# Subtext behind many anti-SSM arguments **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 4, 2004, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520 "2004-03-04T15:24:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2004, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/101 "2004-03-09T04:29:29Z")
> [@Truth Seeker](#): > > But that’s not the way it works, **Otto**. If you raise a state constitutional claim, you will _always_ raise a corresponding federal constitutional claim as a back-up in case you lose at the state level. Really? Always? Every case that has ever been appealed to the California supreme court alleging violations of the California constitution has raised a “corresponding federal constitutional claim”? Every single one ever? > [@](#): > > Let’s take an example from private industry. Married workers have traditionally been allowed to carry their spouses on their health insurance. Companies offered this benefit because it helped them retain good employees. This benefit was not available, however, to unmarried couples. Over the last few years, however, a number of companies have begun providing insurance plans that _do_ allow unmarried couples, whether same sex or otherwise, to carry their partners on their insurance. Why? Because doing so furthered their goal of retaining good employees. Some of them did it because cities like San Francisco passed laws requiring that any company contracting with the city provide equal benefits to domestic partners. > [@](#): > > The problem is, **Otto** , that he wouldn’t be unless the U.S. Supreme Court goes the whole hog like Massachusetts did. Otherwise, the federal government will not, at least currently, recognize same-sex marriages for immigration purposes even if some states allow them. Are you being this dense on purpose? We were discussing _federal benefits accorded to marriage_. ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2004, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/102 "2004-03-09T05:34:16Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > Really? Always? Every case that has ever been appealed to the California supreme court alleging violations of the California constitution has raised a “corresponding federal constitutional claim”? Every single one ever? Providing, of course, there is a corresponding federal claim, absolutely. Federalizing the issue is just competent lawyering – it’s standard practice. > [@](#): > > Are you being this dense on purpose? We were discussing _federal benefits accorded to marriage_. **Otto** , I know this is deeply important to you on a very personal level. But I’m afraid that I’m correct. Even if a state recognizes a gay marriage, the federal government will not. [http://www.glad.org/Publications/CivilRightProject/Immigration\_Issues.shtml](http://www.glad.org/Publications/CivilRightProject/Immigration_Issues.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2004, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/103 "2004-03-09T16:18:08Z")
> [@Truth Seeker](#): > > Providing, of course, there is a corresponding federal claim, absolutely. Federalizing the issue is just competent lawyering – it’s standard practice. And what you’re doing is called “weaseling.” Since you’ve admitted via weasel that you were wrong in your claim that “If you raise a state constitutional claim, you will _always_ raise a corresponding federal constitutional claim as a back-up in case you lose at the state level,” let’s move to the specifics at hand. Papers have been filed by both sides in the California case. What federal constitutional claim has been raised that would lead to your contended SCOTUS intervention? > [@](#): > > **Otto** , I know this is deeply important to you on a very personal level. But I’m afraid that I’m correct. Even if a state recognizes a gay marriage, the federal government will not. > > [http://www.glad.org/Publications/CivilRightProject/Immigration\_Issues.shtml](http://www.glad.org/Publications/CivilRightProject/Immigration_Issues.shtml) Ah, so you are being this dense on purpose. Sorry I didn’t make it crystal clear for you; I hadn’t realized the level of intellect I was dealing with. Just so there is no possibility of confusion, I’ll start using the entirely cumbersome phrasing “full state and federal recognition of same-sex marriage” so that you can no longer wave DOMA about like it has some relevance to the hypothetical under discussion. Were there “full state and federal recognition of same-sex marriage” then the benefits of “full state and federal recognition of same-sex marriage” would be available to me and my boyfriend should we marry. So I’ll ask again, which is more honoring the sanctity of marriage that opponents of “full state and federal recognition of same-sex marriage” go on about, my hypothetical marriage to a man I love or a sham wedding with a paid-off bride to snag a green card? ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2004, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/104 "2004-03-09T17:37:15Z")
**Otto** , if you can’t keep up, shut up. I haven’t time to wipe your intellectual ass for you. > [@otto](#): > > And what you’re doing is called “weaseling.” Since you’ve admitted via weasel that you were wrong in your claim that “If you raise a state constitutional claim, you will always raise a corresponding federal constitutional claim as a back-up in case you lose at the state level,” let’s move to the specifics at hand. Papers have been filed by both sides in the California case. What federal constitutional claim has been raised that would lead to your contended SCOTUS intervention? The actual brief was filed on Friday, March 5 and I didn’t turn it up on line anywhere. However, I did find this summary, though a subscription is required for the whole article. > [@](#): > > City Attorney Dennis Herrera will lean on the U.S. Constitution to defend same-sex marriages in state Supreme Court, according to a preview of a brief he plans to file today. Herrera argues that the state family laws violate the equal protection and due process clauses of the federal as well as the state constitution. The brief states, in part, “Because marriage discrimination violates the United States Constitution, the Supremacy Clause required [the county clerk] to cease such discrimination immediately.” [http://store.law.com/ca\_results.asp?inftype=news&lqry=gay+marriage&x=12&y=12](http://store.law.com/ca_results.asp?inftype=news&lqry=gay+marriage&x=12&y=12) In any event, as I pointed out in the same post, one or more of the couples will head to federal court on their own even if San Francisco somehow fails to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. > [@](#): > > Ah, so you are being this dense on purpose. Sorry I didn’t make it crystal clear for you; I hadn’t realized the level of intellect I was dealing with. Just so there is no possibility of confusion, I’ll start using the entirely cumbersome phrasing “full state and federal recognition of same-sex marriage” so that you can no longer wave DOMA about like it has some relevance to the hypothetical under discussion. Were there “full state and federal recognition of same-sex marriage” then the benefits of “full state and federal recognition of same-sex marriage” would be available to me and my boyfriend should we marry. My original statement was, > [@](#): > > The problem is, Otto, that he wouldn’t be **unless the U.S. Supreme Court goes the whole hog like Massachusetts did.** Otherwise, the federal government will not, at least currently, recognize same-sex marriages for immigration purposes even if some states allow them. I’ve bolded and enlarged the relevant bit since it obviously escaped your attention before. In case it still isn’t clear, the only way to solve the immigration problem is to get the federal law either repealed (fat chance) or struck down by the **U.S.** Supreme Court. Hypothetically, if your butt were the Land of Oz, monkeys would fly out your ass. But so what? We’re not discussing hypotheticals here. We’re discussing a real, practical problem. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2004, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/105 "2004-03-09T19:54:26Z")
I get why your name is Truth Seeker and not Truth Speaker… > [@Truth Seeker](#): > > The actual brief was filed on Friday, March 5 and I didn’t turn it up on line anywhere. However, I did find this summary, though a subscription is required for the whole article. See how that works? Make an assertion, back it up. Of course your original assertion that cases before state courts under state constitutions “always” contain federal constitutional claims still lies revealed as the steaming pile of shit that it is… > [@](#): > > In any event, as I pointed out in the same post, one or more of the couples will head to federal court on their own even if San Francisco somehow fails to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Oh, undoubtedly. However, this does not support your original assertion that cases before state courts under state constitutions “always” contain federal constitutional claims. As for your continued stubborn refusal to back off the whole immigration thing like I wasn’t when I talked about getting married talking about accessing the federal benefits of marriage, it may very well be that in the land of Oz monkeys would fly out of my ass. You however would not have that worry because the monkeys up your ass could never navigate around your fat head. ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2004, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/106 "2004-03-10T16:36:02Z")
Uh _huh_. Well, I think there’s a sufficient record here for anyone still reading to decide for themselves whether you’re making a lick o’ sense or not. There is, however, one point made by **eris** that I wanted to respond to. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Somehow, I don’t think that’s going to tip the balance for middle america. > > Somehow, I don’t give a fuck about whether middle america thinks I’m an idiot for exercizing my fifth amendment rights, should the opportunity present itself. They’re there in the consitution. Precisely so. They are there in the constitution. More to the point, everyone recognizes they are there in the constitution. Yet even so, case law on the fifth amendment is chock-full of full of policy analysis attempting to determine the scope of the right and even whether the right exists in certain cases. Unlike the fifth amendment, gay marriage is, of course, not yet a widely recognized constitutional right. Therefore, it follows that you have to convince people that it exists. This process is a lot easier if you convince people that it _ought_ to exist. As a result, a wise proponent of gay marriage will indeed “give a fuck” about what middle america thinks. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2004, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/107 "2004-03-10T20:34:30Z")
**Truth Seeker** , you go on and on about the need for a pragmatic approach to this issue (come to the debating table with carefully-crafted arguments, and persuade of the rightness of the position with those arguments). It’s hard to find fault with this point, but I wonder if you’re not failing to consider a very real factor as making this approach unworkable at the present time: getting a place at the debating table. As has been asserted by several posters above, such carefully crafted arguments have been created and brought to the table. That they are being ignored by the forces of Darkness (as well, it seems, as the non-evil observers who will eventually decide the question) suggests that the need still exists for a vocal faction that gets everyone’s attention. Shrill and unpleasant as it seems, even to those of us on the same side, I submit that the screaming does have a legitimate role in the process. And it’s more than a little insulting that you’re willing to dismiss it as primarily intended for entertainment. ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/108 "2004-03-11T17:53:01Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > **Truth Seeker** , you go on and on about the need for a pragmatic approach to this issue (come to the debating table with carefully-crafted arguments, and persuade of the rightness of the position with those arguments). It’s hard to find fault with this point, You’d never know it from this thread. > [@](#): > > As has been asserted by several posters above, such carefully crafted arguments have been created and brought to the table. That they are being ignored by the forces of Darkness (as well, it seems, as the non-evil observers who will eventually decide the question) suggests that the need still exists for a vocal faction that gets everyone’s attention. Once again, you’d never know it. Have you seen a single policy argument in this thread? I haven’t. They seem to be pretty thin on the ground everywhere. I see however, the Jonathan Rauch has a book coming out next month entitled, “'Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights and Good for America.” Hopefully, as the title suggests, it will be full of “bigotted” arguments and evidence outlining the societal benefits of gay marriage. > [@](#): > > Shrill and unpleasant as it seems, even to those of us on the same side, I submit that the screaming does have a legitimate role in the process. And it’s more than a little insulting that you’re willing to dismiss it as primarily intended for entertainment. “Entertainment” may be the wrong word. A great many gay marriage proponents don’t actually give a fig for the tangible benefits of marriage. Rather, they want to use gay marriage as a proxy for social acceptance. If you fall into this camp, the _only_ acceptable argument in favour of gay marriage is that gay relationships are of inherently equal dignity with straight relationships and ought to be joyously celebrated by everyone in society. But society is not there yet and isn’t going to get there without a lot of work. But for this camp, even the downside has an upside. You get to climb up on your moral high horse and thunder at everyone who disagrees with you. Is there anything so cathartic as the shared victimhood of a righteous cause? For these people, a glorious defeat is preferable to an ignoble victory. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/109 "2004-03-11T18:55:15Z")
> [@Truth Seeker](#): > > Once again, you’d never know it. Have you seen a single policy argument in this thread? I haven’t. They seem to be pretty thin on the ground everywhere. Happen across GD in the last, oh, six months? See last week’s issue of The Economist? Read the paper? Read the MA court decision? I see intelligent debate everywhere. At this point I’m almost positive you’re just not looking, and are about one step away from putting your fingers in your ears and shouting, “LA LA LA NO INTELLIGENT DEBATE HERE LA LA LA.” > [@](#): > > “Entertainment” may be the wrong word. A great many gay marriage proponents don’t actually give a fig for the tangible benefits of marriage. Rather, they want to use gay marriage as a proxy for social acceptance. And? > [@](#): > > If you fall into this camp, the _only_ acceptable argument in favour of gay marriage is that gay relationships are of inherently equal dignity with straight relationships and ought to be joyously celebrated by everyone in society. I love the way you know the One True Way forward. I fall into that camp, and the camp that finds the justifications for marriage apply just as well to gays, and the camp that finds that otherwise equal adults are being unfairly discriminated, and the camp that thinks there should be no federal benefits for any marriage if it is a state issue, and probably more than that if the questions were asked and someone felt inclined to shoehorn me into another “camp” over it. So I guess I have a wide range of arguments open to me. > [@](#): > > You get to climb up on your moral high horse and thunder at everyone who disagrees with you. Is there anything so cathartic as the shared victimhood of a righteous cause? For these people, a glorious defeat is preferable to an ignoble victory. God, shut the fuck up already. People are discussing this seriously all over the place. Maybe you just weren’t invited. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/110 "2004-03-11T21:47:52Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Happen across GD in the last, oh, six months? See last week’s issue of The Economist? Read the paper? Read the MA court decision? I see intelligent debate everywhere. At this point I’m almost positive you’re just not looking, and are about one step away from putting your fingers in your ears and shouting, “LA LA LA NO INTELLIGENT DEBATE HERE LA LA LA.” I am asking for a policy argument, not a philosophical argument. _The Economist_, for example, (and I did indeed read the issue to which you refer) argues, “The case for allowing gays to marry begins with equality, pure and simple.” At least for _The Economist_, it apparently ends there as well. There is not a single bit of actual data on the social benefits of gay marriage in either the leader or the actual story. If you really do have access to all this policy analysis and research data, please link some of it here – because I really do genuinely want to know. But just to be clear, I want to see things with numbers, not hand-waving about “stability” and “love.” So far, the only even vaguely relevant statistic that I’ve been able to come up with is that 28% of gay households involve children to some degree. But that doesn’t differentiate whether they are single parent households, joint custody arrangements with ex-opposite-sex spouses or what. > [@](#): > > So I guess I have a wide range of arguments open to me. Excellent. That’s exactly the way it should be. You need to adapt your argument to your audience. You need to make a different argument to a Libertarian than to a Democrat and a still different argument to a Republican. I’ll say it one more time, though I doubt it will get through this time either. Almost 2/3 of the American public does not support gay marriage. It is not that these people have not heard someone repeating the mantra that gays are equal. They have. Therefore, other arguments are needed to begin chipping away this opposition. It may be emotionally gratifying to simply consign this large majority of people to the outer darkness and rail at them as reactionary bigots. But it is stupid politics. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/111 "2004-03-11T23:21:27Z")
Okay then, why should SSM advocates have to come up with policy arguments when there doesn’t need to be a policy argument in favor of opposite sex marriage? Obviously, there are policy arguments in favor of opposite sex marriages. But if any one of them applies to every opposite sex marriage, it also applies to same-sex marriages. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2004, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/112 "2004-03-11T23:42:16Z")
I asked this once, and seem to have been ignored, so I’ll ask again: What if there is no policy argument for SSM? What if we do all the research **Truth Seeker** wants, and it comes back that the only people who would benefit from same sex marriage are same sex couples? Should we just give up because the American public is apparently so greedy and self-centered that it’s not enough for something to not harm them before they’ll not vote against it, but it actually has to have some tangible benefit for them? Moreover, since the vast majority of anti-SSM marriages are rooted in religion, do you, **Truth Seeker** , honestly expect people to support something they feel is hated by God because they’re getting a tax break? SSM isn’t a policy issue: it’s a moral issue, and it’s a moral issue because _that’s how the other side wants it._ F’rchrissake, you keep blathering on about how we’re just arguing because we like having the moral highground, but we’re not the ones saying the other side is going to _burn in Hell_ for disagreeing with us. Why don’t you go pester those high-hat motherfuckers, instead? Especially since you keep claiming to actually _agree with the goals of the people in this thread_? Fuck! With friends like you… ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2004, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/113 "2004-03-12T18:20:42Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Fuck! With friends like you… we can’t spend all our time engaging in a self-righteous love fest! It’s easy to preach to the choir about same-sex marriage, especially if it’s the Gay Men’s Choir. But they’re not the ones who have to be convinced, are they? To win the public debate, you have to _engage_ with people who don’t automatically agree with you. Look, suppose I’m a midwestern soccer mom. I’m mildly religious, concerned about my family and concerned about my children’s future but generally live-and-let-live. I can be convinced, but I can’t be hectored. The standard line of “Gays are equal and if you don’t support gay marriage you’re a bigot!” not only doesn’t cut any ice with me, it actively pisses me off because I’m _not_ a bigot. > [@](#): > > I asked this once, and seem to have been ignored, so I’ll ask again: > > What if there is no policy argument for SSM? What if we do all the research **Truth Seeker** wants, and it comes back that the only people who would benefit from same sex marriage are same sex couples? I don’t know, we’ll have to cross that bridge when we come to it, I guess. I doubt if that’s true since there are some benefits (e.g. increased health) that seem pretty likely to exist. > [@](#): > > Should we just give up because the American public is apparently so greedy and self-centered that it’s not enough for something to not harm them before they’ll not vote against it, but it actually has to have some tangible benefit for them? Heh. Since we’re speculating, what if it turns out that gay marriage really will cause the total collapse of society? Of course, that’s why you do the research. The odds are overwhelming that it will provide data not only demonstrating social benefit, but also a lack of social harm. > [@](#): > > Moreover, since the vast majority of anti-SSM marriages are rooted in religion, do you, **Truth Seeker** , honestly expect people to support something they feel is hated by God because they’re getting a tax break? Indeed I do. Your argument that antipathy to gay marriage in the U.S. is primarily driven by strong religious views doesn’t hold water. The best estimates are that about 20% of Americans regulary attend worship services. The consensus is that about 25% of Americans are devoutly religious, 25% are secular and 50% are “mildly interested” in religion. Remember, however, that almost 2/3 of Americans oppose gay marriage. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel\_rate.htm](http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm) > [@](#): > > SSM isn’t a policy issue: it’s a moral issue, and it’s a moral issue because _that’s how the other side wants it._ F’rchrissake, you keep blathering on about how we’re just arguing because we like having the moral highground, but we’re not the ones saying the other side is going to _burn in Hell_ for disagreeing with us. Brilliant. Let opponents of gay marriage define the terms of the debate and then get down on their level. > [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Obviously, there are policy arguments in favor of opposite sex marriages. But if any one of them applies to every opposite sex marriage, it also applies to same-sex marriages. Cite? Is there a gay “marraige premium?” Are gay people in long-term relationships healthier? etc., etc., ad nauseum, ad infinitum. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2004, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520/114 "2004-03-12T23:15:03Z")
> [@Truth Seeker](#): > > > [@kaylasdad99](#): > > > > Obviously, there are policy arguments in favor of opposite sex marriages. But if any one of them applies to every opposite sex marriage, it also applies to same-sex marriages. > > Cite? Is there a gay “marraige premium?” Are gay people in long-term relationships healthier? etc., etc., ad nauseum, ad infinitum. Nope, not getting roped into it. You show me yours first. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/subtext-behind-many-anti-ssm-arguments/232520.md?page=5)