The American Spectator

Indiana Alex| 6.4.09 @ 8:13AM

Liberalism didn't even run in the past election. Obama ran as a tax cutting conservative. Whenever anyone runs nationally as a liberal, they are defeated, as well they should be.

Liberalism is for children.

Big J| 6.4.09 @ 8:18AM

I have one question: When will it end?

The assault on traditional values in this country has been slow but steady ever since the "social revolution" in the 60's. Frankly, I am tired of bending on issues. A stand needs to be taken.

The education system should not be indoctrinating our youth as they are. Offering birth control in schools, teaching about same-sex couples as if they are just as normal as opposite sex couples.

The moral decline in this country has been and will continue to be it's downfall. I am taking a stand on this.

Will you?

Big J| 6.4.09 @ 8:19AM

Doorgunner,

Don't feed the troll. Hopefully, one day he'll just starve and go away.

Son Of Sam| 6.4.09 @ 8:20AM

In 30 states, when THE PEOPLE were allowed to speak, they overwhelmingly favored real marriage. That's because the people know that gay "marriage" is a fraud. Two guys can say they're "married" sure enough; and my cat can shit in a wrapper and I can say its a Tootsie Roll. In neither case does saying so make it the truth.

The truth is that marriage is between one man and one woman. The truth is that if you let THE PEOPLE of every state in the country have their say, it would be real marriage 50, gay "marriage" 0.

stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com

Son Of Sam| 6.4.09 @ 8:21AM

In 30 states, when THE PEOPLE were allowed to speak, they overwhelmingly favored real marriage. That's because the people know that gay "marriage" is a fraud. Two guys can say they're "married" sure enough; and my cat can shit in a wrapper and I can say its a Tootsie Roll. In neither case does saying so make it the truth.

The truth is that marriage is between one man and one woman. The truth is that if you let THE PEOPLE of every state in the country have their say, it would be real marriage 50, gay "marriage" 0.

stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com

Ryan| 6.4.09 @ 8:58AM

Along with "getting what they voted for" in President Obama, the gay marriage issue may send many African Americans - who are socially conservative - to take a real serious look at the Republican party and consider that the Dems don't have their best interests at heart.

jack| 6.4.09 @ 9:27AM

who cares? when will republicans show the moral courage to cut spending and stop wasting energy on gay marriage? its a free country,who cares? when will the republicans stand up against obama for capitalists? gay marriage? give us a break. not letting gays marry is not freedom. cut spending.

Mike| 6.4.09 @ 9:44AM

To TAS,
I've been visiting your site for a week now. I have tried to post rational thoughts and opinions, trying to keep in mind one should be respectful of others in a public forum created for discussion of current events. One of the main reasons I read the comments posted is to see what others have to say about the particular article in question. However, it appears you have allowed a flaming war to override the purpose of these forums that has me questioning whether any useful insight that might be gained worth the exposure to this hate speak. Granted one could just ignore such posts and read the relevant content, but I am only human. This seems to be an every day thing here. I will not post in TAS after this till you have corrected the current enviroment that exist here.
If you cannot responsibly moderate your site, I question your ability to be called a useful community endeavor that I assumed was aimed at bringing forth intelligent insight to a very complex world.
Sincerely, Mike

Michael L. Hauschild| 6.4.09 @ 9:56AM

Traditional values? How about slavery and voting rights for women? Pick your battles, democracy, National Defense, personal freedom.

Alfred| 6.4.09 @ 10:15AM

Big J askes a great question: when will the assault on traditional values in this country end? I have an answer for him. When every last vestige of Western-Christian culture is removed from our culture.

To understand what is going on in America read...

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3484376.html

If America were a stock and I were a cold calculating investor I would be shorting this country big-time right now. Conservatives have completely ceded control of the culture over to the Left. Conservatives continue to believe they can win the battle over the definition of America in the twenty-first century at the ballot box when the Left quite literally controls our education system, the courts, the media, major philanthropic foudations, mainline Christian churches & seminaries and increasingly corporate boards.

The Left told us they would take the Long March through the institutions of this country back in the 60's. And true to their word they have. The folcrum point in the battle over the culture is the education system. This is exactly why the Left is so vehemently opposed to school vouchers and home schooling. Watch and learn as the Left turns up the heat on vouchers and then home schooling. Congress has already stopped the enrollment of new children into the voucher in Washington DC . Next on the list...home schools.

Our universities are a breeding ground for radical liberal ideas. To understand this just look at the direction they have gone the past 40 years. None of the following existed 40 years ago: African American Studies, Queer Studies, Chicano Studies, Peace Studies, Feminist Studies, etc.. If you image these schools to espouse anything but radical liberal ideas then think again. And if you think anything close to resembling scholarship goes on in them then dream on.

It is against this backdrop that conservative fight the culture wars and of course lose. Conservative are fighting this battle with water pistols and the Left is fighting it with tanks, smart bombs and full air support.

Jeff| 6.4.09 @ 10:17AM

This is all so ridiculous. Will we allow people to marry animals? Why not, if they truly love each other. Will we allow children to marry? Why not, we allow children to have abortions without telling their parents. Of course, if they are going on a field trip to the zoo then the parents have to sign a permission slip, ‘cause it’s important for mom or dad to give the ok. Everything about liberalism says, “Evil is good, and good is evil”.
Most people in America see homosexuality as a mental disorder, or in the olden days it would have been called a perversion. SIN. Today, whatever feels good. It’s your right as an American to do whatever you want, ‘cause what’s right for you is right for you.
What’s right for someone else may not be right for me, but that’s ok. Unless you’re a conservative Christian, then whatever you feel is wrong, period.

Big J| 6.4.09 @ 10:27AM

The left loves to shout "Freedom" when it suits their purpose.

Like abortion: "Freedom" of choice.
Death Penalty: Not so much.

Speech: From the left, "Freedom" of speech.
From the right: Hate speech.

Religion: (Fill in the blank) = "Freedom" of religion.
Christianity: We are imposing our religion on others.

What's good for the goose is not so good for the gander in the Liberal's world view. When was the last time you actually heard of a liberal "compromising" on one of their values?

Insert the sound of crickets chirping here.

Tony in Central PA| 6.4.09 @ 11:01AM

A conflict involving religious freedom will develop in our nation over the same - sex marriage issue in the next few years. Religious denominations will face increasing pressure to sanction, perform and endorse same - sex marriage. Failure to do so will result in lawsuits, loss of tax - exempt status and the eventual prohibition of any religious organization that does not agree with the government's definition of marriage and probably a number of other things in time.
The lobby for same - sex marriage isn't saying this so much now because they realize they have to unpack their agenda slowly to avoid a critical mass of opposition. Short of some kind of governmental collapse due to our skyrocketing debt, its probably too late to avoid this scenario. Its already started to happen in other countries that have chosen this path.
The future of religion in America will likely have official and underground religion. The official will bow to the government wherever asked, the underground wil represent the older, more orthodox forms of belief that existed before the State decided to also become the Church. For the first time in our nation's history, people will be imprisoned for their beliefs. An alternately apathetic and dependent citizenry won't care to do much about it.
G.K. Chesterton once observed that when orthodoxy becomes optional, sooner ot later, it will be proscribed. That day is dawning in America.

John Navratil| 6.4.09 @ 11:28AM

Why is marriage always framed as a right granted to the "happy couple"? In a marriage, everyone is involved. The entire village is implored to help the couple. To the religious, it was ordained by God and no man was to break it. Of course, the goal was the successful creation of the next generation. A barren marriage was one of the few reasons for divorce back in the day, but divorce wasn't required.

Today, a tax code which treats married couples differently from unmarried couples creates a number of inequities. A homosexual couple cannot be faulted for wishing equal treatment under the law. Those who will "render unto Ceasar" should not, in my opinion, be treated differently under the law for behaving differently under the law. I support civil unions.

To claim that civil unions should be marriages is specious. Why not, call marriages "civil unions"? Obviously those who seek "gay marriage" see something different in the nomenclature? The gay activists (and I mean that descriptively, not perjoratively) have no difficulty proclaiming their "gayness" and differentiating themselves from "straights". So recognizing differences isn't a problem. It is the desire to equate civil unions to marriage which is the defining article of the argument. This is cultural. Gays in this case to do not wish to be differentiated from "straights". Thus a traditional family is but one form of equally valid lifestyles and the next generation can be damned.

Oldefarte| 6.4.09 @ 11:35AM

Let me EXPLAIN it to the ignorant, once again! NATURAL LAW was/is the basis for MAN'S LAW [ie Thou shalt not kill=man's laws against murder]; and the former always supercedes [and takes precedent over the latter] the latter. Man was created with what is known as FREE WILL, meaning that he is basically free to say [or do], commit murder, if MAN'S LAW does not punish him for said acts; but, in do same, he will ultimately be punished by NATURAL LAW when he dies. Natural law is explicit in several instances concerning same sex marriages [ie homosexuality]. One of the ten commandments states THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE, thereby referencing MAN and a WOMAN. Also, the first two humans created were a MAN and a WOMAN [not two men or two women], again in accordance with the NATURAL LAW. Therefore, man can perform any human activities [homosexuality and/or same-sex marriage,etc] that he wishes according to his FREE WILL, and may or may not be punished for same by MAN'S LAW; but will ultimately and definately be so punished by the NATURAL LAW!!!!!!

John Navratil| 6.4.09 @ 12:57PM

Oldefarte,
In case that explanation was for me, let be begin by saying I don't disagree. Let me also add that I prefer the "Natural law" that I was raised in to one where the "Natural law" permits the murder of infidels. That is, I prefer post-enlightenment Christianity.

That said, the laws we lowly men write are for everyone, regardless of belief or disbelief. The alternative is for one to pick and choose the laws with which one must abide based on one's religious belief. Martyr's have faced death rather than submit to laws written by man which contravene God's law. But they haven't had it both ways. That is, I cannot claim that I don't have to abide by that law because my God says so.

When writing law, it is good that man is informed by moral beliefs. One of Christianity's is to reserve final judgement to God. Not personal judgement, mind you; that is for the ballot box. When voting, I will vote against "gay marriage" because it is against my beliefs. I do, however, support civil unions as a means to ensure everyone receives the same secular treatment under the law.

Tom Blom| 6.4.09 @ 1:05PM

Same sex "marriage" is a gatekeeper, not an end state. It would've been inconceivable a generation ago. Even the people of the most contorted state in the union said no to this (CA). America’s success is her biggest problem. We have groups all over the place who push agendas to “further” humanity and come up with silly ideas daily. Same sex “marriage” will become federally recognized in the not-so-distant future because the clowns in state legislatures and Congress want to show how much smarter than average they are. From there you will see people “marrying” their monkey of choice (remember the story in CT?) because at some point the next step will be to confer human rights on animals (efforts in Spain if you recall). In Britain a woman “married” a dolphin. From there we will see animals eligible to vote and entitled to welfare. Zoos and circuses are history because animals will bring lawsuits. The rule-of-law is being perverted into something unrecognizable by regular Americans. The end game will be breakdown of society as we know it – violently. In the end blood overrules law and people have to eat; one way or the other. Downtown Manhattan has seen a 43% increase in crime already. The next year is going to be a row of dominos. The question is this: Is America going to wake up in time for the 2010 midterms to stop the nonsense? Are the Republicans ready to fight? Let’s see where H.R. 45 goes… Cap & Trade? Health care? Party line down votes needed (.)

ben| 6.4.09 @ 2:16PM

The institution of marriage was created for the purpose of sanctifying the union between a man and a woman, the only couple able to promote the biological imperative of the continuation of life. Gays by definiton undermine that imperative and thus should not have their union recognized as equal or as legitimate as the union between man and woman. I support equal rights (legal rights) which are provided by civil unions, but the two unions (hetero and homo) are not of equal purpose biologically and therefore should not be recognized as equally legitimate. The hetero union leads to the continuation of human life, and the homo union leads to it's extinction.

ccc| 6.4.09 @ 2:24PM

Easiest solution would be to remove the incentives to marry. Why should I as a single person be disadvantaged in comparison to those entered into a union.
For example tax on an individual basis.

John Navratil| 6.4.09 @ 2:51PM

ccc,

Not a bad plan :P Start with removing the employer provided pre-tax medical insurance benefit to create an equal treatment of that benefit. Then eliminate the estate tax treatment which allows the surviving spouse to keep the entire estate until his or her death. Then watch how expensive children become.

Wait! Wait! I've got it. The perfect way to preserve your estate. Marry your grandchild.

Society has an interest in the next generation as we are ALL about to find out. Time we started taking an interest.

Nick| 6.4.09 @ 3:11PM

Mr. Navratil,

As you are someone who supports same-sex civil unions to ensure equality under the law, I'm curious, how would you counter the argument that the state would also have to allow multiple-person (3, 4, etc.) or blood-relative (incestuous) civil unions?

ccc| 6.4.09 @ 3:34PM

John Navratil, you make some good suggestions. I can support educating another's kids (public school, vouchers, whatever) and even some sort of advantage to keep said kids healthy, after all the children are the future and all that.
But why would I have the slightest interest in helping with, say, helping with the health insurance of whoever you happen to be sleeping with (man or woman). What interest is it of mine to see that your spouse gets as hefty an inheritance as possible when I am far more interested in getting my corporate/sales/income taxes as low as possible

Roy| 6.4.09 @ 3:46PM

The state probably should allow "incestuous" civil unions, as a "civil union" should not indicate that the couple in question are having sex. Once take that assumption out of it and blood relatives actually are probably among the most common living arrangement.

I don't actually believe there is any reason why the law should treat two different situations the same, except for a lot of irrelevant howling and yibbering ultimately focused on the self esteem not just of "homosexuals", but on that of heterosexuals who do not want to recognize marriage as superior to their "lifestyle"(these people are often referred to as "Democrat politicians"). Shove that aside and it is obvious the state has an interest in an institution that attaches parents and children that it does not have in any other relationship. I am not saying it has NO interest in other relationships. If I live with my brother for five years, it might make sense for us to have a "civil union" so as to deal with joint property in an efficient manner, etc, etc.

But it is primarily out of fear of seeming "uncool" or "insensitive" that people go along with the proposition that this type of thing is "marriage".

Roy| 6.4.09 @ 3:48PM

Oh, and "religious liberty protections" are really not the issue. Once it is granted that, unless you are a religious whacko, you of course believe in interspecies marriage, the debate is over.

Oldefarte| 6.4.09 @ 4:10PM

John Navratil: Not sure I understand your resaoning concerning a NATURAL LAW that permits the murder of infidels. It is impossible for the NL to do such, as "murder" [once again] is prohibited [Thou shalt not kill]. Your referencing of two NL's is impossible, as there is only one NL, and it preceded mankind [and man's laws]. Religions and man's laws are seperate and distinct from the NL [even though based upon same]. Again [finally], anyone can support/believe/act, etc whatever/however they so wish/choose, but, if they break [commit an offense against the NL], they will be punished upon their death!

John Navratil| 6.4.09 @ 5:36PM

(Sorry this is so long.)

Nick,

As a principal of equality under the law, I expect people to be able to contract. With a marriage, a number of legal benefits annure which specifically relate to taxation, spousal privilege, estate taxation and other things related to the union of two people which is otherwise unavailable out of marriage. These are quite independant from the raising of children, but were put into the law to promote marriage. Fine enough. The first claim to spousal benefits that I recall came from the gay community in San Fransisco when someone without insurance and with AIDS wanted to claim against his lover's employee provided health care insurance. Rather than suggest that this was a money grab the fight became "what is good for the goose is good for the gander". The proper response should have been to eliminate the pre-tax nature of insurance premiums which would have had everyone shopping for their own best deals, but that, in a land of entitlements, was not to be. Speaking strictly from a secular, legal perspective should my wife who is my confidant be granted a spousal privilege, but the confidant of a homosexual not? Powers of attorney may be granted explicitly from one gay man to another, but are automatic when the marriage license is issued. It seems a legitmate claim that a same-sex couple should be able to obtain the same basket of secular rights AND OBLIGATIONS should they seek it. This is entirely separate from child-rearing and also from any notion of marrying dogs, multiple spouses, or blood relatives. We do, by the way, prohibit marriage to first cousins, but not second... a suspicious differentiation from a purely genetic perspective, but I digress. There is nothing in the law which allows heterosexuals to marry multiple spouses (polygamy having been outlawed) and not homosexuals. Likewise the incestuous union is prohibited for genetic reasons, which by nature refers to a heterosexual coupling. What interest is it, from a strictly secular (specifically not moral) perspective if a homosexual relationship is incestuous?

CCC,

About the only socialist-like thought I have is on education; an educated public is a public good. I'll even raise that ante as I could not stand to see my children educated in the cesspool of this city's public education system and have spent more money than I should have educating them privately. I don't want your, or anyone else's help with my health insurance. However, as a self-employed sole-proprieter, I would like it treated the same way at tax time.

The interest in my spouse maintaining my interest in our community property is so that should I die the estate isn't split asunder to the detriment of the family, and that assumes the reasonableness of taxing, again, that which has already been taxed. The only downside to the community at large is a delayed tax remittance. Of course in my case the issue is moot because I've already spent in all on education :)

Oldefarte,

You and I may agree on what constitures "Natural law" (we probably do), but I am confused by your statement that there is only one and it is separate from Religion's laws. I don't see three bases for laws, myself. Still, not everyone thinks as we do and some members of the Abrahamic religions think it is perfectly "natural" to slay infidels. While you think there is only one "Natural Law", they may think so as well. Your "Natural law" and theirs are not the same and only one of you can be right. They also think that homosexuality is such an abomination that stone walls should be pulled down on top of those who practice it. From one who suggests that one should love the sinner while hating the sin, I do not want to live under those mans laws. It is small comfort in the here-and-now to know that God will take care of me after they have, and take care of them some time later.

All,

If we wish to advance the next generation, we will have to address the problem directly. The single most important thing to me is an equal education stipend to all students. In principal I haven't a problem with government schools (in practice, I do), but I reject the government as the monopoly supplier of schools. The expenses of child rearing are large. They eat and grow, require clothing and housing. A Ferrari would be cheaper. I have a number of friends who have said it is too expensive and eschewed children. That is a problem.

Iaidoka| 6.4.09 @ 6:21PM

Can someone please explain to me why same sex marriage is so bad? This is a serious question. I'm not trolling. Please do not give me any morality arguments. I'm looking for arguments on how it will logistically affect our country.
And please, like I said, no morality arguments. I understand those already. I do not consider "Well, then I can marry my dog" to be an effective response.

Michael L. Hauschild| 6.4.09 @ 7:12PM

Did any of you notice that there is a gay dating service ad in the upper right hand corner? Good grief next thing there will be a bestiality site, a threesome hookup, or a Young Democrats of America blog. What some people won't do for money?

John Navratil| 6.4.09 @ 7:56PM

Iaidoka,

Can you possible discuss marriage without morality? Seriously! Is "marriage" a license for sex? What is marriage? Can it be discussed in isolation from culture? Can two people who cannot possible procreate provide for the next generation? What is the logistical effect of no next generation? Curious? Look to Russia, Italy, Spain! Think we need a next generation? How? Test tube babies? Can this brave, new world survive? How? Why? What motivates one test tube baby to fill the tube with the next generation?

I haven't given any morality arguments. But I ask, why is same-sex marriage such a necessity? What does someone who will be dead with no progeny care? Is one's only life the only reason for life?

Is this an ineffective response? Why?

Tony in Central PA| 6.4.09 @ 8:03PM

The one and only reason same - sex marriage is even being considered is because marriage as an institution is in such poor shape. People don't know what marriage means anymore. There's an unappreciated absurdity in people trying to redefine something they can't even define.

stmichrick| 6.4.09 @ 8:14PM

Have them explain what enlightenment has taken place that warrants changing the definition of a term and concept that has been in place for thousands of years.

Gay people should be (and are) free to make contracts between each other; not re-define a societal institution.

Nick| 6.4.09 @ 8:45PM

Mr. Navratil,

I posited my question solely on the secular level. I didn't mention child rearing, aspects of English common law, or "marrying dogs".

I am genuinely curious, as this is a relatively new conundrum in our constitutional history. Growing up during the 70's and 80's it was never mentioned. Also, during the 90's I never heard of this "right", so I never really thought about it.

As a Roman Catholic, I have studied why God instituted marriage. But I haven't researched what the Church teaches concerning the state's role in marriage.

You wrote: "It seems a legitmate claim that a same-sex couple should be able to obtain the same basket of secular rights AND OBLIGATIONS should they seek it." (sic)

So I ask again, why is it a "legitimate claim" for two people of the same sex, but not for 5 people or a brother and sister?

You also state polygamy has been outlawed. Why is this prohibition licit?

If it is ILLEGITIMATE for ONLY a man and a woman, in a licensed marriage, to have these legal protections; why is it JUSTIFIABLE to deny the franchise to any group of consenting adults, regardless of the number or family relationship?

In my opinion, your post did not address these points.

Falaniko| 6.4.09 @ 9:13PM

Lets get something straight here. Equal Protection is not universal like the right to free speech. It applies to specific groups who have met a specific test or status as a "suspect class". These groups are race, religion and nationality and a few more. To guarantee equal protection to every group out there is not feasible. Fat people can be discriminated against without repercussions, so can stupid people. Those classes of citizens are not protected by the 14th Ammendent. So are same sex couples. They do not meet the criteria for equal protection but have used undue influence within the courts, state legislatures and city halls to gain this protection without deserving such. Equal Protection limits rights it doesnt expand them.
So long as the same sex couples who enter civil unions are getting the same rights as married couples they are not being discriminated against. If they arent receivingthese rights give it to them, but they cannot usurp the ceremony of marriage which originated in religion based o9n equal protection. The word itself is a specific term used by religion and originated in church. The state did not originate marriage. They adopted it so they should not change its historical significance. If sexual orientation receives "suspect class" status without passing the criteria this will amount to an arbitrary reward based on politics not legal doctrine. I have no problem with same sex couples getting legal status and rights, just dont call it marriage. Why? because sexual orientation is not limited to homosexuality, there are so many other deviant sexual oprientations out ther and they would all receive the legal standing of a suspect class that would then create a terrible state of reverse discrimintion against religions and other groups who do not accept this behavior. This would create an overwhelming burden upon the religious and conservative community which oppose the same sex agenda by forcingthem to accept somethingthat has yet to prove it is worthy of such a severe form of protection. Like I said if they receive the same rights as a married couple where are they damaged? They arent and we can all enjoy our seperate lives without anyone being hurt.

John Navratil| 6.4.09 @ 10:16PM

Nick,

You are quite right, I did not specifically address these points. Again, these are also solely secular arguments.

My support of civil unions and the "legitimate claim" for two people to claim the privileges of any other two people is based on an equal protection argument. If these two people are granted these secular privileges, why are those two not when all other aspects to the relationship are the same? One might argue that same-sex unions do not produce the next generation, but that falls into the trap of equating same-sex unions with childless marriages. As homosexual couples are not, in any case, likely to further the species, the union is at least benign. As it seems a relatively universal human desire to have a soul mate, denying such privileges seems cruel. In short, I don't see any state interest in denying such privileges... but don't call it marriage as marriage is more than that.

The polygamist union creates a "bachelor herd"... a group of sexually desirous men with no chance of marrying. It is unstable. Consider the attraction of 72 virgins to this group of males with no prospects. This is not in the interest of the state.

The polyandrous group suffers similarly, but limits the growth of population and doesn't appear to be in much demand.

The communal group is also unstable and is, also fortunately, not much desired.

The incestuous group gives us genetic instability.

Marrying dogs was a whimsy. In any case, dogs, at least not yet, cannot contract :)

gary47290| 6.4.09 @ 10:40PM

We ban polygamy, because it is abusive of women. Always has been, and the recent fundy LDS scandals in the US southwest do nothing to suggest this has changed.

IN a system / society that sees women as legally equal to men, it is not possible nor desirable to sanction a status that is inherently abusive of women.

On practical terms: there is nothing to suggest that women will want to marry multiple men, as least not in numbers to the men who want multiple wives. The result is an imbalance in the marriage pool. If we all polygamy, the result will be significant numbers of poorer, younger and less powerful men who have no prospect of finding a mate. Young, single horny men are dangerous to social stability.

Phil| 6.5.09 @ 1:44AM

Alfred;
"Conservatives have completely ceded control of the culture over to the Left."

I would rephrase that differently. Republicans, by embracing the concepts of the left and paying nothing more than lip service to social conservatives, have ceded control to the Left.

Ringbearer| 6.5.09 @ 7:50AM

Why not call all marriages, civil unions and civil partnerships Civilly-Wed and give the participants the feeling and prestige of the state of matrimony?

John Navratil| 6.5.09 @ 9:12AM

Ringbearer,

And why not call it something else, entirely. Because words matter. It is precisely for this reason that gays want to be called "married" and not "civilly united".

It is one thing to argue for equal treatment under the law, but it is another to deny a difference in meaning by calling things by the same name. If everything is a "rose", what is a rose?

Iaidoka| 6.5.09 @ 10:50AM

John Nacratil,
I asked my question because my initial response to same sex marriage is, so what who cares. However, I fully admit there may be aspects I haven't thought of and that's why I asked.
Marriage is obviously not a license for sex. You can easily do that without being married. Marriage is a commitment. I really don't see it as anything more than that. And I really don't see what procreation has to do with marriage. There are happily married people who have no kids and want no kids. You argument about the next generation is not valid as it pertains to same sex marriage. No matter how many same sex marriages occur, there will be plenty of man/woman couples to carry on the human species.
You ask why someone who will be dead with no progeny cares. It could well be asked why do others care who marries who.
For the record, I am NOT gay, I AM married (to a member of the opposite sex) and I have two great kids.

anais| 6.5.09 @ 11:30AM

Iaidoka- you're right-why shouldn't same-sex marriage be law? After all the left is already attempting to legislate Mother Nature via ludicrous environmental protection proposals like 'cap and trade'; why not mainstream homosexuality via same-sex marriage (hell, any permutation of marriage for that matter!!) even though it represents less than 10% of the population?

John Navratil| 6.5.09 @ 11:57AM

Iaidoka,
It doesn't matter to me if you are gay, straight, married or not.
You did, however, violate your own rule for the question. You stated: "Please do not give me any morality arguments. I'm looking for arguments on how it will logistically affect our country." You, in your response to me, then said: "Marriage is a commitment. I really don't see it as anything more than that." Is that not a morality argument, even if phrased in the negative? Then you say: "And I really don't see what procreation has to do with marriage." Even if you think that simple animal husbandry will keep the country populated, do you think that is an equivalently successful of rearing children and will have no logistical effect on our country? Is there no moral component to this distinction? If so, we have reached disagreement on an article of faith which prevents agreement at any higher level.

Nick| 6.5.09 @ 12:49PM

Mr. Navratil,

Your argument, based on the stability of the relationship and the effect it has on the overall stability of society, seems very subjective to me.

Homosexual relationships are just as unstable and undesirable, based on promiscuity, spread of STD's, and "domestic violence".

What is desirable for the state depends largely on your world view and moral perspective, does it not?

To state non-traditional same sex unions are more stable than polygamy, which has a long history among the rich and tribal chieftans, strikes me as completely arbitrary.

As far as genetic instability goes, what if two sisters want a civil union?

John Navratil| 6.5.09 @ 1:44PM

Nick,

Perhaps I am being subjective, but I observe no counter arguments. I also observe the difficulties experienced by children of divorce and those in blended families. Societies where polygamy is regularly practiced (Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations, for example) have not been stable unless the "bachelor herd" is exported (the jihadists are not leaving their loving brides and babies to fight the Great Satan and Saudi Arabia is still restless with their bachelors). Societies where the one chief has multiple wives do not exhibit the same instability as there is no "bachelor herd."

There are unstable homosexual relationships, perhaps most are. Sexual promiscuity is a problem regardless of community although I think I would rather be treated for Syphilis than AIDS. As a general proposition, I don't suspect the promiscuous of either community would clamor for marriage or civil unions. As such, I don't consider them in this argument as I do not expect them to be willing to take on the obligations of community property, joint tax returns, and divorce court when something more desirable appears.

As I said, above, "the incestuous union is prohibited for genetic reasons, which by nature refers to a heterosexual coupling". It is a hypothetical that two sisters could want a civil union which could also include two aged spinster sisters. But we are really wandering into the extreme positions, aren't we? There is no system of rules and laws which will not have unintended effects. When politically active sisters desiring civil unions become sufficiently numerous as to actually become apparent, I suppose I will have to contemplate that prospect more fully.

Finally, I agree with you! That which is desirable for the state very much depends on ones world view. I have lived in Britain, France, Germany and Saudi Arabia. I have travelled widely. I have to say that, so far, I like America best and while my experience in Saudi Arabia thirty years ago didn't include the prospect of being killed, I still liked it least. I did not try to make the Saudi Arab respect the West or Christianity, not do I wish to allow the Muslim world force me to submit to Islam. Similarly, while I expect the homosexual (homosexuality being natural [i.e. determined by nature], if not normal [a statistical concept]) to be treated with equality under the law, I expect the institution of marriage not to be redefined to fit a set of politically correct ideals.

naked in wv| 6.5.09 @ 3:01PM

"Who told you that you were naked?"

Who told gays they couldn't marry? Before DOMA, if you wanted to proclaim your love, devotion and commitment to your significant other, invite all your friends and get free stuff, guess what? NO ONE WAS STOPPING YOU. Then all of a sudden, the queers got this collective bee in their bonnets that SOMEHOW, "the state" not recognizing marriage was somehow discriminatory and oppressive. WHO TOLD THEM THIS? Where did this idea come from? I'm starting to think that all gays (and liberals) are deranged masochists, they are never happy. Attitudes towards gays changed dramatically in the 90's, but that wasn't good enough for the far left kooks in San Francisco, Chelsea, Dupont Circle, whatever. They had to shove marriage down the country's throat. They are the ones responsible for DOMA more than anything else.

As a queer and a conservative, being FOR traditional marriage does not make one a homophobe. And secondly, it has nothing to do with opposing gays, it has everything to do with opposing far-left radical liberalism. Sexuality has nothing to do with it.

Mark| 6.6.09 @ 5:59AM

I can't imagine being a conservative in a free country. You're always swimming against the tide. Free countries grant more freedom to their citizens, not less.

The best compromise, I believe, is for the states to get out of the marriage business entirely and issue civil union licenses to everybody. If you want a "marriage", you can do that on your own. The government doesn't need to be involved in what is essentially a religious ceremony.

Iaidoka| 6.6.09 @ 7:06AM

anais said:
"Iaidoka- you're right-why shouldn't same-sex marriage be law? After all the left is already attempting to legislate Mother Nature via ludicrous environmental protection proposals like 'cap and trade'; why not mainstream homosexuality via same-sex marriage (hell, any permutation of marriage for that matter!!) even though it represents less than 10% of the population?"

Same sex marriag and cap and trade? Am I missing a connection here? Seriously, WTF?

Mr. Navratil:
You make a valid point about the morality of commitment. I was trying to equate the marriage commitment with the commitment I make on my job to perform to the best of my ability. Not sure that's a valid comparison now.

As for procreation, I still stand by what I said that procreation isn't necessarily part of marriage. (Yes, I know I'm adding the qualifier "necessarily) That being said, I agree with you that a marriage between a man and a woman is the optimum arrangement for rearing offspring. Though I don't know any, I'm fairly confident that there are same sex couples who are capable of bringing up children in a loving enviornment. But I also believe that both boys and girls need the roll models of a Mom AND Dad, not just two of one or the other. However, I can't help but wonder if a man/woman marriage in turmoil is more detrimental to kids than a loving same sex arrangement.

Let me be clear. I believe that children are best raised in a loving man/woman marriage.

Iaidoka| 6.6.09 @ 7:10AM

I meant to add that my thinking concerning marriage is that, in my opinion, government has no part in any marriage arrangement. Government has way overstepped their constitutionally perscribed authority in way too many areas of our lives.

John Navratil| 6.6.09 @ 6:12PM

Iaidoka,

So will you start with the elimination of "child support" or community property? Perhaps being able to compel a spouses testimony is appropriate. No need for medical power of attorney, either, I suppose. Just how far do you really want the rule of law out of your marriage?

Iaidoka| 6.7.09 @ 7:21AM

Mr. Navratil,
My apologies. I should have been more specific in my statement. I didn't mean I want the "rule of law", which you seem to be using interchangably with "government", and I suppose I can accept that, I meant the federal government. This should be left to the states.
And before you go off on me about that, yes, I can see potential problems with states governing marriage law, but I feel it more appropriate to be local. Same as abortion, and I really don't want to open that keg of worms.

Crusader| 6.7.09 @ 8:22AM

Ryan, you wrote:

"Along with "getting what they voted for" in President Obama, the gay marriage issue may send many African Americans - who are socially conservative - to take a real serious look at the Republican party and consider that the Dems don't have their best interests at heart."

Blacks voted something like 98% for the usurper. To them it is not about issues, it is about skin color. It is almost funny to see them in their Obama hats and t-shirts and they don't even have the slightest inkling what a liberal or conservative is, let alone could speak intelligently on any pressing issue of the day. They just know Black = good and White = bad. To think they would be swayed by gay marriage is a pipe dream. Obama's is half-White, but you NEVER hear that--he is always described as the first "African-American" president--his White heritage is ignored, even though his African father split and his White mama and grandma raised him.

I guess in a sense he IS the first "African" president, having been born in Africa after all.

Blacks revel in their victimhood. Nothing is expected of them, the playing field gets skewed in their favor, and they get $ for doing nothing. Blacks are like the adult child who still lives in mom & dad's basement mooching off them. Until you cut the cord they'll have no incentive to actually, you know, work. Once they work they might actually pay attention to what's going on in their lives and then and only then will Blacks possibly vote R. When they care more about how much "take-home pay" they get as opposed to how big "da Welfare check be" Republicans might have a chance to get some in their tent. Until then, they'll stick to what they know, which is dems.

FeatherBlade| 6.11.09 @ 8:29PM

I would be very happy to see the government out of the business of issuing marriage licenses altogether. Marriage licenses are an out-moded relic of the eugenics movement - a State-issued license guaranteeing that you and your prospective spouse are fit to breed with each other. However, since the State governments issue licenses to anybody who pays for them, marriage licenses no longer have fitness-to-breed as a purpose.

I say - leave the marriage to the churches. If the churches say that they will not marry homosexual couples, then that's their right to not compromise the tenets of the church.
The homosexual couples (and hetero couples who don't "do" church) will just have to settle for a legal contract that gives them both the rights and privileges of marriage, but without the religious blessing.

My goodness... I believe they call that a civil union. Hmmmm

george| 7.29.09 @ 5:04AM

Louis Vuitton Monogram , commonly referred to as

Louis Vuitton Monogram Denim handbags, or sometimes shortened to

Louis Vuitton Monogram Denim has become one of the most

Louis Vuitton Riveting bags luxury brands.

lv online storelove

louis vuitton storesgood

luis vuitton online storei like

louis vuitton melville reporter usa online storesnice

s| 8.20.09 @ 3:54AM

Cheap Jordan,Cheap Jordan shoes,Retro Jordan,Air Yeezy Shoes,Supra shoes,Kanye West ShoesJordan shoes,New Jordans,Air Yeezy,Air Force Ones,Nike Dunks,Retro Jordan, Cheap Jordan Shoes,Nike Dunk High,True Religion Jeans,New Air Force OnesAir Yeezy Shoe,Supra Shoes,Retro Jordan,Creative Recreation,Nike DunksNike Air YeezyTrue Religion,Air Jordan Shoes,Air Shox,Air Max,Dunk Shoes.Air Jordan,Cheap Jordans,Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Jordans,Air Jordan Shoes