Loving didn't redefine marriage. GM does, just as if it permitted unions between any other two parties presently excluded... Seniors & children, siblings, the sane and the daft....

How come supports never admit that they want to make a profound change to this practice? If this is such a universal right, how come you never see it mentioned in any literature, certainly never broadly, before just a few years ago?

It would be nice, wouldn't it, if they would admit they want to make a drastic change to marriage as it's always been known. And if they would acknowledge that, once their little minority changes it to suit them, the door is open for every little minority to change it to suit them as well. And it will very likely soon be out the window and meaningless. If 2 guys can marry because they want to, no matter what the majority of society thinks, then 2 guys and 3 girls can marry, no matter what the majority of society thinks. You tell me how 5 people can pledge their lives only to each other, forsaking all others? If it's a civil rights violation (snort snort) against a same sex couple, then it's a civil rights violation to not allow groups to marry. Polyamists have rights too! They are people. They live next door to you and work with you. They already have children, why make their lives harder?

Gosh Amy, you seem to be dodging the point. I didn't discuss the consent part (except implicitly via kids), but since you've mentioned it...

What if, within a passage of a few short years, everyone agreed that consent, or sanity, or blood, or childhood was not really a consideration in denying marriage anymore? And what if they talked as if it never had been, as if it were a clumsy (unspeakable! inexplicable!) oversight on the part of every civilization since the dawn of time?

As noted in earlier discussions (late for work, citation later) I think a lot of what's driving this is the junior high schooler's need to call other people immature, and college freshman's need to call someone else a bigot. (It's a twofer!) These are not mature forces. Let's spend a day trying to imagine how, in such a short number of years, so many people could be convinced that they'd acquired some profound new sexual sophistication.*

Does it really seem likely to you that something as good as you claim this to be could come to humanity so quickly?

We succeed in enterprises which demand the positive qualities we possess, but we excel at those which also make use of our defects. - Alexis de Tocqueville

Hell, germ theory didn't take hold as quickly as this has. The fucking Beatles didn't hit the charts this hard.

-----------------------------
* A sophistication which demands acknowledgment of surrounding sophisticates. Consider Eric's comment the other day: "The thing about this debate that pisses me off is I often seem to be carrying the banner, and expecting legions of gays and lesbians to be behind me...."

Oh!

It's "silly"!

Let's face it, gay marriage does represent a profound change to the centuries old institution of marriage. And these changes will ripple through the system...producing additional changes to marriage and to other traditions. Whether all these changes are ultimately positive or negative we cannot say with certainty.

As someone who has said repeatedly that marriage isn't for her, perhaps you fail to grasp the visceral significance others place on the traditions of marriage. Proponents of gay marriage need to argue the point in such a way as to address those concerns without blithely dismissing them or dismissing their opponents as homophobes.

Personally, I'm not opposed to gay marriage. But I don't think it should be crammed down people's throats by an activist court system. This is something people are going to have to come to an acceptance about. And, yes, that will take time.

I don't understand this "crammed down people's throats" bit. If you think gay marriage is okay, why is a law that denies two sane, consenting adults the right to marry even remotely acceptable? Would you have told Mildred and Richard Loving that they needed to accept that they couldn't visit their friends and family in Virginia without risking jail time, since fixing the situation would have required an "activist" court system?

Have the courage to be intellectually honest about your views, please. If you think gay marriage is wrong, that's one issue. But if you think it's okay but that it's also okay to deny that right to people, then you're just condoning oppression and legal inequality.

Since it looks like there are a fair number of gay marriage opponents on this forum (which is interesting, given the consistently libertarian themes that most people generally seem to espouse), I'd like to humbly request an explanation of why exactly it is wrong. So far, Crid and momof3 seem to be making vague appeals to some slippery slope, but I'd really like to nail down the reason for the opposition if possible. Do you believe it's wrong to be gay?

Instead of a romantically-based civil union/marriage/whatever you want to call it recognized by the state, I'd like to see romantic entanglements *completely ignored* by the state, and people could essentially just designate their next of kin (and all the attending benefits that confers,) via a will.

For example, if you had a sibling/platonic friend who you wanted to designate as your de facto next of kin, you could do so via a will, with contingency beneficiaries, etc. if you so desired. And of course, if you wanted your romantic partner to be designated as de facto next of kin, it'd be the same legal process. (The only time I would care to see the government even acknolwedge the sexual relations of consenting adults is if a couple adopts or [willingly] raises a child together, and only then when it involves issues of disputed child support.) I also think that blood relatives of people 18+ shouldn't have automatic legal say-so of that person's life/estate if they should die or become incapacitated, but that's another topic entirely.

There is nothing new under the sun. Do any of you apposing gay marriage and/or gay rights in general understand why so many in the civil rights movement, so many who were affected by the Loving decision forty one years ago support gay rights and gay marriage?

Every argument against gay marriage, every argument for sustained bigotry against homosexuals is an argument that these folks are all quite familiar with. There is not a single argument being presented that wasn't made against civil rights and interracial marriage.

Not one.

According to opponents of miscegenation, what Mildred and Richard were seeking was nothing less than a radical redefinition of marriage. And you know what? Those making that argument were right. From there to here, it was a radical redefinition. The fact that we have had forty one years to get used to the idea, doesn't make it any less radical for it's time.

And it wasn't even new then. Further back, in innumerable cultures and nations, there were similar arguments made about radical matrimonial notions such as inter-faith marriages, marriages between slaves and their owners, marriages between people from neighboring nations and city state, marriages between nobility and commoners, even the right of commoners to participate in legally recognized marriages at all.

At times all of these ideas about marriage were extremely radical notions and all of them garnered the same response we here are seeing promulgated by the anti-gay marriage crowd.

And to be perfectly clear, there is no centuries old tradition of marriage. There isn't even a singular institution of marriage today. There are thousands of different concepts in many different cultures, of what marriage is. Many cultures have several forms of marriage, to govern different types of relationships.

Since the the first civil marriages, millenia ago, marriage has been on a constant state of flux. And more often than not - by a longshot - such changes have come from courts, not the democratic process. Even changes to marriage in the U.S., have been handed down by the courts.

And I for one, welcome the slippery slope that Crid and momof3 fear so much. I am all for providing marriage rights to a host of relationships that are not the same as relationships currently afforded the legal rights of married couples. Mostly, I am all for getting rid of the pretense of so many marriages today. Why should couples who have platonic domestic partnerships pretend their relationship is something it's not? As if romance is what makes a domestic partnership a marriage.

Marriage, or the civil recognition of property rights and domestic partnerships brings stability to such relationships. That stability benefits society as a whole, for a whole host of reasons - most of which don't involve children at all. At the same time, children, the most vulnerable members of our society garner a great deal from that stability - no matter who their parents are.

The advantages are real. The benefits to society are immense. And no one has yet to come up with a disadvantage that has ever been shown to be real. Throughout history, across cultures, these radical changes have happened over and over. And not one argument against them has born out over time. Unless you count changes that have inherently weakened the civil institution of marriage.

They already have children, why make their lives harder?

Why indeed, momof3? You have criticized me repeatedly for not being married to my partner. You have done so because you believe that marriage brings stability to children's lives.

I agree. So why exactly would you not support every child's parents being married? Why do your children deserve parents who are married, while the children of parents who's relationships look a little different than your own don't?

And please don't obfuscate with bullshit about making the lives of the children of crackwhores easier, by giving crackwhores more money. Like I responded on another thread, there are much better ways to make such children's lives easier. Lets get a straight answer out of you.

Why are your children more deserving of the stability that your marriage brings them, than the children of same sex couples? Or the children of polygamous couples?

Have the courage to be intellectually honest about your views, please. If you think gay marriage is wrong, that's one issue. But if you think it's okay but that it's also okay to deny that right to people, then you're just condoning oppression and legal inequality.

Admitting things are often more gray than black and white is not intellectual cowardice. In fact, seeing issues as black and white instead of admitting and considering complexities involved could be construed as a sign of a lack of intellectual rigor.

Wasn't it Fitzgerald who said something about it being a sign of a first-rate intelligence to be able to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time?

First of all, marriage isn't a right (it's a rite).

Allowing some to marry and other not to isn't denying a "right" to anyone. It's denying a legal privilege to some.

Society makes distinctions all the time that leave some members unequal in certain aspects. Some of these decisions are made out of necessity and some out of prejudice or fear. We seek to eliminate those enacted out of prejudice or fear.

Marriage started as a religious institution in a world in which civil and the religious authority were insepearable. It ensured the continuation of the societal structure by giving society intact families to raise children, fewer feuds over who got to boink Betty Lou tonight (back when it wasn't entirely Betty Lou's choice), and fewer doubts over paternity and heritage.

As civil governments separted from religion, marriage still benefitted society. So, it was worked into civil law and practice. Benefits were extended to married couples and families that were not extended to the non-wed and non-familied - in order to encourage marriage and family-raising.

The biggest hurdle for gay marriage to clear is the dual nature of marriage itself: civil institution and religious rite. And the emotions such duality stirs up.

Denying marriage to some in society is not denying them rights; it's denying them privileges. With complex legal paperwork, most of the privileges of marriage are available to all members of society.

In the original concept, marriage sought to ensure certainty of genetic heritage. Both parental units had a stake in the welfare of the children because both parental units were presumed to be the parents of the children.

With gay marriage, the parentage of the children cannot be presumed to be from both parental units (by default). However, adoption, adultery, second marriages, DNA tests etc. have already made that point moot.

Since gay people are not being threatened with a year in jail if they set foot in a non-gay-marriage state, Loving is not entirely a relevant reference. It does have bearing if you want to argue that states should recognize gay marriages made legally in other states.

Gay people have the freedom to move about the country, speak openly on issues of the day, live with whomever they wish, engage in activities some consider sinful (i.e., not have someone else's religion forced upon them), etc. No one is denying them their rights.

Nor is anyone denying that not being able to get married under the law is an emotional burden on gay people; one I believe should be alleviated.

If we wish to change the pillar of society that is marriage and get the majority of society to go along with you, I'm merely arguing that efforts at winning hearts and minds will work better than spewing invective and trying to get a court decision that will be contested and circumvented at every opportunity.

Conan -

Marriage started as a religious institution in a world in which civil and the religious authority were insepearable. It ensured the continuation of the societal structure by giving society intact families to raise children, fewer feuds over who got to boink Betty Lou tonight (back when it wasn't entirely Betty Lou's choice), and fewer doubts over paternity and heritage.

First, as you say, religious and civil institutions were inseparable. So it is just as accurate to say that marriage was started as a civil institution. And ultimately, the argument for a civil institution is much stronger.

Second, it was not about socially intact families and raising kids. Marriage was all about property rights, with the wife being part of the property involved. In essence, the perspective husband was buying the wife from her father or the next male in line if the father was dead.

And essentially, marriage still is as much about property rights as it is anything else. Though in the U.S. the wife is no longer considered property, marriage does protect property rights in the event that a marriage is dissolved.

In the original concept, marriage sought to ensure certainty of genetic heritage. Both parental units had a stake in the welfare of the children because both parental units were presumed to be the parents of the children.

Genetic heritage was certainly an important aspect, but more important was inheritance. Often enough it was about keeping property in the family, which is why it was very common for a brother or cousin to marry the widow. But in the event that an heir wasn't forthcoming, genetics were often thrown out the window. Most vital was that progenitor have a hand in raising up his heir, even if that heir wasn't his genetic progeny.

It's not that I think you're wrong, I just think you're oversimplifying.

But more importantly, we are so far beyond the origins of marriage, that it all becomes moot. Read my comment above. Marriage has changed many times in many different ways and even had drastically different origins in different cultures.

Since gay people are not being threatened with a year in jail if they set foot in a non-gay-marriage state, Loving is not entirely a relevant reference.

It is entirely relevant, just the details are different. The bottom line is that every significant change to the institution of marriage has been handed down by the courts. And the Loving v Virginia decision is very relevant. Chief Justice Warren, wrote for the majority;

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Please explain how that isn't quite relevant to the discussion of gay marriage. Because while he certainly wasn't referring to gay marriage, the principle of the Loving decision was based on marriage being a basic civil right of man.

And your argument that winning hearts and minds, rather than allowing activist judges to decide, was one that was used to argue against miscegenation. And it is very much like arguments made by leaders of the church and the nobility, back when much of Europe allowed only nobility to get married. Only then it was the nobility that was objecting to the idea, because peasants were basically slaves and freemen weren't much better. They saw the idea of marriage amongst commoners and peasants, as a threat to their authority over peasants and their superiority over common freemen.

The challenge then, was to get the minority who believed that marriage should be expanded to commoners and peasants, to convince a majority of those in power that it should be. But it was ecclesiastic courts that decided it in the end. In essence, the argument became that they had a god given duty to ensure that those who were reproducing, did so with the permission of the church - thus marriage was expanded outside the realm of nobility.

And to be sure, the nobility and even many in the church were fucking pissed about it.

"If anything happens to me, Gregg and my little sister Caroline are the designated deciders. I have that on a document I shrunk down and carry a copy of in my wallet."

Oooh, that sounds like a good idea! Is that document all legal-like 'n stuff? :)

"How come supports never admit that they want to make a profound change to this practice? If this is such a universal right, how come you never see it mentioned in any literature, certainly never broadly, before just a few years ago?"

Crid - sometimes you sound as though you believe humans already have it all figured out. I don't agree with that for one moment. We have a lot of learning to do and a lot of societal mores to change over the course of time.

When my grandparents were kids I bet they never imagined a thing such as cell phones or induction cook tops. Likewise, I pray to the sci-fi gods that we get flying cars or replicators (Trekkie reference) sometime soon.

If marriage must be b/w one man + one woman then, yes, we're talking about a huge, fundamental change to what we think marriage is. But so what? If we don't have it all figured out right now, then certainly our forefathers did not.

The thing we need to do is examine what marriage does, how it acts and what it's purpose is meant to be. Why do we need it? I don't think that gay people destroy the original meaning of marriage in anyway, except for the body parts of the two consenting, committed partners.

...religious and civil institutions were inseparable. So it is just as accurate to say that marriage was started as a civil institution. And ultimately, the argument for a civil institution is much stronger.

The religious connection is the one that carries the emotional baggage. That's the one you're going to have to deal with in getting the majority to accept gay marriage (or universal civil unions for gays and straights).

Marriage was all about property rights...

Good point. Property rights are indeed part of the modern concept of marriage.

...with the wife being part of the property involved.

Hence my comment about the boinking partner not being entirely Betty Lou's choice.

One of the reasons the wife was considered part of the property was an effort to ensure that any children issuing therefrom were genetically related to the husband. And, in the event of the husband's death, the property stayed in the husband's family.

And the Loving v Virginia decision is very relevant.

Loving was about the right of a legally married couple to visit relatives in Virginia, a state that did not recognize their marriage.

They were threatened with a year in jail if they even set foot in Virginia. That imminent denial of freedom made an urgent case in favor of judicial activism to resolve the issue instead of a drawn-out campaign to win the hearts and minds of Virginia voters in changing the law.

Chief Justice Warren, wrote for the majority: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival...."

If, as in Earl "Let's Lock Up The Japs" Warren's views, marriage is "one of the a basic civil rights of man," what is divorce? Are we infringing upon the civil rights of the reluctant divorce partner with no-fault divorce?

...your argument that winning hearts and minds, rather than allowing activist judges to decide, was one that was used to argue against miscegenation.

The arguments against miscegenation had nothing to do with waging a campaign to win over the hearts and minds of a public that held an opposing view. The public already opposed miscengentation. They didn't need to be won over.

In this case, the public does not support gay marriage. To gain public acceptance I favor a public relations campaign rather than a series of court battles. Eventually, as with the civil rights movement, it will come down to a combination of both.

In all of the historical permutations of marriage noted here, there is one constant -- male/female, and nothing else. Same-sex "marriage" has NEVER been accepted by any society in the history of the world. (Although, again, California already gives ALL the same legal rights to gays via the DP law.) This previously immutable constant is due to the reasonable preference and primacy given by all societies to relationships which have the POTENTIAL to allow a child to be nurtured by the two individuals who conceived it -- and who thus have the most invested in the child's welfare.

Gay marriage is a sham and makes a mockery of the traditional institution -- thus lowering the overall stabilizing social value of the institution.

Of course, the feminist-inspired, anti-male divorce and custody laws have already made civil marriage a sham and a mockery, and have already reduced its social value to historic lows. (Marriage "vows," my ass!) Gay "marriage" is only the last nail in the coffin. (Or maybe just one of the last nails, since incest and polygamy/polyandry laws also deprive folks of their fundamental "right" to marry whomever they wish. Can anyone say why two sisters (straight or lesbian) should still be legally prevented from "marrying"?) Are gays willing to deprive practioners of incest of their "fundamental rights"? After all, with contraception, sperm and egg donors, abortion on demand, etc., we've moved way past those now-moot concerns about genetic diversity, right? (Oh, the rank hypocrisy!)

The most interesting part of gay marriage so far is observing the struggle of gays to avoid the role of the "man" during and after the divorce! As a legal scholar recently noted, the primary value of marriage in society today is divorce! (So, as they say, be careful what you wish for!)

Duwayne, there are lots of children in this world who's parents have made shitty choices and who aren't raising them very well. That does not mean society needs to legitimize those choices.

I am not anti-gay. It's easy to yell that at someone who isn't all gung-ho on letting them marry, much like it's easy to cry racist at someone who criticizes the fatherless lifestyle in the black community. But that don't make it so. I have friends who, one weekend a year, are polyamorous (what can I say, burning man is fun!). I care not what they do, given that their kids are far away and well cared for when they do it, and it doesn't exist the rest of the year when the kids are there. But I don't think they should get to marry these others, or raise their kids with them. I'm sure they'd be offended if someone claimed their marriage was no different than this group coupling.

You yourself admit that the underclass was only granted marriage rights, by the church, to legitimize their breeding. Something gays by definition can not do. So every wide and sweeping change to marriage you've mentioned was made to let assumingly child-producing couples be included in marriage. Even inheritance would not exist without children to pass it to. Hays-modern tecnology notwithstanding-simply exist beyond that child-producing, society-continuing spectrum.

I agree straights have messed it up pretty bad, but pointing that out isn't scoring gays points. The "we can't be worse!" argument rarely works in any discussion.

That would be gays-modern tecnology notwithstanding-

Since it looks like there are a fair number of gay marriage opponents on this forum (which is interesting, given the consistently libertarian themes that most people generally seem to espouse), I'd like to humbly request an explanation of why exactly it is wrong. So far, Crid and momof3 seem to be making vague appeals to some slippery slope, but I'd really like to nail down the reason for the opposition if possible. Do you believe it's wrong to be gay?

The standard libertarian view is that the state has no business defining marriage. It should be a private contract whose terms are defined by those participating and enforced by the state (or private parties) with the same limitations as any other private contract.

I'm not sure who here is libertarian; certainly Amy, Pirate Jo and I. Crid is more of a traditionalist and I don't know about momof3, but she's definitely not libertarian.

> why is a law that denies two
> sane, consenting adults the
> right to marry even remotely
> acceptable?

It's not a merely a "law". It's a practice and a standard spanning every known sustaining culture since the dawn of time, certainly within the portions of history you'd call "civilization".

> Have the courage to be
> intellectually honest about your
> views, please.

As has been noted here on earlier occasions, putting the word "intellectually" in front of words like "honest" is the kind of thing that folks do when they're pretending to have done better at the state (or community) college than they actually did. (Popular variant: Putting "critical" in front of the word "thinking".) And I'd bet that the last ten times you ended your sentence with a comma and the word "please", whoever you were with at the time (date / food server / co-worker) resolved to never, ever spend an extra ten seconds with you, no matter how old they lived to be.

There's nothing "intellectual" about not telling a lie. 'K?

> you're just condoning oppression
> and legal inequality.

Hard to call it oppression when gays have always, always had precisely the same access to marriage that straights have had. And any number of our roles in citizenship feature explicit "inequality". I suspect your egalitarian impulses are more like spastic expressions of childish nihilism... "Nothing should ever have meaning if it hurts someone's feelings!"... That kind of thing.

> seem to be making vague appeals
> to some slippery slope

How could that phrase possibly, possibly have come to mind from reading these comments? "Slippery slope" to what? It just doesn't make a lick of sense. I get the feeling you haven't talked about social issues much, so when confronted with a novel thought, your mind reached blindly back to high school social studies class and grabed a cliche.

> I'd like to humbly request an
> explanation

You don't need to be humble, and....

> I'd really like to nail down the
> reason for the opposition

...you don't even need to request an explanation.... You can just read the fucking blog comments. Some of us have been talking about this in here for years.

Many people think that being intellectual means being suspicious. The human mind is a realm of treachery and deception! You can never trust somone to present their beliefs without cheating the language! There are always ulterior motives!... Tressider used to do that a lot. You'd say that farmers in Kansas shouldn't enjoy price supports for spring tomatoes, and she'd accuse you of harvesting kidneys from retarded children in Botswana.

But nobody on this blog is that clever, or that motivated. When people say things, they can be trusted to mean them.

I just don't like you, CB. (But after all these years, there's still a texture to newby meat you'll find in no other entree.)

> if you had a sibling/platonic
> friend who you wanted to
> designate as your de facto next
> of kin

That's essentially how the world works now (see Amy's comment). All these legal protections to which gays would assert claim by marriage are largely a function of preparation. Basically, the TV commercials for insurance are correct: What would happen to your loved ones if you got hit by a bus? A few hours of legal paperwork beforehand is worth a more than a marriage license anyway. Intestate estates are contested all the time.

(That last sentence isn't as awkward as it looks.)

> sometimes you sound as though
> you believe humans already have
> it all figured out.

Aw c'mon Gretch, I argue against trusting authority (and personal impulses) all the time. (Gretchen! The Gretch-able one! The prehistoric flying Gretch-asaures!)

> We have a lot of learning to do
> and a lot of societal mores to
> change over the course of time.

Well, how could we possibly know that without knowing what heaven looks like already? For all we know, Nirvana is just two or three tweaks away from here. And by here, I mean millennial America. (It wouldn't surprise me none... My harshest complaints about life are with the natural world, especially human nature.)

> If marriage must be b/w one
> man + one woman then, yes

No, Gretchen, angel, you're making a logic error. Marriage is what we call that one particular union which is specific to those parameters. (Consent, sanity, not-related, opposite sex, age-appropriate, human [time to be clear about that last one!].) One big problem I'm having with this is that people are in such a hurry to appear compassionate that they're ignoring the fact that marriage is for a very specific kind of pairing. (Amy thinks this is "silly".)

Many GM supporters think the resistance is all about excluding particular people to whom it might bring great joy. But marriage is about encouraging a kind of union that benefits the whole society, from our strongest members to our most defenseless, and not just the two people involved. It's not a private contract, and it's not a pat on the head from Daddy Government.

> we're talking about a huge,
> fundamental change to what we
> think marriage is. But so what?

Here's what: When the stakes are huge, the impacts can be catastrophic. This is why I'm offended that no one here has ever cited a piece of literature in this discussion older than about 1999. (And after years talking about this in here, only two people have cited that, the same piece.) I'd bet the phrase "gay marriage" never crossed many people's lips until this year. Why would it? It's like "wooden liquid."

> If we don't have it all figured
> out right now, then certainly
> our forefathers did not.

Understand that when you say "forefathers", you're not just talking about Cheney, or Washington, or even Baby Jesus. Marriage is bigger than every king and pope and village Big Man.

> except for the body parts of the
> two consenting, committed
> partners.

Body parts are not incidental... They have much to do with the place you'll take in the world. I'm continually amused by the people in these threads who talk about "children of gays" as if they'd ever met any... As if two gays had ever gotten together, in the whole of recorded time, and made a baby.

If gays were really on a mission to marry to relieve society's burden from unloved foster children, then no one would argue with this. (And to the extent that they are, I don't. My earliest comments here from five years ago acknowledge this.) But that's not what people are asking for, is it? It's the brainless nihilism described in the preceding comment. Everything is flat and equal and odorless and colorless and simple.

> When my grandparents were kids I
> bet they never imagined a thing
> such as cell phones or induction
> cook tops

No one would fear the nuclear age if we thought our virtue were progressing as technology does, but technology isn't the problem... Character is. The demons that crippled us in earlier generations are the same ones we're saddled with today (Hello, Governor Blogojovich!) Another commenter has recently misapplied my favorite biblical passage. Human nature has not undergone a recent transition, though arrogant people take it as an article of faith that we're a new model of humanity nowadays. (My second-favorite expression of this, also oft quoted here, was from Colby Cosh a few years ago, who bemoaned the "silly hipster presumption that Elvis invented fucking.")

Anyway, you Gretch-ifier you, I like you even when we disagree.

> more of a traditionalist

Hey, Shawn... I keep your special "tradition" here, in my pants. Wanna see it?

Fuckin' blogs, man....

Crid- you really need to get laid.

G'night!

He hates it when I convince... "When it starts to sting, you know you're near the honey..."

"It would be nice, wouldn't it, if they would admit they want to make a drastic change to marriage as it's always been known."

EXACTLY. It's about damned time America went back to marriage as it's always been known.
One man with a bunch of wives and don't you forget it!

Tell us again what the name means

Momof3 wrote: "But I don't think they should get to marry these others, or raise their kids with them. I'm sure they'd be offended if someone claimed their marriage was no different than this group coupling."

...interestingly enough, there would be nothing illegal about them doing so, provided that the person is of the opposite sex.

What makes my head spin is that marriage benefits that are designed and upheld to benefit raising children are not given to some couples who have kids or are capable of raising them--but are still given to couples who do not intend to have kids and cannot have kids.

The slippery slope argument keeps coming up. What about polygamous/androus relationships? What about sisters/brothers marrying? Why are these marriages even being discussed in the same breath as gay marriage? They and their implications should be discussed, sure. Their consequences should be weighed as carefully as those of gay marriage have been. But saying that allowing gay marriage would entail automatically allowing other "alternative" unions is like saying allowing women to vote would entail allowing children to vote. Or that allowing people of different races to marry would automatically entail allowing people of the same gender to marry...

oops. Meant "automatically entail allowing people of the same SEX to marry"...my gender studies prof's head just exploded

I have my own problems with Gay Marriage - still on the fence about it. But some points to think about.

Everybody have brought about the basic idea if we change the concept of marriage we have to change it to include all from - first cousins, polygamy, old lady BFFS, etc. If we allow for one we have to allow for all. As DuWayne commented marriage has changed over the years. So is gay marriage just one change amongst many or revolution? Me I want to see it a a small change to a concept but activists keep seeing/saying it as a revolution. That annoys me. Do we have to do all the big changes or can we just make the small change an go on. Do we have make it a revolution and thus make it a war. Once we do make that change will we have started down that slippery slope? Is what at the bottom of the slope really that bad?

Careful Conan. You commented that gay does not get thrown into jail for having been married. It is still surprising that in some states that gay sex, blow jobs, and sex toys are illegal. They are rarely used as the are difficult to enforce and are usually taken to the Supreme Court. Gays are still second class citizens in some places. So they can feel the threat of jail if the cross the wrong border. Heck I would not be surprised if some state simple put made it illegal to have a gay marriage. So some nice Californian couple goes to a nice festival and goes to Sundance Festival and some over the top Mormon (hope not) sheriff decides they are criminals and off to the pokey they go.

One tried method of any group trying to change a law or ideal is "Somebody think of the children!". With Gay marriage some people say think of how some children will grow up. They bring up simple (sometimes idiotic) concepts of take two gay men give them one kid and voila 18 years later they have a showtune loving, fabulously dressed flamming homo. They say the best if a mother and father in a nice nuclear family. True I AGREE with the nuclear family method but that if you take everything to the simple dumb down level it is the best, yet it does not hold water. People can have a normal family and still end f-up serial killer or have such a messed up family and still end up the President of the United States. Heck I look at myself and I had at the surface a normal nuclear family go deeper and you would be amazed that I did not end up on top of a tower with a high powered rifle. So I think the anti-GM people need to be really careful of using the "think of the children" line. But for the same part so do the pro-GM. .......

They say if they get divorced we will harm their children or we can not have children in a married relationship. But I look at the argument and say ahh look at the numbers. The numbers! If marriage was given tomorrow the amount of children be adopted or born to gay people would be very small. Gay as a group (sorry no stats, so my opinion) do not have a whole lotta children or to get married for the purpose of having a family. I can numbers with the effect of interracial couples . Those laws were used to keeping races pure and keep one group down. Yet thousands to hundreds of thousands of biracial children would be effected by such laws. Heck I believe that if you wanted to help children changing the polygamy laws would affect more children then giving the gays the right to marry.

I hope what I commented on is understandable.

> Once we do make that change will we have
> started down that slippery slope?

AAAAAAARRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhh.....!

Crid, I really have no idea why you'd consider your personal feelings about me in any way relevant to this discussion. I don't see the point in getting emotionally involved in internet forum discussions to the point of telling strangers "I just don't like you" or making a bunch of generic insults about their education and background in discussing social issues. (If you're really that interested in my credentials - top 10 law school, top 10 undergrad in philosophy and political science, but why on earth should that matter here?)

Other than that, I'd like to continue this discussion, but unfortunately you didn't seem to make any valid points in your "response" to me. Gays do not have the same access to marriage as straights - they do not have the right/privilege to marry a romantic partner. And your very first comment was indeed an appeal to the slippery slope, when you referenced marriage between seniors, children, the mentally ill, and siblings. Basically, it seems like your argument is "we've never had gay marriage, so it's wrong to change things now." I know it's an overused example, but slavery was a part of the human condition until very recently. You're going to have to do better than "but it's always been like this!" if you really want to demonstrate that we shouldn't allow gay marriage. And I didn't see you answer the basic question: do you have a problem with gays and their relationships?

Because you are such a condescending, presumptuous little spud.

MOre later, I just got to work. Before teh endof the the year, I promise (PST)

Loving didn't redefine marriage. - crid

yes it did

How come supports never admit that they want to make a profound change to this practice - crid

they do

. . . then 2 guys and 3 girls can marry, no matter what the majority of society thinks - momof3

and the problem with that is?

Polyamists have rights too! - momof3

Well dear, if you want to go the 'traditional' marrige route the poltgamists have a better claim on marrige than you do

Let's face it, gay marriage does represent a profound change to the centuries old institution of marriage. And these changes will ripple through the system...producing additional changes to marriage and to other traditions. Whether all these changes are ultimately positive or negative we cannot say with certainty - conan

this is true with EVERYTHING

Wasn't it Fitzgerald who said something about it being a sign of a first-rate intelligence to be able to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time? - conan

Key word there is HOLD, otherwise he would have said belive

First of all, marriage isn't a right (it's a rite)
Allowing some to marry and other not to isn't denying a "right" to anyone. It's denying a legal privilege to some - conan

And it is illegal to withhold legal privlages based on sexual orientation accroding to the 14th amendments equal protection clause

Gay marriage is a sham and makes a mockery of the traditional institution -- thus lowering the overall stabilizing social value of the institution - Jay R

So how do you mock and lower the value of a tradion that began treating women as slaves to be bought and sold? Marrige has had thousands of changed over the last 10,000 yrs of human history - what makes this one so horrifying?

Duwayne, there are lots of children in this world who's parents have made shitty choices and who aren't raising them very well. That does not mean society needs to legitimize those choices - momof3

So being gay is a choice now?

You yourself admit that the underclass was only granted marriage rights, by the church, to legitimize their breeding. Something gays by definition can not do - momof3

Are you suggensting we not allow straight people to adopt or use fertility treatments then? Because of you are not willing to suggest that then this argument is pointless.

All these legal protections to which gays would assert claim by marriage are largely a function of preparation - crid

At a cost of dozens of hours and thousands of dollars and even then if you dont have the paperwork on you your shit outta luck

Looj, I have said I"m against fertility treatments. I have no problem with gays living together, adopting kids, and going on with their lives. I have an issue with their frantic demands that they be considered the exact same as a group they are clearly NOT the same as. Why have to have that exact same word? Amy doesn't try to demand the term marriage for her relationship with Gregg. She knows it's different.

I never said being gay was a choice. DW tried to imply that any time kids are involevd we should give a pass to the parents, in order to make the kids lives better. I was arguing that particular assertion.

DW tried to imply that any time kids are involevd we should give a pass to the parents, in order to make the kids lives better.

No, what I was asserting, is the notion that when kids are involved, we should give the kids a pass and provide the best possible situation for them. That does not mean simply giving parents a pass, indeed quite often it means doing quite the opposite. What I said was, the children of same sex couples and yes, the children of multi-partner couples, should have the same security that your own kids have. That is not even close to implying we should simply give every parent a pass.

You yourself admit that the underclass was only granted marriage rights, by the church, to legitimize their breeding. Something gays by definition can not do. So every wide and sweeping change to marriage you've mentioned was made to let assumingly child-producing couples be included in marriage. Even inheritance would not exist without children to pass it to.

Actually there have been a great many notions of marriage that have nothing to do with reproducing. In several cultures over the centuries, marriage has meant limited time frames, some as short as a matter of hours - to legitimize relationships entirely based on sex. Some even legitimizing sex in exchange for money.

> "So how do you mock and lower the value of a tradion that began treating women as slaves to be bought and sold? Marrige has had thousands of changed over the last 10,000 yrs of human history - what makes this one so horrifying?" Lujlp
----------------------------------
Typical non-response and deflection. Lujlp just conveniently makes up some false "straw herstory" in order to then knock it down. She can't make an argument based on anything within the last few centuries (and ignores that previously, almost everyone was a "slave" in one form or another, with men getting, as always, the most unpleasant, deadly jobs!)

Hey, Luj, if marriage is such an oppressive, patriarchal institution (which MUST be abolished in order to protect women according to feminist thought), then why are you so intent on inflicting it on gays? What do you have against them, anyway?

As Amy has said ... "silly."

Here we go again... Historically, marriage was used as a way to stregthen bonds between groups of people, mostly for financial reasons. IE: I have this really great land over here, you have money to keep it up, let's get our kids married and we will both be financially stronger.

In the last 50 years or so, marriage has become more about being in love than managing finances. On one hand we have folks who are all about being in love and having some religous blessing on their partnership and on the other, we have folks who are more concerned about who gets the property and takes care of the kids if the partnership ends by death or destruction.

We need to make choices as a society. Is marriage a religious ceremonial recognition of deep abiding love? If it is, then everyone should legally be forming partnership corporations to protect the property.

Is marriage a business contract recognized by the state for disposition of property and children? If it is, then everyone over 18 and legally sane should be able to get married.

First off JAy R I am a man

Second, you said gay marriage mocks and cheapens the tradion of marrige.

I dont see how saking you to elaborate and explain your reasoning is a delfection - but if labeling it so can help you ignore exploring the reasoning behind you bigotry go right ahead.

You also derided me for mentioning the state of marriage before 300 yrs ago, so lets look at it within that time frame. Women were still being married off to men their family chose.

In fact it wasnt until 1753 that one of the first laws regarding marrige licences was written

It wasnt until the 1850s that polygamy was outlawed, oddly enough congress passed a law denying women the right to vote in the state of utah as additionl leverage in stamping out polygamy

1900 - All states now grant married women the right to own property in their own name.

1907 - All women acquired their husband's nationality upon any marriage occurring after that date. Meaning any woman to marry a foreiner lost her citizenship

1933 - Married women granted right to citizenship independent of their husbands. 75yrs ago

1948 - California Supreme Court overturns interracial marriage ban. 50yrs ago, imagine that for a moment, If you had tried to marry a black or latino woman you would have had the door to your home kicked in and been draged off by the cops

1965 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting married couples from using contraception. Fought tooth and nail all the way by the 'religious right'

1967 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting interracial couples from marrying (Loving v. Virginia). 17yrs AFTER California - 12 yrs before I was born

1969 - The first no fault divorce law is adopted in California

1971 - Supreme Court upholds an Alabama law that automatically changed a woman's legal surname to that of her husband upon marriage.

1971 - Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to Minnesota Supreme Court ruling allowing prohibition of same-sex marriages (Baker v. Nelson).
Here you go crid something on gay marrige from before 2000, 30 yrs before

1972 - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting unmarried couples from purchasing contraception.

1975 - Married women allowed to have credit in their own name.
How nice of them to give the little lady acsess to money, huh?

1993 - "All fifty states have revised laws to include marital rape".
15yrs ago

1996 - President Clinton signs into law the Defense of Marriage Act.
which most people contend is unconsitutional, but the fundie republicans didnt mind Bill and big government in this instance, did they?

2004 - Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage.

2008 - California briefly recognizes same-sex marriage, which is later overturned by a State Constitutional amendment.

2008 - Connecticut recognizes same-sex marriage

"In several cultures over the centuries, marriage has meant limited time frames, some as short as a matter of hours - to legitimize relationships entirely based on sex."

Hitler did that in his final hours of the bunker in 1945 while the Reds were closing in.

Here is what you are wrong about this. The Government of the United States of America helped no one because it was good for the people in the receiving end. It was always the other way around. That goes for Japan, South Korea, Germany.....

When I applied for the green card as a immigrant from the Korea, the immigration officer, who was very unattractive to me, asked me this question. "How the USA will benefit by granting you the green card you seek?" It was never the other way around. She was not concerned about this poor, short, skinny, Korean immigrant's happiness. She was concerned about "What is in it for me, the U.S.A?" I nervously bullshitted and when she stamped, "PASS" on my application, I was ready to kiss her fat ass.

By granting the marriage certificates to the gays and lesbians, the USA will not see any benefits in increased tax revenues or social benefits. The gays will bitch about their situations but they will continue to work and pay taxes and productive. Then, why should the USA will go extra steps and compromise to make gays happy?

Unless gays can nail the issues to dollars and cents, you will not get what you want.

Jay R -

Even in the last few centuries, marriage has meant things that we find entirely repugnant today. Likewise there have been radical changes to marriage in this century alone - including the Loving v Virginia decision that is the topic of this post - a mere forty one years ago.

Nothing that was said by Luj is a false strawman. You can question it's relevance today, but marriage has meant radically different things over the millenia. And it is even radically different things in todays world, across cultures.

Chang -

Hitler did that in his final hours of the bunker in 1945 while the Reds were closing in.

Please stop with the things that Hitler happened to do. Hitler also took a shit on a regular basis - doesn't mean that eating oatmeal makes one inherently fascist.

Besides which, you're missing the point entirely. It isn't that I am trying to advocate for short-term, temporary marriages. I am merely pointing out that marriage has always meant radically different things and that really, marriage as it appears in modern western culture, is based on traditions that are a hell of a lot less than even a hundred years old.

Marriage in the U.S. today, is dramatically different than it was even fifty years ago, thirty. And the changes haven't always come with dollar signs. And it usually has come by way of the courts - in part because there is little in the way of dollar signs involved. Rarely does change that doesn't come with immediate return on investment get passed in legislature, before it has had it's day in court. Rights have generally been sued for, before legislature catches up and ties it together.

That is why religious freedom means what it really does today in the U.S. That's why gays aren't thrown in prison for having sex with members of the same gender, something that was a problem in my lifetime. That's why a lot of our rights have remained and become secure over the years. They don't come through politicos pulling their heads out of their asses, they come because the courts act as a shoehorn to pull their heads out of their asses.

> I really have no idea why you'd
> consider your personal feelings about
> me in any way relevant to this
> discussion.

I'm a touchy-feely guy! Ask around!

> I don't see the point in getting
> emotionally involved

Well, it's optional... Nobody's forcing you to... But given the rich rainbow of pretense you offered in your first comments, I saw no reason not to open my heart and let the best effort flow.

> valid points in your "response" to me.

Inappropriate quotation marks. Just sayin'. Who are you quoting?

> top 10 law school,

No. Not possible. First of all, “top ten” would be intolerable ambiguity for an attorney (as would chatter about slippery slopes). It fails to claim graduation or even name the institution. A real attorney would say “Fuck you buddy, I have a JD from Cornell!” Maybe you were in for a semester, and then got a good job at a cousin's heating oil distributorship at Christmas... Good for you! But this is like taking pride in striking out with a really attractive woman at a bar. She doesn't belong on your list, which records only conquests.

> top 10 undergrad in philosophy
> and political science

Again, no degree goes with that? I grew up on a huge-assed campus, have never heard the phrase “top 10 undergrad” before, and don't know how to parse it. (That's not bragging, my gpa's just 2.62)

> why on earth should that
> matter here?

When commenters don't try to pass casual, unexamined beliefs as grounded and obvious, they get no attention from me. But when people are wrong and obnoxious, I like to correct them. For years I felt bad about this... But in 2008 I learned that two favorite book-learners, Buckley & Hitchens, each listed this a favorite hobby.

> Gays […] do not have the right/
> privilege to marry a romantic partner.

Nobody has the “right” to marry a “romantic partner”. The law of the land is not concerned with intimate appraisals... It doesn't have the time. Again, government is not your Daddy, and it doesn't care about your interior life. Marriage is afforded to unmarried, unrelated, adult, consenting, sane pairs of people comprised of one of each gender. Sometimes the law prohibits other unions, such as with prisoners. But (as noted earlier) you're obsessing over one particular union that the law proscribes, instead of considering that rather slender range of unions which can be certified. Each stipulation has value, and gives important information about what the whole of humanity, across time and space, thinks is worth sanctifying.

> you referenced marriage between
> seniors, children, the mentally ill,
> and siblings.

And whaddya know, I just “referenced” them again! The concern is not that worse unions are on the horizon... I'd have said so if it were. (Though many of Amy's readers are thoughtfully concerned about what will happen to intimate relationships if Islam takes firm root in America: Gays would certainly get the bad news early.)

My concern is that you mis-characterize the specificity of the unions permitted in marriage. It's not for everyone! It's actually a tiny subset of humanity. For example, I may feel tremendous affection for my little sister (who doesn't exist, but you know what I mean), or my brothers, or their sons, or their wives or for any other man's wife... That's a lot of people, but I'm not allowed to marry any of them. Would you call me oppressed? Of course not.

> slavery was a part of the human
> condition until very recently.

It continues in corners of the world today. But I think *you're* the enslaver, not me. I think in the long run, history will be on my side. As with slavery, this is fast-flaring trend for which souls may one day bear shame. Babies are literally delivered at the intersection of a man and a woman, and that makes heterosexual unions special. It ain't a religious thing, it ain't a science thing or a law thing, it's a nature thing. Marriage is how we make peace with nature.

> You're going to have to do better than
> “but it's always been like this!"

And I do; I never made such an argument. That's the crux of your participation so far: You're eager to assume that others are backwards-looking conservatives who are easy to belittle. That's really all you want out of this, is to be snotty. (Your first comments here were a good effort that way.)

I think civilization is a slog from mud to a place where any random person has a life worth living. The principles that sustain forward motion are mundane but painful when ignored. Germ theory! (Illness.) The conservation of momentum! (Car crashes.) Liberty and industry! (Poverty.)

Another important principle: Children deserve a loving mother with a loving father. Anyone who doesn't have a singular, intimate experience of love from each sex in early times has missed half the show. The fact that divorcing straights have done more damage by their own misconduct doesn't excuse throwing more kindling on the fire with gay marriage...

(Aha! Dictionary definitions:

kin·dle 1 (kndl)
1.a. To build or fuel (a fire). b. To set fire to; ignite.
kin·dle 2 (kndl) A brood or litter, especially of kittens. See Synonyms at flock1. intr.v. kin·dled, kin·dling, kin·dles
To give birth to young. Used especially of rabbits.

As Hitchens says, we should always look to language to lead us.)

> And I didn't see you answer the basic
> question:

Well, hold on there, Pilgrim... Who, where, what the fuck.... HOW did that come to be the “basic question”? If that's the “basic question”, why can't you just ask it, instead of insisting on gay marriage and inferring things about people (“They're meanies!”) thereafter?

Maybe because that's all you wanted to do, anyway. Let me say it just once more (before the next time I comment on this): You are being incredible presumptuous and naïve. I have gays near 'round my whole life (family / friends / neighbors / employers / subordinates / thinkers etc). In any case, it will never ever be your duty to make sure that my personal allegiances are what they ought to be. As I've mentioned in earlier comments about this, your “basic question” is nothing but a seventh-grader's impulse to describe other people as 'bigots' or 'immature'. You're unable to distinguish eroticism from sexuality's other impacts, and therefore willing to sacrifice the love received by children on behalf of adult fulfillment.

> do you have a problem with
> gays and their relationships?

No. I don't care how other people get their squirt on. Even if I was once inclined to gossip, I'm too old now, and nothing is as interesting or surprising as it used to be. In particular, I've learned that no precious opinion about sexual practice makes a person more or less admirable. Maybe when you're fully grown, you'll understand this as well.

-------------------------------------

PS- (Loojy)

> Here you go crid something on gay
> marrige from before 2000, 30 yrs
> before

Funny how you never mentioned it before. No one else has, either. I'd never heard of that case. Had you heard of it before it looking it up last night>? Has anyone else here heard of it? Anyone care to describe (without looking) the nature of the argument made in the case? In what year did you, loojy, first read about gay marriage? What did it say?

"Hitler also took a shit on a regular basis - doesn't mean that eating oatmeal makes one inherently fascist."

One of the better lines I've heard lately. Can't say that for the rest of the post, but hey. We disagree. That's how we know the sun wil rise.

No I found it this morning not last night, and the court held that
"in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex".

and

"[t]he institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis"

Which for the 70's and before in vitro became vogue a well reasoned agrument - so long as you ingnore the crap about the 'tradition' of marrige going back to genesis

As for gay marrige I fisrt ran across it some time back in the mid to late 90's when my control freak mormon father deemed me worthy enough to tool around the internet with out him being in the room to make sure I didnt try to look at porn, news, or talk to people outside of utah on message boards - fucking bastard, not you crid, him

Gay rights laws are nothing more than legislating the reaction to a personal habit. That's all they are. It's the state telling me how I can, and cannot, react to some else's behavior.

Equating gay rights to the civil rights movement is idiotic and it's dumbfounding how many otherwise intelligent people fall for it.

I suppose your one of thos idiots how belive we choose what skin color we're born with as well.

I think the government should get completely out of the marriage business. If it's a "sacred" institution, that sounds like religion. Let your marriage be between you and your church and let the social contracts for co-habitation be shared by all.

As someone said here (and I haven't read all of these), I don't see how two women getting married impacts ANYONE else's marriage, positively or negatively.