If you were really saying that, you’d be getting some markedly different answers, in tine, anyway.
But I don’t agree you’re saying that. Please – point to one post preceding yours thas has that tone, that asks that question. The posts I recall are all saying, “Hey, you know what? This is bullshit, it sucks, it’s wrong, the bigots and the fundies and the haters are out there and they suck!” Critically missing from these rants is “How do we fix it?” tone you pose.
tine=tone
So I guess it’d be shrill and belligerent in tone to point out that critically missing from your post is any attempt at a real answer?
If I believed that “tone” were more important than substance, then I would point out that every time you make a post celebrating state constitutional amendments overturning same-sex marriage, it has the “tone” of petty gloating. Or that when you say that gay people are free to remain celibate and that marriage is an institution rooted in the tradition of being male/female only, and then say that you support same-sex marriage, it has the “tone” of being insincere. Or that when you respond to complaints about civil rights violations being made state law by turning it into a case of federalism vs states rights, it has the “tone” of being nothing more than another deflection, less insulting but no more productive than comparing me to a child molestor or a sheep-fucker.
But I don’t believe that tone is what’s important. I’m taking you at your word when you say that you support same-sex marriage. And I ask you and everyone else to stop complaining about the “rudeness” of posters who are genuinely pissed over an unfair situation, and instead address the real issues.
I’ve made it pretty clear that I’m a firm supporter of the freedom of religious belief, and have spoken out against attempts to mix politics with religion in either direction. So anyone who claims that my points are nothing more than pointless railing against the fundies – that just doesn’t hold water.
Listen, I basically respect your viewpoint (though not totally agreeing with it). But this argument is disingenuous, and you damn well know it.
For centuries, marriage had a meaning both in the English language and in English common law as the union of one man and one woman. This was well understood - everyone who talked about marriage was basically talking about this institution.
Legislation making this specific was only passed after court decisions threatened this common law assumption that most people had held. And this cannot be pinned solely on conservatives - the huge majorities this passes by everywhere it is on the ballot demonstrates that this interpretation is indicative of the public’s opinion on marriage, for better or worse.
That is not disingenuous; don’t tell me what I “damn well know.” I am talking about the institution. Marriage has a meaning in the English language as the consensual union of adults pledging lifelong commitment to each other to the exclusion of all others, ideally for the purpose of rearing children.
It has a connotation of being between a man and a woman, for the purpose of conceiving children. If the institution were just about the sexes of the participants and the conception of children, then the law would’ve explicitly said as much.
In fact, someone in an earlier argument pointed out the text of a law that explicitly said that marriage was for the purposes of conceiving children. That of course, fails to address why the benefits of marriage are extended without question to heterosexual couples who cannot conceive or have no desire to conceive.
Which of the connotations of marriage are the ones that are crucial to the institution? Having kids? Then why do God-fearing Christians fall all over themselves to provide opportunities for adoption or in-vitro fertilization for heterosexual couples who are unable to conceive? Is it about religion? Then why are atheist couples allowed to marry? Sin? Then why are non-virgins allowed to marry? Sin with no sign of remorse? Then why are adulterers allowed to marry?
Is it all about nothing more than sex? I say that when you, or anyone else, says that it’s just about sex, then you’re the one who is violating the institution of marriage. When anyone fights to change the constitution to make marriage all about sex, then he’s the one who needs to be defended against.
And even if you were able to dismiss all of that, that’s only part of the argument. Even if you could make the case that same-sex marriage is this entirely new and foreign arrangement, that’s still not a sufficient argument against it. All that’s left is “it’s this way because it’s always been this way.” Which is by definition “conservative,” which is why you claim that it’s getting “all pinned on conservatives.” Somebody else said it best: that’s not a counter-argument, that’s a tantrum.
As for “public’s opinion on marriage,” how about this as yet another example of why that argument doesn’t hold water:
I live in San Francisco. Now, I don’t have any surveys or numbers to back this up, but I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that my “community” is in support of same-sex marriage. I have yet to encounter a person in the Bay Area who doesn’t support it without question, or in fact who sees it as anything other than a total non-issue. And yet, same-sex marriage is illegal in San Francisco. Because people keep insisting that it’s a matter for “public opinon” to decide, and in this case, apparently my “community” is the state of California as a whole.
I’ve already made it clear that I think the whole notion of other people’s opinions intruding on my personal life is abhorrent. But for those who do say it’s a question of public opinion or state’s rights or whatever – where do you draw the line? If I have to cede control of my personal life to my “community,” how come my “community” is the state and not my city? Or the state and not the federal government?
Is it really about what works best for people, instead of my own selfish, hedonistic indulgences; or is it just about expanding the group wider and wider until you can get to one where the numbers work in your favor?
Who cares? America is supposed to be a paragon of freedom, the world’s leading edge for individual freedoms and human rights. We’re supposed to be all about recognizing new possibilities and not being limited by what others have done. (This is the way I see it, anyway.)
This is why “nobody else has ever done it” and “we’ve never done it this way” are NOT reasons to not do something. In fact, they’ve always sounded like challenges to me.
(Yes, I’m aware that other countries are seriously kicking our asses in this regard. It’s beside the point.)
Whenever I see someone preface their post with this kind of proclamation (ie “Not trying to be offensive” “Not trying to be a prick”), my eyes roll far back into my skull because I know that they are about to be just that.
I find it disingenuous when people gripe about the law of the land “only when it affects them adversely”.
Either you’re for rule of law or not. The majority get to make the law.
Slavery was once the law of the land. That too changed. So will this.
When enough people want change, it comes.
So i guess those slaves were disingenuous for griping about their condition?
Also, i don’t believe it’s true that only people directly affected by this issue are griping about it. At a practical level, i’m not at all affected by decisions on same sex marriage. I’m straight, i’m married, and no decision on SSM either way is going to change that. And yet, hard as you might find this to believe, i support the principle that two consenting adults, of whatever sex, should be able to marry one another and attain the benefits accruing to marriage in our society. And there are millions of others who feel this way.
As for your argument that the majority get to make the law, you may well be right. I don’t recall anyone arguing otherwise in this thread. But the fact that a majority might make a law doesn’t necesarily mean that it’s a good or a just law, nor does it mean that those who oppose the law shouldn’t fight to have it changed. Or are you not a believer in the political process?
“Oregonian.” However, if I were fossilized, or fell to earth, I would certainly want to be an oregonite.
I agree that our opinions matter. My concern is whether the voice of the majority should take precedence in issues affecting stigmatized minorities. I am an Oregon citizen and I voted against Measure 36. A lot of people did. Like the maps that show not just red and blue, but shading, I think it’s important to remember that a sizable minority voted against this measure and that the will of that bloc of people is not represented by the passage of this state’s DOMA.
Most of my Oregon-born university students don’t know about Oregon’s recent historical treatment of Japanese Oregonians. When passions about minorities run high, I worry about popular vote as the only or dominant tool of decision-making. Show me a mob that safeguards its vulnerable members when those members are construed as “other” and I’ll rethink my position.
The Spanish already allow homosexual marriage (civil marriage, of course, since the government cannot regulate religious marriage). My daily-Mass mom was pretty pissed until I reminded her that, the way civil marriage is defined in Spain, the “contract by default” for roomies is more astringent than for marriage. Some of the rights that married couples get by default in Spain are available to anybody you want - for example, doctors here don’t get uppity about only allowing next of kin to go into their office with the patient. If the patient says “she’s with me,” you get in. You can name someone your next of kin with a notary public (even over your spouse), etc etc. Marriage makes the paperwork simpler.
Norway was the first European country to allow it, and the first couple to get married included their Minister of Economy.
I’ve spent my whole life ramming through barriers and preconceptions (“girls don’t like computers”, “girls don’t like math”, “you can’t be an engineer, you’re a girl”, “girls…”), so anything that means assuming that you know all you need to know about someone just because you happen to know one trait pissed me blind. Discrimination stems from those preconceived notions and it’s always wrong.
In the words of the excruciatingly annoying Nancy Grace: “Ah disahgree! Ah disahgree!”
I’m a so-called “rightie” and I have no problem with gay marriage. Neither do many of the other “righties” I know. Further, I know lots of “lefties” who oppose not only gay marriage, but gays, period. So what say we back off on the stereotyping, which, after all, is a grievance the left has been accusing the right of for decades.
This exact kind of process is how laws are often passed in this country. I remember attending a safety meeting some years back in regard to a job I had in the transportation industry. Local politicos were trying to get seat belt laws passed and a slight public majority opposed it. So, they exempted commercial vehicles and pickup trucks, knowing that the liklihood was that these people would have no problem voting for the provision since it didn’t affect them. Then, once seat belt legislation had its foot in the door and people had come to accept it, a new provision would appear on the ballot which would require seat belt usage in commercial vehicles and pickup trucks. Now the pickup owners, et al., were in the minority, and the rest of the electorate voted to pass the new resolution because they had either come to feel seat belt laws were good, or because they viewed it as unfair that pickup truck drivers didn’t have to have seat belts whereas everyone else did.
So the legislators got their way in just the manner they knew they would, and after a certain period of time everyone had to use seat belts.
It’s the same way with the civil-union-first/gay-marriage-next issue. Like straightening teeth, slow and steady pressure will get the job done. A “Screw that shit, I want my rights NOW!” approach is more akin to trying to straighten teeth with a hammer. It not only doesn’t work, it just makes things worse.
Yeah, it’s downright annoying. Slavery would’ve been overturned eventually, if that whiny bitch Frederick Douglass had just kept his stupid trap shut. He only griped about “all men are created equal” when it was black people who weren’t being treated equally. How selfish.
Allow me to quote civil rights advocate Lore Sjoberg:
If the only issue were the benefits of marriage being extended to gay couples, then civil unions would be perfectly valid. That’s not the only issue. The issue is that people are saying “Your relationships are not real. Your love is not as valid as real love. You are free to do whatever you want in your personal life, but you will never have as true a relationship as ours.” For a gay couple in love to accept a civil union would be the same as saying, “Yeah, you’re right. Give me my money so I can keep on fucking in peace.”
Keep civil unions for the couples who want them; they’re a good idea. Don’t try to apply it to couples in love.
I lack the eloquence to clearly express my thoughts.
Of course I believe in the political process.
My thoughts are more in line with StarvingArtist. Things like this must be pished through incrementally.
The slaves didn’t have a say in the matter of their own slavery (no vote).
Gays can vote, and along with like minded heteros, they will eventually get what they seek.
That’s cool; I was just using your post as a springboard for my own campaigning. It’s the Pit. It’s all good.
Sorry for the hijack. While I saw no evidence of Lore being a civil rights advocate, I do have to say the website is funnier than hell.
We can’t claim that honour, I’m afraid. Denmark was the first country in Europe to get registered partnership in 1989, Norway followed suit in 1993. It’s gives all the rights of opposite-sex marriage except limited adoption rights (we’re working on that) and no right to state church ceremony (we’re working on dismantling the state church, too).
Netherlands got full marriage rights without gender discrimination in 20Timeline grabbed here.)
Our current minister of finance married (partnershipped? stupid legalese term) Jan Erik Knarbakk (CEO in Norway’s largest media concern) in January 2002. I found a story (in Norwegian) of his coming out to the general public when looking for the date: In 2000, he came out during a speech for Oslo Conservative Party. The reaction was thundering applause. And then he was elected as leader of the Oslo branch of the party. I’m not fond of the Conservatives’ economic politics, but I admit they have their good sides.
…and from a feminist point of view, I note wryly that this anecdote appears in a story about the most powerful couples in Norway. Which one was judged most powerful? You guessed it - the couple consisting of two men…
Something went wrong with that post. Netherlands got full marriage in 2000. Timeline grabbed here.
Will the civil union option only be available to homosexual couples?
If so, why? I know certain folks like their “back of the bus” rhetoric, but I think a secular parallel to marriage (and, yes, I know it wasn’t originally a religious thing, but it has become one) could appeal to more people. It would also be difficult for the government or a corporation to refuse to recognize them when the category contains united couples that are no different from married couples, except in name.
If gay men and lesbians are 10% of the population at best, our votes count but only can put it over the top, not win the day outright even with current support.
And this eventually bullshit is just that. A condescending pat on the head.