hate him hate him hate him

What a sad, sad time. Some people just do not learn anything from history. Tell me, Dubya, how is this different from racist laws? sexist laws? ageist laws? Shame on you!

My 92-year-old grandmother recently made a very astute observation when this guy appeared on TV: "I don't know how she (Laura) can be married to that guy. He has EVIL eyes."

> Tell me, Dubya, how is
> this different from
> racist laws? sexist
> laws? ageist laws? Shame
> on you!

Sure thing, this is an easy one.

Homosexuality is behaviour, not a state of being. Skin color is determined by birth and other than radicial surgery it is immutable. Likewise, age is determined immutably by the passage of time.

Homosexuality unlike race, age, or gender is a behaviour. It is an activity. Regardless of what impulses are present in your mind every person is capable of deciding to what degree the impulses should be followed.

Question for you:

true or false - marriage is a fundamental human right.

Well, we were minding our own business working for family values in the midst of a sexual revolution when suddenly a State supreme court decides to challenge us as to what is “rational� public policy.

Call us assholes, evil, racist/sexist/homophobes…call us what you will?

But when we said family values, you did not think we were confused as to what family meant? Now did you?

Oh please DP.

Masturbating and anal sex are also activities, it doesn't mean that it's right to make those activities illegal, or to persecute people and try to deny them rights because of it (though some states think vibrators are EVIL!).

So, yes, comparing homophobia to racism and misogyny is correct. I know a lot of conservatives get their boxers in a bunch and don't think homophobia should put them in the same box as racists, but it does, and it should. Homophbia directly contributes to gay bashing and violence against the queer community, just as racism directly contributes to hate crimes and violence against minorities.

I don't care if YOU think it's a choice. No one should have their rights stripped away and be subjected to violence and discrimination because you disagree with a "choice" they made.

False assumption:

Anti-gay marriage is result of homophobia. It's not. It's bigotry. Which is vastly different from 'fear' .

Then you write:

> So, yes, comparing
> homophobia to racism and
> misogyny is correct
Why? You haven't said why, just that it is correct. Race, sex, age are all immutable - they are not something you elect. Homosexuality, like anal sex or masturbation, are activities. Therefore it is not the same type of law like was originally claimed. It is an activity based restriction, not a restriction based on your intrinsic human value. When the law was that women and blacks couldn't vote it wasn't selective - it was that all blacks and all women are less valuable than any man. It was bigotry that was based on something you had no control over.

That's the difference.

Notice I didn't defend the anti-gay marriage side. I simply pointed out the failure of the argument.

> I don't care if YOU
> think it's a choice.

Is it your position that people are unable to control their sexual activity, that homosexuality is in fact a compulsion, not a choice? If that is your positon choose carefully. Compulsive behaviour is a sign of mental disorder, and I doubt that you believe homosexuality to be a mental disorder. It's one or the other - a choice or a compulsion. Which is it?

You wrote

> No one should have
> their rights stripped
> away and be subjected to
> violence and
> discrimination because
> you disagree with
> a "choice" they made.

Wait, are you saying that I cannot choose to discriminate against a person because I disagee with a choice they made? I own a gas station but I refuse to sell to Hummers. Why? Beause I disagree with their choice. They don't own the gas I sell. I am not forced to sell it to them.

I agree - no one should be subject to violence. Is it your view that our current ban on gay or the new ban on gay marriage causes violence against gays? can you support this claim with statistics, from say, Mass. post legalized gay marrige?

I'm not gay, and I don't pretend to speak for gay people. That being said, here is my understanding from objective sources and the many gay people I know and love:

The first definition of "homosexuality" in Merriam Webster's online dictionary is "the quality or state of being homosexual." Last time I checked, a state of being is not a behavior.

There is a great deal of evidence that homosexuality is at least partially biologically driven.

Regardless of what you say to the empirical evidence, who are you to deny equal rights to one group of people because you disagree with a personal choice that does not harm anyone?

Marriage is an instutional tradition recognizing love and commitment between two individuals providing both psychosocial and logistic/legal benefits.

People that oppose equal rights for homosexuals are transparent. I don't think you're assholes. I just think you're ignorant and afraid.

I'm referring to discriminaiton in more of legal contect--discriminaiton that affects someone's ability to maintain a livelihood or get an education, or get access to medical care, and yes to get access to the benefits that come with marraige.

If you wish to be a bigot in your personal life, that's up to you. However, when your discrimination spreads into public and involves activetly persecuting people and denying them civil liberties, that's gone too far.

I think it should be pretty obvious that allowing for small acts of discrimination (like Jim Crow laws in the South) creates an environment open to more intense violence (like lynching). The two go hand in hand.

Is it that time again already... Bush and the likes need to tell us how sacred marriage is and that they don't need a bunch of queers messing it up. -so they can get the vote of those who do marriage right. (Brittany Spears does it for kicks in Vegas) or (hello - GreenCard) I have lovely gay friends who are very spiritual and attend church that would love to be married in the eyes of their God. Ooh the heterosexual affairs among the folks in the church... including the Pastor, Preacher... or let's not forget the Caotholic Priests... oh but you can't judge all Catholic Priests on the acts of a few... but all queers are the same... especially when it comes to rights and what they will represent there.
Cracks me up --I have an older brother on his third wife- lots of kids- and the oldest child calls his aunts for advice because we are the only stable realtionship the kid has as an example in his life. 20years together and we consider ourselves married... yet legal would be nice. What a world.

People keep arguing the whole, “is gay innate or learned?� when we don’t even know if being straight is innate or learned. Being straight is probably a bit of both. Being gay probably is too.

"Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all."

This is completely twisted.

Look, gay marriage has more in common with hetero-sexual marriage today than hetero-sexual marriage today has in common with hetero-sexual marriage 500 years ago and the Bible times. Marriage has changed as people have. Romantic love as reason for marriage is not only relatively new, but almost particular to the west. Before that, marriage could basically be seen as an indirect act of mutual prostitution: to keep the wealth in the family and have a blood heir and to keep a roof over one’s head. Then before that, a fifty year-old man could take multiple 12-16 year old girls as his wives. Now we have higher cohabitation rates and a lower marriage rate and a 40% divorce rate, a lower rate of child-births in marriage. What the heck are conservatives trying to protect? As people (in particular women, but men were pressured to marry too except at least they had some power) gained more freedom, things changed. People changed because it wasn’t working anymore. You don’t change or restrict people to keep a product or institution working.

At the end of the day, conservatives are wanting something that just doesn’t exist and they’re doing reality an uncalled for and unnecessary disservice in the process.

Up here in Canada we have lived in an apocalyptic wasteland since they legalized gay marriage! The minute the bill was signed god scorched the earth and killed everyone’s first born!

Um no.. actually thousands of gay couples got married had a day to celebrate their love received equal tax benefits and business went on as usual, no problems so far.
I get chastised routinely on this site for thinking out side the box of academia but….

How do gay people getting married prevent straight people from making families?

I think bush knows the majority of voters are behind him, it would be fairer to say the people in the US are homophobic not the state.Its time the conservative right evolved beyond their social policies regarding sexual orientation and harmless consenting sexual practices the world is laughing at them. Grow up!

> have lovely gay friends
> who are very spiritual
> and attend church that
> would love to be married
> in the eyes of their
> God.

Nothing Bush nor anyone is proposing will change or alter this arrangement, agreed?

Traci,

I don't disagree that homosexual impulses are almost certainly driven in part by biologically determined factors - whether it's hormonal, DNA driven, developmental - what ever the causes (I am not a scientist in this matter, just an observer) - it don't disagree.

However, assuredly, all sexual activity in adults is the result of choice. Rational adults are not compelled into sexual activity. It is not a compulsion except in the sickest and most desperately derranged people. I hope we can agree on that. There is no gene that causes a person to seek out and engage in and have without thought sex of any nature, gay or straight.

Sexual orientation is probably largely or entirely biological. Sexual activity is always a choice.

> who are you to deny
> equal rights to one
> group of people because
> you disagree with a
> personal choice that
> does not harm anyone?

I am not suggesting that we deny anyone any right.

My question remains unanswered: is marriage a fundamental human right?

Hujo,

In fairness it is impossible to gauge what results will be felt from the normalization of gay marriage in the long-term.

A constant GOP meme is that gay families are not able to raise a family - children - to be good citizens as often or as reliably as traditional families.

There isn't going to be any way to measure this for years - probably decades - to come.

DP, don't be a tool. If you really think I can "choose" to be attracted to men rather than women, then I'm officially floored by your ignorance.

Of course marriage is a fundamental human right. What "point" are you trying to make with this question?

Jane Minty:

Who said anything about choosing attraction? Don't be a liar - my words are there.

I am not saying that you can choose who you are attracted to. I am saying that you can choose whom you have sex with. That's the whole point of feminism. You can elect with whom you have sex with. You are in control. You are not a piece of meat against whom some hormone or impulse decides your sexual future.

Sexual impulses are one thing. Sexual activity is another.

Finally,

> Of course marriage is a
> fundamental human right.
> What "point" are you
> trying to make with this
> question?

I don't think you've thought this through. If it is my fundamental human right to marry, who the hell are you to tell me:

1. That I can't marry because I am already married.

2. That I can't marry because I am too young.

3. That I can't marry because I've been divorced too many times.

4. That I can't marry because I am behind bars serving a life sentence.

5. That I can't marry because I have back child support or alimony due.

These are all reasons marriage licenses are denied every day in America. If marriage is a fundemental human right who the hell are any of us to deny marriage on of these grounds? We don't preposition, say, the 4th amendment against any of these criteria. We don't preposition the 1st amendment on any of these criteria.

So what's the difference?

Meanwhile….back in reality.
People are intuitively against gay “marriage� for a reason. Reasons some may emphatically dismiss as unreasonable, indeed completely irrational – beyond that, so irrational as to be guided by mere animus, as your fond of saying…bigotry.

Perhaps they are fond of the social institution called marriage, perhaps they find it foundational, indispensable to civilization. Perhaps their not looking for actual fire & brimstone to come raining from the sky. Perhaps they have been concerned with the institution for years. Perhaps they have noticed the same cultural players first dismissing there fears as irrational, then apologizing for everything from divorce, to illegitimacy to rampant pornography. Perhaps they are aware of the philosophical maxim “if its everything its nothing?�

Perhaps they know more they you would care to admit?
To yourselves.

Dammit. I can't believe that i'm seeing this. I don't know about the rest of y'all, but like Jay, BFP, Nubian, Heart, Piny... and many others, i'm well sick of comment threads being an open space for hate.

Queer sexual orientation just got compared to pedophilia at Feministing.

Let that sink in. I don't give a darn if it's a troll or whatever. It's your space.

Does anyone not think that comparisons between child molestation and queer adult relationships don't show the fear and the phobia that's just skin deep below this "principled" opposition to queer marriage?

I'm not talking to the trolls here. I'm addressing the community and the leadership here. This kind of stuff...this thread, the ugly racism that happened to Samhita the other day. This abuse of feminist space has to stop. Find a different way to moderate, have trusted volenteers, shut down comments for a week. Something. Anything. Not this. Not anymore.

Sly, let me assure you that we're doing our best. We're implementing a registration system now-but we're running into a lot of probs. And believe me--we're getting rid of hateful comments all the time, it's been really hard for us all to keep up honestly. But please know that we agree that shit is getting out of control and that we're working our butts off to resolve it. Thanks for your patience.

Un-fucking-believable. I am sometimes blown away at how social conservatives have so little compassion for other human beings who don't fall within their narrow constraints of what they consider acceptable. I'm further amazed at how they are willing to waste precious resources to ensure that these people remain subjugated.

That "institution" which you hold so sacred is also important to another segment of the population - those who share the same love, hardships, family experiences as anyone else...they just happen to be hard-wired to share these with someone of the same sex. Why are you people so hell-bent on expecting consenting adults to adhere to your ideals in order to share the same legal status as anyone else? Because we all know the issue isn't really whether or not they are capable of forming lifetime, loving relationaships (more than many heterosexual couples), raising healthy children, and being otherwise productive members of society; it's all about the contract with the state.

I'm not even going to respond to the comparisons of homosexuality to pedophilia, divorce, illegitimacy, etc. to the trolls who smugly think this is valid. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

So DP, why aren't you choosing to form a permanent bond with a member of the same sex? It's *that* easy, right? I'm sure you'd get your panties in a bunch if someone mandated this in order for you to be married.

The reasons you listed for restrictions against marriage are obviously logical for certain reasons. By telling two consenting adults they cannot legally bind their relationship in the eyes of the church and state because they are homosexual, you are making a judgement call on what you see as "bad behavior." Who are you to make that call?

Sly,

What exactly did I post that was "hateful"?

I do not support a ban on gay-marriage, however, I do not believe that gay marriage is a civil rights issue like anti-racism or suffrage is.

> Queer sexual orientation
> just got compared to
> pedophilia at
> Feministing.

Actually, I was accused of being ignorant because I differeniate between sexual impulses and sexual activity.

Really, I can't see what you are all worked up about. What here was so hateful, so bad, that it must be wiped off the records. What is so harmful that it can't be refuted or discredited?

Have you that little faith in your message?

Jessica-

Thank you. I wouldn't be upset if this wasn't such a great space in the first place.

Fitz, you're doing it again. You wrote "[p]erhaps their not ..." when you must have intended to say "[p]erhaps they are not ..." Then, you wrote "more they you would care to admit." I think I speak for the readership when I say most of us think you are an idiot because of your views, but if we had any lingering doubts, your inability properly to formulate a comment has laid them to rest.

Regarding the substance of your comments, history is littered with claims that certain institutions are so foundational that civilization cannot survive in their absence: monarchy, slavery, limitation of the franchise to property owners, coverture and more. Being a conservative means being pretty consistently on the wrong side of history.

> The reasons you listed
> for restrictions against
> marriage are obviously
> logical for certain
> reasons.

Obviously. However, if marriage is a fundamental human right why is it granted on a limited basis. We do not restrict other fundamental human rights in the same capacrious manner.

> By telling two
> consenting adults they
> cannot legally bind
> their relationship in
> the eyes of the church
>and state because they
> are homosexual, you are
Stop right there. Nothing any GOPer or any government person or Bush is proposing prevents religious-only cermonies from taking place. Please acknowledge this. The debate has nothing to do with religious practicies. If you can find a church to perform the cermonoy you are now, in the future, and have always been free to celebrate whatever you like.

> making a judgement call
> on what you see as "bad
> behavior." Who are you
> to make that call?

You make false assumptions. I do not favor a ban on gay marriage.

However, based on your own logic, who are you to deny me my fundamental human right to marry because you think it's "bad" that I am already married. Who the hell are you, and who the hell is anyone?

That's the point. Who the hell are you to tell me that I can't marry anyone who consents, for anyone reason, at anytime, in any circumstance. Who are you tell me that I can't get married and divorced 50 times a year? Who are you to tell me that I can't get married when I am 15. Who are you tell me that I can't get married and ditch my husband with no notice and with no consequences?

And finally, a previous poster said that she was incapable of controlling who she was attracted to. I don't doubt that. However, what I do doubt that is that any person who is not mentally ill can deny that sexual activity is a *voluntary activity*.

hujo,

sorry to hear the ground is scorched up there. at least you guys still have internet access.

dp,

you keep talking about homosexuality as a behavior. as an action.

that disingenuous. people are not looking to be married so they can have sex. they're in love with each other and want that love to be recognized in a public forum (with all of the hundred or so legal consequences related to marriage).

in the end, attraction is one thing - who you want to marry is tangentially related to that. i've been attracted to nuff people. there's only a couple i'd marry. for me, at least, it's a soul thing, it's a vibrational thing, it's a communication thing.

that's not choosing who i have sex with, that's being in love. what ever happened to romance? or are all y'all christian "values" people convinced that marriage is just for procreation and people shouldn't fall in love?

and, well, reading sly's post, i think i'm being way too moderate, so i'll just say, right on, sly...

i'm all for open forums for communication, but thetruth talking archetypal racist sexist shit to my friend who's pulling a 4.0 in gradschool while working full time is really not about communication. it's about hate.

so, yeah, and, um, fitz, check your numbers before you spew off about how same sex marriage leads to divorce and pornography... massachusetts has the only full-on state-wide legal same-sex marriage situation in the u.s. - it also has the lowest divorce rate in the nation... must be because folks are spending so much time with their porn they can't get to the courthouse.

yeah, so fitz, maybe it would be good to define what marriage is. 'cos it looks like the "red" states (i hate being divisive, but this is some bullshit) so in favor of preserving the sanctity of heterosexism, have divorce rates 27% higher than blue states.

what's the meaning?

> that disingenuous.
> people are not looking
> to be married so they
> can have sex. they're in
> love with each other and
> want that love to be
> recognized in a public
> forum (with all of the
> hundred or so legal
> consequences related to
> marriage).

I don't doubt any of that, not one bit. But look at my first post. I am responding to the claim that gay marriage is like civil rights legislation that protects blacks or women.

It's simply not because fundamentally homosexuality is an action. Not necessarily just sex, but fundamentally, it's about something that you do. Not something you are. You are black. That's is your race. You do not determine it. You are born as it.

Homosexuality is, at it's core, an action. You are a homosexual if you engage exclusively in same gender sex. That's what it is. It's not the color of skin, or the presence of a gene, or the presense or lack of a chromosome.

The right to *exist* as a women, or black person, or minority, or disabled person is far greater than the supposed "fundamental human right" of marriage.

It is highly insulting to compare the bestowment of a privelage - marriage - to the protection of fundamental human worth - the right to not be lynched, the right to be more than property, etc. Gays denied the right to marriage do not forfeit their property, life, or worth. Their equality is diminished for sure - they come a second class of citizen - but they do not suffer as say, blacks did in the 1890's, or women di did in 1905. They are still free to go on their business, to maintain that relationship (sanctioned by the government or not).

It is absurd on its face to compare real human rights to the made up right to marriage. There is no human right to marriage.

This thread is not here to argue that heterosexism doesn't exist and that gay people aren't discriminated against. So knock that shit out.

dp:

You have tried to redefine homosexuality as a "behaviour", when the word is generally used to refer to a disposition. This is ignorant. (Actually, I'm pretty sure you *are* aware, and are being deliberately deceitful, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.)

By claiming that this isn't a civil rights issue, you are advocating for stripping legal protections from couples simply because they happen to be attracked to someone of the same gender. That's pretty damn hateful.

As is your idiotic "homosexuality is a mental disorder" argument. Or are you going to likewise claim that heterosexuality, because it is the same form of compulsion as homosexuality, is also a mental disorder?

Your entire "sexual activity" train is a complete non-sequitur anyway, however: nothing in this law touches on whether or not gay people can have sex. It touches on whether or not they can get married, or depending on how it is read, have any legal protections traditionally afforded to married couples.

> You have tried to
> redefine homosexuality
> as a "behaviour", when
> the word is generally
> used to refer to a
> disposition. This is
> ignorant.

It is not ignorant, it is the fact. If I am presumbably a straight person - married or whatever - and I have a homosexual impulse, does that make me a homosexual?

If a chaste person has a homosexual impulse, does that make a person homosexual?

To be sexual, it requires sexual activity. Activity is not the same as thought or feelings. Homosexuality is the state of being a homosexual, a homosexual is a person who engages exclusively in same gender sex.

This is the difference between orientation and activity. A person with a 'straight' orientation can even have homosexual sex and vice versa.

> By claiming that this
> isn't a civil rights
> issue, you are
> advocating for stripping
> legal protections from
> couples simply because
> they happen to be
> attracked to someone of
> the same gender. That's
> pretty damn hateful.

That's a lie. I am not advocating a gay marriage ban, and I never have. I think the idea is absurd. I am saying that comparisons to marriage as a fundamental human right is illogical and absurd. No one is suggesting that we ban gays from existing, or that we hang them, or throw them in jail. What is being suggested is the refusual to bestow a limited privelage on them.

Marriage in the eyes of the government has never been viewed as "no strings" - it's always been something that not everyone qualifies for. I think that the criteria is now inappropriate (ie, no gays), however, that does mean that a fundamental human right - like for example what blacks or women had to deal with - is being denied.

> As is your
> idiotic "homosexuality
> is a mental disorder"
> argument. Or are you
> going to likewise claim
> that heterosexuality,
> because it is the same
> form of compulsion as
> homosexuality, is also a
> mental disorder?
If hetrosexual activity is compulsive - ie, not a choice - then yes, it is a mental disorder.

It's like this: if sex is not a choice than it is a compulsion. You are either free to engage in gay sex or you are not. If you are not free to choose sex than you are mentally ill. That's a compulsive personality disorder.

I am not the one who said homosexuality is a mental disorder. It is absurd to suggest that most people are compulsed into having gay sex against their free will. It is simply not case. If it were the case then homosexuality would be a disorder.

Please, re-read every word I wrote carefully and thne revise your estimation of what I am actually saying. It's not hard to comprehend.

> nothing in this law
> touches on whether or
> not gay people can have
> sex.

Exactly my point. The law only deals with a privelage - marriage. The original poster claimed "Tell me, Dubya, how is this different from racist laws? sexist laws? ageist laws?" - I have explained this at length. If the amendment banned homosexual relations than it would be a civil rights issue. It would be a privacy issue. It would be an issue of the fundamental human right to pursue happiness. However, this amendment is only about marriage - a legal form of super-citizenship or hyper benfit.

You have setup a strawman - that if I oppose the meme that this is a civils right issue that I advocate for stripping rights (rights, that, btw, gays do not currently enjoy; so therefore, it's hardly 'stripping of rights' even if true). This is a false choice. I do not support a ban on gay marriage however I reject the theory that this is a civils right issue.

Now, I know this is a complicated thought, but this is a complicated issue. Try to re-read what I wrote and decide if what you think I said is really what I said.

Jessica,

Are you referring to me? I can't seem to figure out what you are addressing - is anyone denying that the law is slanted in favor of 'straight' marriage or that gays aren't discriminated against in terms of marriage?

The comparisons between peadophilia and homosexuality are shockingly common in 'everyday people'. It's absolutely maddening that people can compare consenting adult relationships with people that abuse children.

As for marriage being a right, legally it is a set of rights given to a couple of people who want to make a comitment to each other. So without the religous ceremony, it essentially does boil down to a set of rights. Rights to be next of kin or have inheritence. To have a relationship recorded for everone to see long after you are dead and gone.

Is marriage a fundamental human right... finally someone fell for it and you are a master.

And then there are those who just want equal rights... to be able to get married (unless they are too young, already married, behind bars........

so someone in a loving sexless relationship is not homosexual?? what are they then?

chem fem,

The argument about child molestation. and homosexuality is a simple one to follow.

1. If homosexual sex is not a choice, as some claim, it is therefore a compulsion - the opposite of a choice.

2. Homosexual sex is a result of natural urges that, being compuslve, cannot be refused.

3. Since we can't expect homosexuals to refuse their compulsions how can we expect paedophiles to control thiers.

4. Although in some cases homosexual sex can be harmful, it is generally only harmful to participants because of societal norms that are bigoted.

Likewise, although in some cases paedophiliac sex is harmful, it is generally only harmful to participants because of the societal norms that are bigoted.

In both cases, if society was different, it would not be harmful.

Now, I do not agree with the line of reasoning, but this is what happens when you define homosexuallity as anything but a choice. If society cannot judge the value or correctness of sexual activity for homosexuals, on what basis can it be done for adult-child sex. The claims of the paedolphiles is clearly supported by evidence - all manner of previous cultures supported adult-child sex that was not traumatic, and in fact, in a few instances it was seen as something of a weird honor to be taken as a sexual partner by a successfull older man.

This is the line of thinking. It's not very convicing since all we can do is judge based on the realities of society today. The reality is that children who are sexually used by adults are damaged often beyond 'repair'. They are wounded in many cases for life. It is therefore unacceptable.

chem fem,

friends!

dp, using your reasoning, Jewish people could be denied the right to legally marry if the dominant culture found their religion unacceptable. Being Jewish is a choice, is it not? Read Mein Kampf lately?

You ignored the intent of my post and argued semantics. Whatever helps you to sleep at night.

The conservative viewpoint here is not only ignorant and fear-based, but incredibly selfish, as well.

fin.

okay, dp, maybe i'm misunderstanding you...

Actually, I was accused of being ignorant because I differeniate between sexual impulses and sexual activity.

well, i'm accusing you of being deceitful for not differentiating between sexual [anything] impulses and love.

additionally, there are homosexual people who haven't had sex - or haven't had sex for a long time - are they, by your "action"-based definition, not really homosexual?

further, as far as "strawmen" are concerned, i think that framing this as a civil rights issue is quite a strawman. the comments up until that point did not mention anything having to do with "civil rights" as legally defined or even in name at all.

we're talking about a "privilege", if that's what you want to call it, that's extended to the entire heterosexual population (with rare and inconsistent exception) the proposed use of a constitutional amendment to explicitly deny a certain segment of the population access to that "privilege."

considering your line of argument, do you think it would be okay to propose a constitutional amendment that bars people of color or people with physical disabilities from marrying? if not, why not?

oh, yeah, so once again you're defining people who love people who have similar parts to them by sex and sex alone.

seen, that's part of the problem with equating homosexuality with paedophelia... another part is that a child is not a consenting adult and, especially due to the power dynamics and long-lasting psychological issues associated with child molestation, it's not in any way comparable.

further, homosexuality is not a "compulsion", it is a way of loving, a way of being wholly human as all human beings ought to be able to be.

finally it would, regardless of the legal status as a basic human right, still be considered a racist law if african-americans were banned from getting married and it would still be considered a sexist law if women were banned from initiating a marriage.

peace

dp - friends!

...and yet that probably descibes many heterosexual marriages!

dp - you have either misunderstood or completely twisted the comments here.

Nobody has implied that homosexual sex is without control or choice. But that who you are attracted to is without choice.

now you've said - Homosexuality unlike race, age, or gender is a behaviour. It is an activity. Regardless of what impulses are present in your mind every person is capable of deciding to what degree the impulses should be followed.

Yet you have not given a good reason why homosexual love (you say impulse?!?) should not be followed. It IS a choice, but I'm saying it's a positive one!!

I just don't get it. Who is hurt by homosexual marriage? Why is there this resistance to it? Dp, even if I were to agree with your arguments regarding fundamental rights vs. privileges and states of being vs. behavior (which I do to a limited extent), in the end the only important question is this: why ban a practice that so many seem to want if it doesn’t hurt anyone?

Hi, I don't normally post but I feel I need to say something at this point. You all are having a really interesting and useful debate that probably needs to be had, but please don't have it over this amendment. Procedurally, it can't pass this month, this year, or even before the end of Dubya's term of office. The amendment was introduced to boost support for the conservative base before this november so that people will vote for conservative senators. In more immediate areas of concern, such as the war, energy prices/ policy, the economy, healthcare etc, the conservative legislators are weak and they know it. I'm guessing they'll probably introduce an 'abortion amendment' before this November, and that after election day both the abortion amendment and the marriage amendment will fade into relative obscurity until 2008. So please, don't view this as a step backward for gay marriage. It isn't a step anywhere. It's a political diversion designed to make the tail wag the dog. To empower the left (and thereby advance the cause of gay marriage) don't expend large amounts of energy fighting this amendment (certainly don't roll over,though) but stay focused on oil.

SJP

The reason to have it out here is that this discussion isn't about the ammendment per se. It's about the continued political use of queer lives as a means of propping up support for this administration and patriarchy in general. If a racist bill was unlikely to pass, it would still be worth having out why it came up in the first place. Racist/patriarchal/homophobic systems of power rely on threat, using our lives to legitimate their politics.

But I'm sorry, i forgot. Whether or not queer people are seen as people and not political objects...that's not important. It's just a pie fight, right?

Congratulations everyone.

While everyone in here is focused on a red herring bill...

Other important issues simply fall by the wayside.

But that's ok, we don't need the luxuries afforded by our once stable economy...

"If a racist bill was unlikely to pass, it would still be worth having out why it came up in the first place. "

You are absolutely correct, sly civilian. In this case, the bill came up to distract voters from issues in which conservatives are weak. Queer people are indeed being used as political objects, which is nearly as degrading as denying them equal marriage rights. Which is why I suggest that the best way to restore dignity to queer people is not to engage in the pie fight. Instead, boost the case of people who will view queer people with respect by pushing issues that conservatives are weak on, like energy, the economy, and healthcare.

SJP...exactly my point.

Bush doesn't even care about this amendment...he does know, however, that when he announces a ludicrous piece of legislation or policy such as this, people that would normally oppose other pieces of his policy don't even hear about them because they are so focused on an outrageous piece of legislation that will never actually come into fruition anyways.

Debating these issues, while kind of fun, is really pointless. Unless you find it therapeutic and entertaining.

In my opinion tho, debating these pointless issues has been one of the main tactics of this administration.

While liberals are busy worrying about social issues, this administration is busy manipulating economic issues...the same types of economic issues that will become social issues within a generation.

Alright Dp, try this on for size.

Issues of institutional justice concern the distribution of priviliges, rigths, liberties, and opportunities that accrue as the result of social cooperation.

The problem with racist or sexist legislation is that it distributes these "primary goods" along lines that are morally arbitrary, which is fundamentally unfair.

Banning gay marriage similarly distributes these primary goods to some but not others because of a difference that is morally irrelevant to matters of justice. The fundamental unfairness is the same in both situtations.

Granted, there is a sense in which someone can choose to place oneself in opposition to the legislation (by wanting to marry someone of the same sex). But this is true of the other kinds of laws too. If every woman in the world chose to be a 1950's Leave It to Beaver housewife, sexist legislation would still be wrong even if no woman's actual choices came in conflict with the leglislation.

Certainly one reason why this is the case is that the choices and desires we act on are partly influenced by the legal-political-social- environment that they are made in. True, we could force gay people to be closeted, hunted, and miserable, but there are no compelling moral reasons for us to do that, and compelling moral reasons for us not to (unlike, child molesting).

Further, I find your contention that civil rights issues can only concern "fundamental" rights (whatever those are)to be quite bizarre.

Puckhujo,
sorry to hear the ground is scorched up there. at least you guys still have internet access.
I really hope you read my whole post and are joking.
(btw;How is it you get to post in closed threads?)

If the purpose of marriage is "the family", then surely, by Dubya's logic, people unable to bear children should also be disallowed from marriage. That would be the logical extension of his arguement, but suprisingly, it doesn't seem to be mentioned.

On another note, I live in Australia, in the ACT, where they have just passed legislation allowing same sex civil unions. The legistation has come under fire form the Federal Government, but they've just recrafted it so as to be pretty well immune from any challenge from the Federal Goverment. So that is heartening.

> The problem with racist
> or sexist legislation is
> that it distributes
> these "primary goods"
> along lines that are
> morally arbitrary, which
> is fundamentally unfair.
Agreed, 100%. Justice dictates that the "goods" you speak of be distributed as fairly as possible.

> Banning gay marriage
> similarly distributes
Woah. I think this is where you make your mistake. I never said I wanted to ban gay marriage. Never.

> The fundamental
> unfairness is the same
>in both situtations.
Ahh, yes, both situations - gays who can't marry, and say, a black man lynched and dead on a tree, are unfair because of the unequal (compared to the elite, say) distribution of status or equity.

However, it is not a purely equal equation. What is worse - being dead or being denied, say, some tax benefit, or something even less tangible - 'respect' or 'recognition'?

When the real civil rights debates were going on the battle was for the right to live - the right not face extra-judicial killing. The right to not be property. The right to express political will. The right to own property.

Gays denied the recognition of marriage are denied benefits that others receive, absolutely. And that is un-American. However, none of the benefits denied are any where equal to the right of franchise, the right to be free from slavery, the right to live. They are bonuses - they are extras. So much so that people who otherwise are married elect to forego them for no special reason. They are incidential, not "primary" to existence as an American. Despite what the GOP says a single non-married person is an equal citizen to a half of a married couple. Yes, the married person has additional benefits, and I agree that the single and gays who want to be married should share those benefits to the extent possible (for example, married hetero's have the joy of being open to children; unassisted no gay couple can be open to this joy; that is not a government problem; it's just nature).

The original post I repsonded to said essentially how are gay rights any different from racial discrimination, age based discrimination, and gender discrimination. My point was, is, and will remain that though superficially the issues appear similiar that the scope trivializes the social battles of generations past.

Marriage is not a fundamental human right. You are not less of a person if you are not married. You are not less of a citizen if not married. You ARE less of a citizen if you've been lynched. You ARE less of a citizen if dead from police brutality. You ARE less of a citizen if you are denied the right to vote because of your race.

Gay rights are important, but pretending this is the next great civil rights battle, akin to the upheveal of the past generations is to trivilize the whole concept of a fundamental human right.

Traci,

I am not suggesting that gay marriabe be banned. Please re-read my comments.

I am suggesting that gay marriage is nowhere near the level of the civil rights struggles of generations past. It's no comparison.

We aren't talking about right for gays to be gay, or to be alive, or to be citizens.

The so called 'right to marriage' is trivial when compared to actual civil rights.

There is no fundamental right to marriage. I think it should be equally available to gays, but let's not kid ourselves. A gay person who is denied marriage rights isn't the same as a black person being denied the right to be not property. Pretending otherwise is absurd.

Woah, you keep moving the goalposts here (P.S. I never asserted that you advocated banning gay marriage).

Your first question was "How is banning gay marriage like sexist or racist legislation?"

I pointed out that they are both instantiations of the same injustice: the distribution of primary goods according to morally arbitrary properties of the individual.

Of course, the right not to be enslaved is a more fundamental right than the right to marry whom one wants. But how is that relevant to the discussion?

Sexual harassment in the workplace is a less egregious injustice than being enslaved, but this does not make sexual harassment any less a civil rights issue.

Your (apparent?) assertion that something has to violate a "fundamental right" in order for it to be an injustice worth fighting seems pretty goddamn strange to me.

And the issue isn't a trivial one. The recognition of gay marriage would be an important step in recognizing the legitimacy of gay relationships, and being gay, more generally. The social bases for self-respect are not minor issues. Dehumanizing a minority, delegitimizing their deep and significant relationships, makes it much easier for one to justify violating their more fundamental rights.

Something can be a serious injustice without it violating someone's "fundamental" rights.

puck,

> further, as far
> as "strawmen" are
> concerned, i think that
> framing this as a civil
> rights issue is quite a
> strawman. the comments
> up until that point did
> not mention anything
> having to do with "civil
> rights" as legally
> defined or even in name
> at all.
That is demonstrably false, puck. I am sorry, but how can I take you seriously? Look at what started this whole dialog - the very first comment, which I responded to and touched off a firestorm:
"Tell me, Dubya, how is this different from racist laws? sexist laws? ageist laws? Shame on you!"
So I expect a retraction of this allegation that I made up the frame - I did not. This while dialog is about whether gay marriage rights is the same as say, racist laws, or sexist laws, or ageist laws.

> we're talking about
> a "privilege", if that's
> what you want to call
> it,
The question is whether marriage is a fundamental human right - inalienable, universal - or whether it's a privelage doled out by the state.

I contend that it's not a fundamental human right - it never has been - it's always been held out conditionally as a carrot. It is clearly a privelage. It's akin essentially to a drivers license, or a hunting license, or any other license you get. It carries many benefits. It has requirements.

> to explicitly deny a
> certain segment of the
> population access to
> that "privilege."
I agree. It's absurd overreach of scope. It's like amending the Constitution to change the requirements for a drivers license to exclude a class of drivers. It's an unjust change to be sure. I never advocated for the amendment, or to ban gay marriage.

> considering your line of
> argument, do you think
> it would be okay to
> propose a constitutional
> amendment
I think you owe me an apology for your lack of ability read. I never suggested the amendment should pass. I never supported anything close to anti-gay.

> that bars people of
> color or people with
> physical disabilities
> from marrying? if not,
> why not?
To answer the question anyways, we already ban people with physical disabilities from marrying. The physically infirm or mentally infirm cannot legally in many states. Additionally, in many states, if genetic testing shows that your progeny would be disability to a certain degree of certainity your marriage application be denied. So no, I would not accept such an amendment for disabilities, nor one for color. It is unnecessary on top of injust. Additionally, as LOVING ET ALL v. VIRGINIA makes clear, any law that makes the race of an actor determine the criminality of an action is a violation of the 14th amendment. Proposing a new amendment would have to include repealing and/or modifying the 14th to remove this restriction.

Moving the goal posts? Hardly:

Of course, the right not to be enslaved is a more fundamental right than the right to marry whom one wants. But how is that relevant to the discussion?

It's relevant because original poster asked how this amendment is different from the racist, sexist, or ageist laws. They are different in the same way a 1 liter bottle of water is different than a swimming pool: enormity. Marriage as a right is tiny compared to the rights fought for in over 100 years of civil rights struggle.

but this does not make sexual harassment any less a civil rights issue.
Absolutely disagree. Modern sexual harassment is a minor rights issue. Now, the type of explotitation that was common during the 50's, 60's and 70's, for example, though was not minor. It amounted to the subjugation of women - up to and including sexually. It was a major civil rights issue.

What constitutes harassment now is most often unwanted suggestations - making a pass, or unwanted sexual attention. This is a rights issue - an issue of fairness, but it is not a civil rights issue akin to slavery or sufferage or property rights.

> Your (apparent?)
> assertion that something
> has to violate
> a "fundamental right" in
> order for it to be an
> injustice worth fighting
> seems pretty goddamn
> strange to me.

I never suggested this attempted ban wasn't worth fighting. I do suggest that equating gay marriage to anti-slavery, pro-suffrage, and pro-gay rights (in, the right to actually be gay) is a major mis-step. It trivializes the true idea of a civil right.

Marriage is a nice thing. But it's not the be all of civil rights. Bush isn't trying to pass a criminal ban on gays. He's trying to restrict a benefit from a group. Wrong, unjust, an un-American - check. A violation of human rights - no.

Finally, I am not pretending this issue is minor. It's a major issue.

But, more than anything, you seem to agree that this debate is about normalizing gay people in society. And that's not going to happen by defeating this (already dead) amendment. You are attempting to achieve a social goal through political action, and that's not effective. It's doubly not effective when you incorrectly equate issues of vastly different seriousness. Pretending that the right to marry is this fundamental right (as many here have) leads to many many philosophical questions that no one has even attempted to address. Just one easy exmample: if it is my right to marry why should be it denied because I owe back child support? That's the law in at least one state. So why should my right to marry be abridged because of what is essentially a tax? See how absurd this is? It's absurd because marraige isn't a right. It's a privelage bestowed by the state for doing something they like.

And ultimately, you can't win this thing through some bitter anti-amendment campaign that conflates the issue with something it's not.

The real civil rights movement caught aflame when the black Christians were joined by their brethern Christians in the struggle. That's when the tide turned once and for all. I know, I was there. It was a shift in society. The law followed.

"It's relevant because original poster asked how this amendment is different from the racist, sexist, or ageist laws. They are different in the same way a 1 liter bottle of water is different than a swimming pool: enormity. Marriage as a right is tiny compared to the rights fought for in over 100 years of civil rights struggle."

That's just wrong. The hidden premise of your argument is that ALL ageist, sexist, and racist laws are of equivalent seriousness of slavery or Jim Crow.

But this is clearly false. A law can be sexist or racist without enslaving some group or establishing apartheid.

Our little dialectic seems to be going a little like this:

Original Poster: How is this different from ageist, sexist/racist laws?

You: Well, they are different because age/sex/race aren't chosen.

Me: But the fundamental kind of injustice is the same.

You: But gay marriage is less important than slavery or suffrage.

Me: That's irrelevant. Ageist/sexist/racist laws, concerning civil rights, don't have to be that unjust in order for them to be ageist/sexist/racist.

You are making the bizarre claim that ageist/sexist/racist laws have to be transformative world-historical injustices in order for them to be racist/sexist/ageist.

On a related note, I think you are trivializing the symbolic value of gay marriage as a reflection of society recognizing the equal worth and value of gay people.

It is a major injustice.

As for your little history lesson, I don't think it reflcts completely what happened, but meh. That's a discussion for another day.

hujo,

I really hope you read my whole post and are joking.

dp,

you're so full of shit, it's stifling...

This while dialog is about whether gay marriage rights is the same as say, racist laws, or sexist laws, or ageist laws.

...

I contend that it's not a fundamental human right - it never has been - it's always been held out conditionally as a carrot.

umm... excuse me, but perhaps our "misunderstanding" (to assume good faith on your part) is due to a definition of what we're actually talking about.

there is a long stretch between comparing this "legislation" to racist/ sexist/ ageist legislation and calling it a "fundamental human right", which is what you are supposing was done (but was never done).

as patrick put it so well, "That's just wrong. The hidden premise of your argument is that ALL ageist, sexist, and racist laws are of equivalent seriousness of slavery or Jim Crow."

you never answered my question as i posed it above. instead, you insulted me.

I think you owe me an apology for your lack of ability read. I never suggested the amendment should pass. I never supported anything close to anti-gay.

i owe you no such apology, especially as i never out-and-out insulted you. don't get it twisted.

i never said you said the amendment should passed and i don't give a shit if you "supported anything close to anti-gay". i was simply asking if, according to your above logic, it would be reasonable to deny people of color or people with physical disabilities the "privilege" of marriage because it's not a fundamental civil right, in your words.

and i'd really like to see some support of this:

The physically infirm or mentally infirm cannot legally in many states. Additionally, in many states, if genetic testing shows that your progeny would be disability to a certain degree of certainity your marriage application be denied.

if this is true, i'm really interested in learning more. it sounds downright inhumane. further, considering that i know people who are married who have progressive genetic debilitating diseases as well as having met one married couple with downs syndrome, i find it hard to swallow (not to mention that your jeering tone makes me somewhat skeptical).

if this is the truth, i'd like to see some references, because that's a straight-up terrible practice.

finally, i really appreciate your disrespectful rhetoric. it does a lot to further dialogue. really. come off it.

peace and blessings

okay, and on the "fundamental right" angle, the supreme court, in Zablocki v. Redhail, concluded that:

Since our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and since the classification at issue here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, we believe that "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required.

this was a 1978 decision that declared that a person with a child not in his/her custody who cannot provide proof of providing child support cannot marry (an example you cite above as though it were still in effect, 28 years later).

as far as the inmate issue, "the decision to marry is a fundamental right under Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), and Loving v. Virginia (1967)"
was stated in the USSC's 1987 decision that "Taken together, we conclude that these remaining elements are sufficient to form a constitutionally protected marital relationship in the prison context." (Turner v. Safley)

and you can't take me seriously? ha.

Ahh.

The real truth comes out of Patrick.

> On a related note, I
> think you are
> trivializing the
> symbolic value of gay
> marriage as a reflection
> of society recognizing
> the equal worth and
> value of gay people.

This is an issue of symbology. All the civil rights huffing and puffing is really just a smoke screen.

Gay marriage represents acceptance and tolerance of gays.

Well then, I think we got to the real point, and that's pretty much the end of the discussion.

Symbolism.

“so, yeah, and, um, fitz, check your numbers before you spew off about how same sex marriage leads to divorce and pornography...�

Way to miss the point completely. Often I believe the cultural left is merely being obtuse when they twist arguments into ones they can easily overcome. In this case however, its probably a visceral reaction so strong as to negate the impact to begin with.

“people unable to bear children should also be disallowed from marriage. That would be the logical extension of his argument, but surprisingly, it doesn't seem to be mentioned.�

Marriage (as traditionally defined) is limited to a class of people, namely a man & a woman. While any member of that class may not have children, or cannot have children; the class itself is capable of having children. Same-sex couples are members of a class that can never have children. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples separates the institution necessarily from childbearing.
Like I said originally, we are not confused as to what we are defending. We know what family forms are optimal for a healthy society. We know that standards affect behavior. This Amendment will get more votes than it did the last time it was brought up. It has now broken the 50% threshold. Wait until further judicial usurpation of the democratic process drives this debate center stage in American life.

I find it very telling that so much commentary cannot stand opposition arguments. That calls are being made to censor debate and reserve this board to “true believers only�. Just like our Universities – we are not dealing with liberals; rather leftists, who must shut down opposition when they cannot meet it.

"Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society"

Not even considering that perhaps marriage is *gasp* about somehting more than raising children...

A. If we really feel that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society, then why allow single parents to raise kids??? If we're going to be narrowminded let's spread it across the board.

B. And maybe it's true that marriage brings about healthier and more well adjusted kids (though I doubt marriage in and of itself really does this), but there's no evidence to say that the commitment of a husband and husband or a wife and wife to love and to serve one another wouldn't promote the welfare of children now is there?

Puck,

> which is what you are
> supposing was done (but
> was never done).

Refer to Jane Minty:

> Of course marriage is a
> fundamental human right.

dp,

refer to the united states supreme court:
"the decision to marry is a fundamental right"

What your missing Puck in your overly semantical legal analysis (if it can be called that) is the word “marriage’ or “marry� – it has a specific meaning within language and the law.

The legal doctrine is called the “plain meaning of words� doctrine.
Absent some technical or specific legal definition, a word is interpreted to mean what it is commonly used to mean. Imagine what sophistry we could turn the law into absent this doctrine?

Puck,

> which is what you are
> supposing was done (but
> was never done).

Refer to Jane Minty:

> Of course marriage is a
> fundamental human right.

> The hidden premise of
> your argument is that
> ALL ageist, sexist, and
> racist laws are of
> equivalent seriousness
> of slavery or Jim Crow.

It's not a hidden argument, I make that argument. A law that deny's you a fundamental right based on race or gender or age IS Jim Crow. It is the equivalent. The difference being that age, gender, and race are not activities, like homosexuality. You don't elect your race, age, or gender.

> especially as i never
> out-and-out insulted you
You owe me said apology not for insult, but for your assumption about my position, even in the face of explicit explanation of what the argument is actually saying.

> i was simply asking if,
> according to your above
> logic, it would be
> reasonable to deny
> people of color or
> people with physical
> disabilities
> the "privilege" of
> marriage because it's
> not a fundamental civil > right, in your words.
It would not be reasonable for color, for the same reason that it's not reasonable for gay marriage. I disagree with both proposals. It would be additionally bad for race, since, unlike being a homosexual, you do not elect your race. I explained this already.

> finally, i really
> appreciate your
> disrespectful rhetoric.
> it does a lot to further
> dialogue. really. come
> off it.
Excuse me, please quote this disrespectful rhetoric. Quotes, please. I have done no such thing.

> if this is the truth,
> i'd like to see some
> references, because
> that's a straight-up
> terrible practice.
Okay, references:

From http://janus.state.me.us/LEGIS/STATUTES/19-A/title19-Asec652.html -

'A marriage license may not be issued to parties related as described in section 701, subsection 2, unless the clerk has received from the parties the physician's certificate of genetic counseling required by section 651.'

Section 651:

'If the parties recording notice of their intentions to marry are related as described in section 701, subsection 2, or the parties have sufficent genetic abnormalities as described in section 709 subsection 4, the parties shall submit to the clerk, at the time of recording their intentions to marry, a certificate from a physician stating that the parties have received genetic counseling from the physician. The physician making the certification required by this subsection shall sign the certificate.

From Section 709:

'If, on advice of the physician making a certification, the parties are genetically incapable of producing offspring that are substantially unlikely to be able to live unaided once biologiclaly mature the license may be denied.

Parties denied a license for any genetic reason shall recourse as described in Section 53, subsection 1-4 or as later determined by the legislature'.

This is not a new practice. The infirm and genetically disabled have long been precluded from marriage. The laws are generally falling from favor because marriage is no longer a precursor - even in the minds of the GOP - to sex or procreation. For decades this type of prohibition was enough to prevent the seriously genetically flawed from marrying and passing on substantially genetically disadvantaged children. I know that in Maine the laws used to be far less technicla sound; something using the word "retard" was probably more likely what you'd find.

For such a complex and divisive subject, I have noticed an intellectual detachment and retrenchment on the part of the cultural left. They seem to be content with the most cursory understanding of legal “discrimination� under the law, and reflexive shouts of bigotry. One expects at least a bit more.

“The extraordinary history of the United States as a slaveholding republic included the kidnapping and brutal transport of blacks from African shores, and the stripping of their language, identity, and culture in order to subjugate and exploit them. It also included the constitutional enshrining of these evils in the form of a Supreme Court decision--Dred Scott v. Sandford--denying to blacks any rights that whites must respect, and the establishment of Jim Crow and de jure racial discrimination after Dred Scott was overturned by a civil war and three historic constitutional amendments. It is these basic facts that embarrass efforts to exploit the rhetoric of civil rights to advance the goals of generally privileged groups�
Indeed, race is not sex, a neither is whom one has sex with. Once again we are back to Hegel and the most simplistic and divisive dialectic meant to coincide with naive calls for “basic rights�. The problem with the argument from analogy is that it is only that….an analogy. It rises and falls on the strength of the analogy itself.

Puck,

I am intimately familiar with Zablocki v. Redhail. I was clerk for Justice Powell the term before the decision was written.

If you read the decision:

"By reaffirming the fundamental character of the right to marry, we do not mean to suggest that every state regulation which relates in any way to the incidents of or prerequisites for marriage must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny."

IE, it's not an absolute right, in fact, there are restrictions that do not raise a 4th amendment issue.

Additonally:

"When a statutory classification significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests."

So, the right to marriage can be abridged if the state interest is high enough.

What's intersting how the court falls over itself to backtrack (and how short rulings were back then).

I do not deny that the court has said that marriage is a fundamental right; I just don't agree with that ruling. You'll notice that in this decision Rehquenist disputed that idea, that marriage is a fundamental right. And through his time on the bench he walked it back - in Turner v Safley and especially Baker v State.

And what is happening now is proof that the idea that marriage as a fundamental human right requires all kinds of legal loopholes.

For example, the state has to show that it's interest is high in preventing a certain marriage. That's the carrot/stick I was talking about. So if the state can say - "well look, if two genetically disabled people produce a child that is even worse off geneticlaly the state is responsible for caring for that child for life. And bamo. A significant state interest.

Like I said originally, we are not confused as to what we are defending. We know what family forms are optimal for a healthy society. We know that standards affect behavior.

Huh, I'm still confused. Why don't you enlighten me as to how two heterosexual parents are more effective than two homosexual ones? I'm sure you have a lot of personal experience in this area.

I find it very telling that so much commentary cannot stand opposition arguments. That calls are being made to censor debate and reserve this board to “true believers only�. Just like our Universities – we are not dealing with liberals; rather leftists, who must shut down opposition when they cannot meet it.

A bit melodramatic, don't you think? Maybe it's a bit of a stretch to think you might find a few leftists here. Regardless, it's not so crazy to imagine that most contributors to this kind of forum aren't going to look kindly upon those who favor limiting the rights of a group of human beings.

“Huh, I'm still confused. Why don't you enlighten me as to how two heterosexual parents are more effective than two homosexual ones? I'm sure you have a lot of personal experience in this area.�

I’m sure you are. The idea of coarse is that the standard of marriage is meant to promote this behavior. Men and women are not merely the only group that can produce children, but they do produce them. The evidence that traditional marriage is better for society and children is legion. That’s what were promoting.

Walter Fauntroy, the civil rights activist who organized the March on Washington for Martin Luther King, Jr. is one of leader's in our coalition. One time a black lesbian activist was harassing him at a press conference. She stood up and asked him how he could support discrimination against gay and lesbians of color. His response was something I've heard in various forms from the black community across the country. He said, "You know, I stood next to Lyndon Johnson at the White House at Martin Luther King, Jr.'s side when Johnson signed the Rights Act that outlawed segregation. The ink on the document hadn't even dried when we started to see the blood of young black men flowing in the streets of urban America because so many of our young men had no fathers to teach them how to be responsible men. Back in 1964 illegitimacy was 23 percent. Today in urban America it's 80 percent. If this doesn't stop then we're back to slavery when no one knew who their dad was. That's why I support the Marriage Protection Amendment." That's the kind of passion you get from this community.

“most contributors to this kind of forum aren't going to look kindly upon those who favor limiting the rights of a group of human beings�

Such formulations are laughably narrow. I know they do wonders for your ego and sense of mission, but that fact of the matter is that’s what laws do. They limit rights, make distinctions, yes -discriminate – they just don’t do so irrationally. The law is about line drawing.

Fitz, your theories are fascinating. I, on the other hand, can say from firsthand experience and observations that two loving dads or moms have the ability to raise a perfectly functioning, wonderful child.

On the other hand, maybe you're right after all. I'm sure that Britney and Federline are actually effective parents, despite what we've seen. After all, they're two heterosexuals in a loving relationship that will clearly stand the test of time.

Such formulations are laughably narrow. I know they do wonders for your ego and sense of mission, but that fact of the matter is that’s what laws do. They limit rights, make distinctions, yes -discriminate – they just don’t do so irrationally. The law is about line drawing.

My ego notwithstanding, you still haven't made the case for discriminating against people based solely on what two consentual adults do behind closed doors.

And if you loathe the majority here, why waste your time in this forum?

“I, on the other hand, can say from firsthand experience and observations that two loving dads or moms have the ability to raise a perfectly functioning, wonderful child.�

No doubt, equally true are the single Mothers (or Fathers) doing the same thing. That does not mean that we call them married. It does not mean that we dilute the standards of behavior we as a society promote. I know you hope to denigrate my comments by reducing them to “my theories� – I can assure you I have plenty of company.

Activists and scholars like Jonathan Rauch & Andrew Sullivan advance the thesis that eliminating sex discrimination from marriage will positively effect the institution. Their arguments tend to be twofold; that it will rejuvenate our marriage culture by reemphasizing the importance of stable, legally recognized monogamous marriages & also that it will domesticate the gay community into more stable and lasting relationships.
Now this (of coarse) is seen as a positive impact. If we were to get into a argument about possible negative impacts- its not unfair to mention that prominent proponents of SSM tacitly believe it will have an impact on the wider marriage culture.
For others to take the opposite line seems rudimentary. Surely you have read up on these arguments outside the occasional flame war?

P.S. I dont "loathe" anyone.

Its always intellectually edifying to broaden ones take on a given issue. In the spirit of liberal debate I offer The following link. I find it a very astute take on the subject in a social/historical vein. It by the author Lee Haris who happens to be a gay man; making its conclusion (sadly) a bit surprising. Solid work though.

http://www.policyreview.org/jun05/harris.html

I have no use for studies and data supporting either viewpoint. You can't apply a set of criteria to a constantly changing environment. If you do try to apply a past set of criteria to the present, you are essentially creating fiction. Truth is always stranger than fiction, and when dealing with live humans, we're always the exception to the rule.

According to finger-wagging social conservatives, I would have benefitted positively had my parents stayed together instead of divorcing. I find this terribly amusing; in reality, two already fantastic people were permitted to grow, and eventually find two other more compatible partners. As a result, they became even better parents, and most importantly, people. Besides, how can you oppose divorce when it ultimately brings more grandparents into your life??

I look at everyone I've known throughout my life, and have seen that the quality of family is more effective than quantity of traditional nuclear situations. Personal experience is far more valuable than statistics in shaping such opinions.

Perhaps it would behoove you to get your nose out of that book and interact with the world.

I don’t know quite what to say Jane. I suppose you are typical of the cultural left. Anecdotal evidence does indeed shape our experiences and perceptions of the world. To rely on it as the sole source of wisdom is to be anti-intellectual and illiberal.

Never the less, people on both sides bring their personal experiences to bare. As I pointed out above Walter Fauntroy is one of those people. Perhaps you would do well to consider the experiences of others outside your circle. Speaking of “constantly changing environment(s)� young black Fatherless men would be a good point of departure. Perhaps you will find reason to question your assumption that the quality of family is more effective than quantity of traditional nuclear situations. Personal experience is far more valuable than statistics in shaping such opinions.�

Young men and women, black or otherwise, are better off with no dad than a lousy one.

Anyone who knows me personally will testify that I have a rather extensive circle, so I'm not too worried about the accuracy of my statements.

I wear my leftist badge with great pride. :)

So you’re arguing as a leftist?

“Young men and women, black or otherwise, are better off with no dad than a lousy one.�

I’m not sure your correct. Nor am I sure you know what your actually claiming.
Is it your contention that most dads are “lousy�.
The illegitimacy rate in the black community stands at 70%.
Are 70% of black fathers “lousy� and children better off without them? (Potential) Wives also?
What makes for a “lousy� dad? Unemployed? Alcoholic? Criminal?
Furthermore, rates of illegitimacy were never this high before, does that mean that the majority of black Fathers were lousy dads yet present and married to the mothers of their Children.

Many feminists have the intellectual integrity to claim that marriage is a archaic and oppressive patraichal institution.
Do you deny this philosophical framework?
Its nice to know whom one is arguing against.

"A constant GOP meme is that gay families are not able to raise a family - children - to be good citizens as often or as reliably as traditional families. "

GOP meme? and the section of the democratic platform supporting gay marriage is where exactly?

Gay marriage ban defeated in Senate vote

That was quick. :)

See, wasn’t so bad was it. Wasn’t such a huge distraction or waste of time from more “pressing� concerns. The Senate did its job and voted. Debate is a healthy thing. Judges debate and vote on things also, like the ones in Massachusetts. They decide things on the same principle also, majority rules. :)

Q. "How would outlawing gay marriage encourage heterosexual fathers to stick around?" was the first question. Allard skirted the question by saying that "laws send a message to our children."
A. By further reinforcing the notion that all family forms are inherently equal.*
Its called standards effecting behavior, I love that the left has to deny the vary concept of public morality in order to force their ideas on an unwilling America.
*(they’re not)

so the ban was defeated again. but how many defeats will it take for the holier-than-thou in office to figure out that hey, maybe america and its representatives don't want this ban to go into affect. i strongly fear that they may win this battle through fanatic determination, because nothing seems to offend people more than someone not agreeing and bowing down before their ideals. at this point, we're not even asking them to legalize gay marriage.. we're just fighting to keep it as an option later. if it does go through, be it the third try or the thirtieth try, what's next? once the opposing team wins this, what else will they demand and take away from us? that would be the question.

Fitz:

It was a huge waste of time from much more pressing concerns. There was no doubt whatsoever about what the outcome of this was, and calling what happened on the floor a "debate" is being so generous to the term that it is stretched beyond recognition. Republicans got up and waved non-sequiturs and argued ad baculum. Democrats got up and called the supporters bigots. No new substantive information was added, and I doubt any minds were changed.

And yet, less than an hour from where I live, washed up houses are still sitting on the cars they landed on when the flood waters retreated, and money for reconstruction is withheld. The storms this coming year are predicted to be slightly weaker than last year's, but the region is much more vulnerable as well.

Over 1,500 bodies have been recovered, more continue to be found, and nobody knows how many have simply gone missing. I think trying to make sure we don't have another multi-digit body count is "more pressing". If we get another massacre like last year, we stand a chance of passing the 9/11 count, in a disaster of our own making.

That's one concern that could have been discussed in place of this farce. I mention it because it's right next door to me, and thus rather on my mind. There are many other issues with direct, materially important repercussions facing the nation as well.

Letitia:

Three Republicans that voted for this amendment the last time it came up voted against it this time. There was one total vote more this time, but only because the Republicans also picked up four seats since the previous try. Thankfully, it does not seem that the right-wing religious are going to win this by a war of attrition. Not any time soon, anyway.