No wonder they lost. What weak arguments.
How the proponents of a gay marriage ban just ran out of arguments.
That’s certainly the pattern I’ve seen. Some time ago there was a GD thread where anti-SSM people were challenged to produce rational arguments against it, and they failed miserably. It’s one of the most one sided disputes I’ve seen in my life when it comes to plausible sounding arguments.
There is no argument against gay marriage. The fact that it is still up for debate is a disgrace!
It was one of the most one sided threads I’d ever seen too, Der Trihs. I’ve never heard any reason for being against gay marriage that didn’t boil down to being gay is wrong.
Here’s an awesome quote I saw on Facebook today that sums it up beautifully for me:
And here’s how you tell your kid, by the way:
That’s it, people. That’s all you need to do to explain the whole thing to a kid. No hand-wringing, no awkwardness, and more importantly no hangups about it (until they meet their first homophobe, anyway).
The only argument I’ve seen that made any sense, was that it made a mockery of “straight” marriage.
But the “five minute” weddings of Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian make even a BIGGER mockery of the sanctity of it.
I honestly think that marriages like that did far more for gay marriage than any argument did. After all if we let people marry with no thought why not gays.
That’s nothing; we let serial killers marry. But gays? That’s somehow going too far.
I can not wait for this to get to SCOTUS.
Their hands will be tied. I can see no possible way they could give a rational well thought out reason as to NOT pass it.
I don’t think this incarnation will even get there; for one I think they will deny certiorari until such time as there is an actual circuit split on the issue.
For a second reason, as much as I agree with it, the 9th Circuit’s decision is framed so narrowly it is possible it doesn’t apply anywhere but in 9th Circuit jurisdictions that already have Civil Unions, which I think is only California?
Similarly the opponents of SSM have been entirely unable to explain what will happen to society if gay people get married and unable to point out any detrimental effects of SSM in countries where it has been legal for years. The best I’ve ever gotten out of them is ‘just wait and see, something bad will happen eventually’.
No matter how you look at it, the whole argument boils down to ‘I think the gays are icky’.
I heard one good reason, once: “If gays could marry, rich Eddie would have married that slimeball Greg and Greg would have taken him to the cleaners.”
If you protect your kid too much, some day he is going to walk into a bar and say “hey, you guys are sure friendly!”
I grew up during the Civil Rights upheaval, and my thoughts as a kid then are a lot like they are now. And in 20 years we are going to wonder how people really could have been that bigoted.
BTW, my memory of the cited thread was that the only real reason give was that marriage already has a meaning. It means one man marrying one woman. You could ask Joseph Smith.
It would apply whenever a state legalized gay marriage or civil unions and then took it away. So conceivably, Oregon, Nevada, and Hawaii (and shortly Washington) could be impacted by the ruling were they to try to roll back those laws. The situation that could trigger a Supreme Court review would be if Iowa, New Jersey, or one of the various New England states rolled back one of their relevant statutes and survived a court challenge to the change in their federal courts of appeal. Then the S.C. would be pretty much forced to consider the question, to resolve the inconsistency in the lower court rulings.
I’m not sure about Washington: the measure which “Queen Christine” will sign into law on Monday takes effect in 90 days, and it’s dead certain that the Guardians of Public Morality will file suit to delay it pending a referendum in November. If the referendum succeeds — and it’s obviously anybody’s guess at this point — then the right to marriage will never have taken effect.
In addition, there’s been another initiative filed to write “one man one woman” into state statute. Given that the public tends to be hazy about the difference between voting “yes” on an initiative and “yes” on a referendum, it could be interesting. Pass the popcorn.
(One thing that I find entertaining, in a horrid way, is how the tone of the bleats in the local rag’s comment section has changed since the legislature finally started to take SSM seriously. It used to be all about “activist judges” usurping the legislative process, but now it’s more how legislators are flouting the “will of the people.” Should the referendum fail, I imagine it will be that [DEL]Gomorrah[/DEL] Seattle has once again managed to trample the will of all right-thinking folk.)
No not really. The decision merely says the distinction between Civil Unions and “marriage” is without rational basis. Essentially Prop 8 does nothing except take away a label; by having no legal effect the law draws a distinction which could not be defended as having any rational purpose.
The court specifically says, on page 6 of the decision, that it is not answering the question of whether it is unconstitutional to deny gay people the right to marry.
I’m of the (perhaps cynical) opinion that the main leaders of the movement to ban gay marriage do not, in fact, care if they win or lose.
Not one rat’s ass.
The point of the effort is merely to excite certain segments of the populace whose voting patterns are predictable – to excite them sufficiently to guarantee a healthy turnout at the polls – and then to be visibly, not necessarily successfully, on the side of the issue those highly reliable voters support.
I quite liked Futurama’s take on this when they did an episode on robo-human marriage that was a gay marriage analogy. The “no” campaign had an advert saying:
“Imagine all the terrible things that would happen if humans and robots could get married. Now imagine that we mentioned those things, because we couldn’t actually think of anything. We must protect our children from those things, whatever they are.”
I’m sure that analogy is one of the major unspoken fears of the anti-SSM people. Their biggest fear is that once they lose, in a few decades virtually no one will notice or care about same sex marriages any more than most people care about different races marrying or black people riding in the front of the bus.
For whatever it’s worth, I was an opponent of same-sex marriage when I registered on this message board twelve years ago. Arguments presented here caused me to revise my opinion and realize that, as a matter of wise social policy, same-sex marriage should be legal.
I don’t agree that there are zero arguments to be presented in the opposite direction, and I don’t think such hyperbole is particularly helpful, but I absolutely agree that on balance, the arguments in favor of SSM vastly outweigh the arguments against it.
Good on you, Bricker.