is equality under the law. They have always been the champions of authoritarianism and inequality, whether it’s trying to break down the separation of church and state, or supporting slavery and Jim Crow, or opposing the right of women to vote, or opposing SSM now.
Oh they will, when giving away their land at significant tax breaks no longer draws million dollar corps who want to attract the best and the brightest employees and don’t want to piss off the very consumers that dress their bottom line so pretty in black ink. They’ll come around, maybe not willingly and they will probably still be relatively shithole places to live for modern folk who don’t fit in to their traditional ways, but that’s the price of progress.
So, therefore Bible Belt states are liberal? :dubious:
So, if conservatives like equality and favour equality under the law, who exactly is it that’s arguing against same-sex marriage? Why has the principal party representing conservatism in the US just reaffirmed its opposition to same-sex marriage?
Or is this some bizarro definition of equality where “equality under the law” doesn’t require equal marriage rights?
Inequality under the law is unconstitutional. So the question is, when did gay marriage become required by the Constitution?
Interesting article. Very well written. My objection is this,
" To give kids two moms or two dads is to withhold from them someone whom they desperately need and deserve in order to be whole and happy. It is to permanently etch “deprivation” on their hearts."
Kids do need male and female role models and often long to know their biological parent, but IMO what they need forst is love and support, respect and consideration. Healthy discipline and guidence. Kids in hetero marriages often have two Dads and two Moms as parents divorce and remarry and sometimes the step parent is the more loveing and better role model.
And seriously, calling them civil unions and not marriage? What the hell is the point? It’s a word.
I would say when we found out that homosexuality was neither a mental defect nor a chosen trait. At that point, I would think SCOTUS would deem them a suspect class, and DOMA falls (IOW, it was always unconstitutional, but we were too ignorant to realize it by virtue of our misunderstanding of homosexualty). DOMA may still fall, but probably not based on that logic. The Court seems very reluctant to rule broadly.
Doesn’t that cut both ways? You say it’s just a word, so we should call it a marriage, and they say – it’s just a word, so we should call it a civil union.
(Now, that’s admittedly the point where I’d add that setting up a Separate-But-Equal system built around second-class treatment is presumably a bad idea with uncomfortable overtones, but you sort of need that extra step to do all the work, no?)
It’s not just a word, it has a legal meaning. The word “marriage” is all over our legal system in thousands of laws across the country, which will not apply to civil unions without legal wrangling over each of them. Nor are civil unions recognized anywhere but where they are issued, even between heterosexual couples. And as an emotional and symbolic matter, the symbolism of refusing a same sex couple a status that we allow serial killers is a way of ritually humiliating them and underlining just how hated homosexuals are by the people who push for such laws. It’s a way of saying “we wish we could torture you to death or throw you in prison for life like the old days, but since we can’t we’ll humiliate you as much as possible”.
A civil union is never going to be the equal of a marriage; being inferior is the point.
I agree.
I often see (here on the SDMB and elsewhere) the argument that forbidding same-sex marriage is a clear and obvious violation of equal rights. I agree, but I think that argument relies on premises that not everyone accepts—including the premise that there really are gay people, as opposed to just people who choose to engage in “gay behavior.”
Except that such people are virtually always just hypocrites trying to justify their bigotry, and would never accept the obvious implication that there’s also no such thing as straight people, just people engaging in “heterosexual behavior”.
Whenever you dig into opposition for same sex marriage, it always turns out to be based on one form of bigotry or another.
I don’t think this is fair or accurate. I think some people just have trouble imagining that other people are wired differently than they are.
The bestiality and pedophilia analogies don’t pass muster because one party of such a sexual coupling cannot be proven to have consented to the arrangement. On the other hand, doesn’t it strain reason to argue that gays should have the right to marry their same-sex partners, but that hillbillies should not be allowed to marry their cousins?
The aim of federal marriage laws should be to promote sexual couplings that offer a benefit to society (the next generation of healthy children), rather than those that place a burden on society, like incestuous couplings, which are less likely to produce healthy children, and gay couplings, which necessarily rely on costly third-party providers to procure their children.
They’ve been challenged for years to come up with a non-bigoted argument against same sex marriage, and failed in and out of court. And willful self delusion on that level is a form of bigotry all its own.
Costly to them, not to me, or other taxpayers. Why is that a burden on society?
The reason hillbilly marriage is discouraged is because their offspring will likely have mental/physical problems. How is that not simply their problem, and not society’s? The reasoning is that these children will require extra care, and we will all ultimately have to bear the burden.
If gay couples have a right to marriage, then it follows that they have a right to children. Built into this is the idea that in order to make gay couples equal to straight couples, the state will be compelled to subsidize their procurement of children.
The government should neither regulate nor subsidize sexuality, but it should subsidize procreation. Gay couples cannot procreate; they can only procure.
I think DOMA should be updated to further specify what marriage is (one man/one woman, age of consent, no relation), and it should also provide a framework for federally-recognized civil unions that layout specific rights (hospital visitation, inheritance, guardianship for partner’s children, regardless of how they were procured).
I suspect that you are not going to make many points in any proposal you put forth if you open the discussion with terms like “hillbilly marriage.”
This is just silly. Straight couples do not have a state supported “right” to children. Couples with issues of infertility or couples who marry at advanced ages do not currently get subsidies or “support” to have children. This sort of speculation makes grasping at straws look like being secured by a hawser.
- There is no right to children.
- Can you supply any evidence that this has been proposed?
What’s to subsidize? It costs nothing for fertile people to procreate. There’s no reason to start subsidizing fertility treatments, either.
There’s surrogacy, you know, as well as artificial insemination, or raising your children from previous relationships. None of those are procurement.
The ‘hillbilly marriage’ phrase was an attempt at a humorous turn of phrase. I certainly apologize to any hillbillies who were offended… That said, why shouldn’t adult brothers and sisters be allowed to marry?
The point about procreation/procurement was really about the inherent inequality of heterosexual and gay couplings; the individuals involved are equal, but the couplings themselves are not. An analogy might be the differences between sole proprietorships, partnerships, and corporations; these are treated differently in law because they operate differently.
To Human Action:
You claim there is no right to children. Is this to say that the government can pass laws to prohibit people from having children?
You wrote that there’s nothing to subsidize. There all all kinds of federal financial benefits for married couples, from tax benefits to transfer payments.
And whether its through surrogacy, artificial insemination, adoption, or even kids from a previous marriage, gay coupling necessarily requires third-party providers (sperm or egg donors, labs/clinics, agencies, and former heterosexual spouses), whereas married couples require them only incidentally. Gay couples’ families are thus beholden to others for their very creation, while married couples’ families can get started even if stranded on a desert island.