Although Mr. Moto and I would probably agree on many things, Liberal has stated my thoughts on this matter better than I could have.
p. s. I don’t really have a dog in this race as far as SSM is concerned. I’ve been married to a lovely woman for over ten years. My only concern in this debate is that I would like other loving couples to have the same right to happiness (and security) that I was granted by the happenstance that I found myself attracted to women instead of men.
Hogwash. If your town calls a referendum on whether or not to run you out of town on a pole, and the vote goes 11,683 to 1 in favor of the pole, it’s still wrong.
Yeah, and I’m proud to be a member of the 49.3%. Still tastes a lot like ashes, though.
And I was in the opposite position. I figured that it would pass precisely because there are too many people in MO who are that backward. Now, we get to wait for the Supremes to take on the state constitution. Now that will prove to be a good time.
Lost that one, too. Something must be wrong with my prognosticator.
And this is what really pisses me off. The only reasons for doing this were to enshrine bigotry and to make it that much harder for the courts to declare unconstitutional.
Maybe if you could explain how there could possibly be “sides” to this issue, I’d see your point. Instead of just rolling your eyes and making throwaway comments about democracy?
I was under the impression that an important part of democracy was discussion of the issues everyone was voting on. I’ve yet to hear a real argument from the “other side” as to why I shouldn’t be allowed to marry, only vagaries like “most people are against it” and “we’re old-fashioned” and such. Isn’t one of the ideas of a democracy supposed to be fairness and liberty? How is it fair to deny a group of people their rights without reason? Just because the majority thinks it’s okay?
I concur. If we as individuals are obliged to obey laws we may think are unfair or silly, as part of living in a democratic republic, so must the legislature be compelled to abide by checks and balances; otherwise, it’s nothing more than a many-headed tyrant.
(Sorry, I’m in the middle of Gore Vidal’s Lincoln, and I guess the florid rhetoric is rubbing off, a bit.)
I dunno. I’ve slept on it now, and maybe there’s something to be said for the “old-fashioned” ways. And I’m talking WAY old-fashioned ways. Put the gays back in the closets. Take the shoes off our women, get them pregnant, and put them back in the kitchen. Let’s bring back slavery too, cuz I don’t like leaving my house to go to work anyway. Then we’ll repeal all those damned amendments that give the right to vote to people who aren’t white male land owners. Then let’s go sailing around the world, claiming other countries in the name of the USA because we have flags and plunder their natural resources.
Ah yes, good times. And that’s why you shouldn’t be allowed to marry, Sol, cuz as you can see, the old-fashioned ways are clearly superior to these new-fangled ways, which I think is just a fad anyway. In another 15 years, no one will want to be gay anymore and VH1 will do a “I Love the '00s” special and we’ll all reminice about how “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” and “Will and Grace” made everyone want to be all homosexual and stuff.
Because, if God forbid, we allow them gays to marry, who knows what comes next? Folks marrying their cousins, five year old girls, cows, dogs, diesel engines … where’s it going to stop? :rolleyes:
That’ll be nice. Maybe I’ll be able to forget all this nonsense and find the right woman and finally settle down to a real marriage. Leave all this nonsense behind, because obviously I’m just confused or I didn’t play catch enough with my father.
Man, that pissed me off just typing that, because I know that there are people who really think like that.
(And I think that if anything, “Queer Eye” and “Will and Grace” will convince people they don’t want to be homosexual. Who has time to come up with that many cheesy double entendres? First time I saw “Will and Grace,” I started looking into how to sign up for one of those ex-gay therapy seminars.)
So, there should be a democratic vote on whether all citizens are equal and desering of the same rights?
What a humanitarian you are.
:wally
Same here.
Will & Grace and Queer Eye strike me as no more than a gay Steppin Fetchit sideshow. Not that it made me wish to be straight… dating men has done that well enough for me, thanks.
Right. It’s not as if marriage isn’t already regulated to hell and back already. Yet these laws, duly decided by state legislatures, are perfectly fine, right?
Where’s the vast outrage over the setting of minimum ages? Surely that’s constitutional.
I’m not arguing that gays should be excluded from marriage, as I’m a big supporter of federal civil unions. What I’m arguing is that the removal of this issue from the political realm would be inappropriate at this time. Only here can the public have any kind of direct impact on the process, and some kind of say in the final social arrangement.
How could it possibly be unconstitutional? And for that matter, how is it relevant? A person who’s 17 years old will assuredly (barring catastrophe) grow into a person who’s 18 and old enough to marry. I’m 33, and there are no signs as of yet that I’ll grow out of this whole “gay” phase.
The existing regulations of marriage are refinements of the basic principle of the institution. Yes, you’ll see debate over the definitions of the rights and processes involved, the ages of people involved, benefits, etc. This is not a refinement – this is a denial of the benefits of the institution to a significant percentage of the population who share a pre-determined, unchangeable trait. Same-sex couples will still be subject to all the regulations and limitations of marriage – oh wait, no they won’t. Because they’re denied the chance to get married at all.
I just read an anti-gay-marriage editorial in the National Review Online, linked to from a separate thread, and the author claims that SCOTUS rulings about interracial marriages don’t apply to same-sex marriages, because sexual orientation (or as he dismissively refers to it, “sexuality”), “clearly” doesn’t belong in the same class as race. Nothing more than that, just it’s “clearly” different, so the rulings don’t apply.
Why do people keep avoiding this? Why is it so “clearly” not the same thing as race? Why is it merely another legislated regulation of marriage, and not a gross denial of the rights of the institution to a minority group? Why do people keep acting as if it’s so capricious for homosexuals to expect to get married?
Glad you said that, because now I can finally talk more about my other pet project.
I’m not arguing that blacks should be denied equal rights, as I’m a big supporter of federally-instituted facilities specifically designed for the use of black people. These will be pristine water fountains in clearly designated areas, and spacious, comfortable areas specially reserved for them on the back of every form of public transportation. What I am arguing is that it would be inappropriate at this time to remove the issue from the political realm. Only by allowing the public to voice their opinions of the Coloreds can we be sure that everyone is treated fairly.
It’s really quite simple: does the person in question believe that homosexuality is a mutable choice that COULD (not even necessarily should) be fixed with therapy and/or willpower, or does (s)he not?
If the former, the stuff you question above really isn’t that surprising at all.
It’s pretty certain that you can fix Christianity with willpower, if you want to put it like that… and yet that’s not treated as an excuse to deny Christians their civil rights.
Gah! That would be me, again.
Well, yeah, but OTOH, with two exceptions, religion isn’t really equated with race most of the time, either (AFAIK).
Besides, considering Christianity (or at least the trio of major religions) is the reason why folks think homosexuality NEEDS to be fixed, it’s sort of a circular thing, if you catch my drift…
It’s still not the same thing, in the case of interracial marriage – the two parties involved can’t change their race, but they COULD choose to marry someone of their own race instead. And yet, they choose not to. And yet, the government allows them to.
And I don’t want to go down the path of saying that the only, or even the most convincing, justification for same-sex marriage is that homosexuals can’t change into heterosexuals. I want people to really understand that “could” is not the same as “should.” And it’s not their place to turn what they think two consenting adults should do, into laws that say what two consenting adults can do.
And the religion comparison isn’t that far out of left field – you know, an awful lot of Americans in the “heartland” are against atheism. And the Bible certainly isn’t a fan of atheism, either. And an atheist can choose to become a Christian. But the last I checked, atheists weren’t legally restricted from marriage.
I hope you do, too. God, how I hope you do.
I would be proud to live to see everyone in our county have equal rights. Unfortunately, I just don’t think I will. I’m calculating that about two or three generations need to die off before it can happen.
I hope I’m wrong.
(Well, that was just me being melodramatic. I’m pretty sure I’d have to have a boyfriend before I could get married, anyway – do you know anyone to set me up with, by the way?)
But my point, and the only reason I keep harping on Mr. Moto’s posts, is that equal rights are pretty easy and pretty simple. We can get equal rights in my lifetime; there’s no need to wait. You just recognize people’s right to life, liberty, and happiness, as long as they’re not hurting anyone else. In this issue, they’re already doing that in places like Massachusetts and much of Canada; we’re seeing it happen right now.
But seeing everyone in the country have equal acceptance? That’s the part that takes a couple of generations, if ever. And we’ve seen analogous situations in other civil rights struggles before – you’d be a fool to say that the U.S. has race relations all figured out and comfortable, and yet we’ve already got laws protecting the rights of non-Cockausian races. There’s still not universal acceptance of the equality of women in this country; we haven’t “beaten” sexism. And yet we’ve got laws protecting the rights of women and have had them for years.
Why, then, is it acceptable to say that we have to wait until a majority of Americans are comfortable with homosexuality, before we put the framework in place to ensure that homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals?
Why can’t those rights be enshrined in a civil union, and leave marriage, with all of its attendant cultural and historical notations, be left to heterosexual couples?
I realize this isn’t quite equal, but it quite possibly is the only way to make it work in American society.