The American Spectator

Jim Hlavac| 11.4.09 @ 1:59PM

The case for gay marriage can indeed fit easily on a bumper sticker: "Liberty and Justice for All. "
Or: "Gays are Taxpaying Americans Too."
And for a little longer bumper: "All men are endowed with their creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
That should sit well with conservatives -- but it doesn't, for they are all for liberty (except for gays) all for justice (except for gays) all for inalienable rights (except for gays) all for pursuing happiness (except for gays). So why pillory one small tiny group? What joy is in it for you? And why on earth would two gay men saying they are married so debase the philandering, adultery-riven , divorced heteros of this nation that marriage of any kind would supposedly whither and die?
Something is dreadfully wrong with this picture.
Which leaves one other bumper sticker:
"My Marriage -- None of Your Business."
But, conservatives would have the nanny state go away, except to restrict, restrain, and just possible incarcerate those they disagree with -- that being gays; gee that sounds familiar.
amazing

Pete| 11.4.09 @ 2:29PM

That's baloney. The issue isn't about gay rights, since gays have the same rights as everyone else. The issue is about setting a segment of society above all the rest with their own set of laws protecting them and giving them unique rights. Marriage has always been to members of the opposite gender. There's many reasons for that but the most important one is that one and one equal three, in those cases. When people marry, the union will produce offspring and that fact is the sole purpose behind marriage laws. So rant all you want about your "rights" but you are are on shaky ground and the voters are letting that be known.

Laszlo Toth. Jr.| 11.4.09 @ 4:19PM

Well, you're right, it isn't about gay rights. It's about religious freedom.

Some people believe homosexuality is sinful. Some do not. The ones who do want to use the forceful power of government to enshrine their religious beliefs as law. If that's not "an establishment of religion," I don't know what is.

It also sets a terrible precedent. I can think of some jurisdictions where monogamy would lose on votes over polygamy. I can think of some jurisdictions where heterosexuality would lose on votes over homosexuality. I can think of some jurisdictions where Christianity would lose on votes over other religions.

As usual with civil rights issues, it boils down to the Golden Rule. Don't want to be discriminated against because you're straight? Don't discriminate on that basis. Don't want to be discriminated against because you're white? Don't discriminate on that basis. Don't want to be discriminated against because you're Christian? Don't discriminate on that basis.

Almost as if that Jesus guy was a smart cookie who knew the implications of what he was talking about, eh?

Nick| 11.4.09 @ 4:26PM

ALL people believe homo sex is sinful.

Some just suppress this belief and lie to themselves.

Laszlo Toth, Jr.| 11.4.09 @ 7:03PM

"ALL people..."? What a curious self-imposed corral of a world in which you live.

I'm reminded of the entomologist who studied wasps—thousands and thousands of them, whose bodies he minutely examined. Yet when asked what he could say about The Wasp, he replied that he hadn’t really seen enough specimens to generalize.

One of the ways to discern the difference between the divinely created and that made by humans: Divine creation is always somewhat different, no matter how much alike it may look at first glance. Only human creation manages to be standardized.

Phoebe| 11.4.09 @ 8:37PM

Yes, Laszlo; "All people..." , homosexuals most of all. If they were not "vexed to nightmare" by this knowledge, they would not feel such compulsion to force the world to approve of them.

Laszlo Toth, Jr.| 11.4.09 @ 9:06PM

Well, by this definition, either I'm not a person, or I don't exist. Strangely enough, this Christian, heterosexual, conservative doesn't put much stock in such an argument.

Nick| 11.5.09 @ 12:13AM

So, as a "Christian", you believe God created people with a same sex preference and then told the Israelites to stone them when they were caught in the act?

Laszlo Toth, Jr.| 11.6.09 @ 10:10AM

As a Christian, I believe in following the words of Christ. Simple, yes?

Matthew 7:12
Luke 6:31
Luke 10:25-28
Matthew 7:1
Matthew 7:3-5
John 8:7
Matthew 25:40

S.L. Toddard| 11.5.09 @ 8:34AM

"If that's not "an establishment of religion," I don't know what is."

Well, I can tell you (it's really almost self-explanatory): the "establishment of religion" refers to the "establishment" of an official state "religion", which (obviously) has nothing to do with the citizens of the several states using their ancient right of self-government to determine the legal definition of marriage for themselves, and determining that it remain the same as it has been in their country for centuries.

I'm sorry, but the people of these states have that right. Complaining that the vast majority will not *change* the ancient definition of marriage to which they have always cleaved - hallowed as it is by the passage of centuries and the reverence of countless generations - to suit the desires of a small minority is the worst sort of self-centeredness and sour grapes.

The majority of people in the states where this issue has been put to a vote have decided not to alter the meaning of a term that has remained constant for centuries in their country. That decision should be respected. It is not unreasonable to expect that the aforementioned minority should employ a *new* term to describe this *new*, foreign and unprecedented (in America) arrangement.

Patty Anne| 11.5.09 @ 5:33PM

Sorry, Laszlo; it's been determined by nature--the anal orifice IS AN EXIT NOT AN ENTRANCE.

You're right, Jesus did know what He was talking about, but you don't.

Sorry.

Jim Hlavac| 11.5.09 @ 10:22AM

Marriage was outlawed to black-white, or white-any other, couples for generations -- must be special right those mixed raced couples get. Even today, here in Louisiana, where I am, a Justice of the peace said he would refuse to marry a mixed race couple. Bizarre, I guess that couple thought they deserved special rights, and should not have expected to be treated equally under the law as required by conservative thought.
And marriage was outlawed in Christian Europe for centuries to other than the oldest son of a Jewish family, I guess those younger guys must be getting special rights.
Considering the range of anti-gay legislation that abounded in this country for quite a while, only recently struck down, to say gays had the same rights as all is a bit farcical. My Lord, gays were prohibited from congregating in a bar! How's that for special rights -- the right to the cocktail of your choice while peaceably assembling with the people you like. Until the 1970s at least information about gays was prohibited from being sent through the US Postal Service. Why, what a special right -- to allow people to communicate through the postal service we pay for. Gays were denied housing, hotel accommodations, jobs, freedom from arrest in their own homes for a peck on the cheek -- geez, what special rights -- the right to be left alone. The right to not be hampered by someone with a bizarre fixation on the private lives of others is inestimable. And if living together in one's own home is not a private life, beats me what is.
You are most certainly correct, sir, that it is not about 'gay rights' - it is about American rights, liberty rights, taxpayers rights, citizen's rights, and just common sense decency rights. But I guess those are "special" when applied to gay people.
Even more farcical, is the argument that gay marriage debases hetero-marriage -- how shaky is that institution? And now that Divorce and Adultery are protected rights, you would ban marriage for those who want it and promote its destruction by those who don't. How strange.

Patty Anne| 11.5.09 @ 5:38PM

It's about Freedom of Religious speech and we don't want to see our clergy frog-marched off to jail for exercising theirs on Sunday mornings.

You Leftists are storm troopers in the Thought Police Army, and we don't trust you. Isn't it obvious by now?

Married with Cats| 11.5.09 @ 11:28AM

The issue might be that many see this as a symptom of one of may traditions that bind our society and civilization getting flushed down the toilet. People are worried of the unintended consequences of our government legislating or imposing something on our culture when we're not ready for it or when all the possible unintended consequences have not been considered.

Suppose GM does pass and it becomes mainstream. What's next? Three people get married? Brother and sister? In each of these seemingly proposterous examples the same argument can be made as is done with GM. What business is it of anybody else if I want to marry my sister or my girlfriend and her sister? Does marriage have to entail physical consummation? Then perhaps my very intelligent dog might do also since we both reap the same mutual benefits of a loving relationship that perhaps two physically challenged people might also yield.

The issue it seems can be boiled down to two issues: the gay partner earning eligibility to social security survivor benefits and gays obtaining legal approval and thus legitimacy of an abnormal behavior or lifestyle. By abnormal I mean it is not the norm as in the vast majority are not gay.

The problem I see with the entire gay marriage and gay issue in general is the in-your-face attitude. Personally I don't care or want to know or be reminded of what anybody does in their privacy. But I am deeply offended by the marching, flaunting, and promotion of the lifestyle. I would be equally offended at having to endure a man and woman or two animals deeply engrossed in an embrace at the park, school, or work. Some situations are not suitable or practical for the gay lifestyle. Certain businesses, organizations, military (unless it's suppressed), and classroom instruction to name a few.

Forcing a lifestyle agenda on a population and strategizing that population will tire of the conflict will not legitimize the issue. The consistent rejection by voters regardless of the content of the referendum amply demonstrates our cultural animosity towards gay lifestyle issues. This will not improve with time as future immigrant cultures view the gay lifestyle in harsher terms.

I am in favor of treating everybody with consideration and courtesy. I wish gays would just let it go, live your public lives like everybody else and live your private lives like everybody else. There are plenty of hate laws, employment security laws, and discrimination laws in place already.

Dave| 11.4.09 @ 3:50PM

What should really bother people is that quite a few of those who voted for Prop 8 and supported getting it passed by contributing to it financially have been targeted, threatened, intimidated and harassed, since their names were found out due to political contribution laws.

Those who have threatened, intimidated and harassed those who contributed financially to getting Prop 8 passed are domestic terrorists, IMHO.

Anthony| 11.4.09 @ 7:29PM

This is true and is part of the reason the measure lost in Maine, where I live. This article mentions none of the issues--the divide between southern and northern ME, the related sense that this issue was a huge distraction when ME's economy is a disaster, the relentless articles espousing only one point of view by the papers and the liberal Dem legislature and finally the hounding of a man who was in a Stand for Marriage ad (pro traditional marriage). He is a guidance counselor and a colleague reported him to the social work board, saying he was discriminatory and should lose his license/job. Mainers REALLY hate that kind of thing, not to mention the relentless attacks on the Catholic Church by pro gay marriage supporters. It's a complex picture. And I wouldn't be so sure gay marriage is inevitable as the author propones.

Big Leo| 11.4.09 @ 9:22PM

You are absolutely right. The harassment of Dave Mendell, the counselor who was nominated for teacher of the year and had multiple awards for excellence pretty much decided it. I have lots of friend back there where I lived for thirty years and I heard a lot about that.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.4.09 @ 5:33PM

OKOK
Here we are again.
Gay friends, please just call it anything but "marriage"...define it and give legal protections to it the same as marriage, but please, do not call it "marriage".
It has nothing to do with "husbandry". Go to your darned dictionary.....or thesaurus... and read up on husbandry. You will note that it is not gender specific.
My wife "husbands" me, and I "husband" her.
If a gay couple husband each other, then God bless, and I bless.
...And if you do...then adopt some would-be aborted children.

P. Envy| 11.4.09 @ 8:15PM

"All men are endowed...."

That's a lie.

Pete2| 11.4.09 @ 8:39PM

It's interesting to hear the excuses by the homosexual marriage supporters of why they lost again. Yep, it's all those homophobic, right wing, christian hatemongers etc. Just who are the hate mongers? Could it those gays who get people fired from jobs, who threaten their lives, who engage in public hate mongering to those who question why they need special rights and seperate laws that pertain to them only? What actual right that a heteoralsexual has is not applicable to a homosexual also? We both have the right to marry a person of the opposite gender. Where are you denied the right to a job, education, etc? You have better protection against being assaulted or maligned under the constitution than straight people do. You attack people's religion with impunity ( except maybe Islamic ). Just what is your problem?

Sam| 11.5.09 @ 12:14AM

First of all, let me say that I am pro gay marriage so that there is no question of where I stand.

Second, supporters of traditional marriage believe marriage is only for straight people, meaning marriage is exclusive.

I understand that traditional marriage supporters don't believe gays are fit for marriage. I get it.

What I want is an honest explanation of WHY they are not fit for marriage? Traditional? Lack of ability to bear children? Religion? Two men cannot possibly love the way a man and woman do?

Please answer my question. I will not shoot down your view as many of my liberal friends tend to do. From what I've seen, you are in the majority and if you guys can win in states like CA and Maine, then we not get gay marriage for quite some time.

Michael Dooley| 11.5.09 @ 9:54AM

Sam: We could get into a lengthy exchange of views (indeed, there are long books on this subject from both perspectives); but I will just make two comments.

1.) It is not a question of whether this or that person or this or that couple being “fit” for marriage. The question is “what is marriage for”? Strictly speaking, government and society do not have any particular interest in supporting and protecting any relationship between two people. Thousands of “couples” form and dissolve every day and, save possible issues about property, do not need the State.

What does become clear is that taken “cross-culturally”, marriage may vary in certain significant features but the propagation, protection and nurture of children is the constant. Many will reject children as the essential element in marriage; but children are not simply a byproduct of marriage as some would have it. Children are the reason for the existence of marriage as an institution. It is in children that society extends itself in the future and therefore its interest in supporting and protecting marriage.

One can reasonable ask why does the couple have to be a man and a women and in the abstract it would seem other configurations are just as conceivable. However, the different family “constellations” is not equal. Over the centuries, the accumulated experience and wisdom have pointed to the biological mother and father pairing as the optimal platform for nurture. It is in this light that we can see that regarding marriage as a social and legal arrangement conferring rights and benefits upon two people is akin to looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

2.) The second comment revolves around one’s feelings toward the “sexual revolution” of the 1960’s and 1970’s—a real social change in mores whose echoes we live with today. It also resolves around how disposed one is toward social experimentation.

Many regard the sexual revolution as a positive and liberating change from thousands of years of repression and self denial. Others concede that the sexual revolution may have been a boon for recreational sex among adults—but has turned out to be a crippling disaster for children. Long term studies have shown that the effects of divorce, the failure of marriages to form, and the absence of either a father or mother are not benign. It was widely believed at the time that children were very adaptable and that one’s children couldn’t be happy if you were unhappy. Nothing has proven so demonstratively false as that one’s martial relationship is irrelevant to child development. One’s personal happiness in and of itself does not correspond to your children’s personal happiness.

In this regard, I think homosexuals ask heterosexuals a very reasonable question and that is “how is it you (heterosexuals) allow so much crap for yourselves but can’t see it through to allow marriage for us?” As hypocritical as it may be, the fear is that we will make a bad situation worse.

S.L. Toddard| 11.5.09 @ 12:55PM

"What I want is an honest explanation of WHY they are not fit for marriage? Traditional? Lack of ability to bear children? Religion? Two men cannot possibly love the way a man and woman do?"

Because they believe the definition of marriage does not encompass two members of the same sex.

As I said above, the citizens of the several states have used their ancient rights of self-government to determine the legal definition of marriage for themselves, and determining that it remain the same as it has been in their country for centuries.

I'm sorry, but the people of these states have that right. Complaining that the vast majority will not *change* the ancient definition of marriage to which they have always cleaved - hallowed as it is by the passage of centuries and the reverence of countless generations - to suit the desires of a small minority is the worst sort of self-centeredness and sour grapes.

The majority of people in the states where this issue has been put to a vote have decided not to alter the meaning of a term that has remained constant for centuries in their country. That decision should be respected. It is not unreasonable to expect that the aforementioned minority should employ a *new* term to describe this *new*, foreign and unprecedented (in America) arrangement.

Pkane| 11.5.09 @ 7:55AM

Sam,

For a intellectual articulation of the case against same-sex marriage check out this piece by Lee Harris, a fine conservative thinker who also happens to be a gay man:
http://www.hoover.org/publicat.....32146.html

IXLR8| 11.5.09 @ 8:00AM

To Sam:

Should marriage be restricted to two people? Why not three or more?

Should polygamy be encouraged? Why not?

Should a man be able to "marry" man's best friend? Why not?

Should brother and sister be able to marry? Why not?

Should father and daughter be able to marry? Why not?

Should the government just get out of the marriage business altogether and there be no regulations? Why not allow anything anybody wants to do?

For example, the government could solve its economic problems overnight if it would just legalize counterfeiting. Let everybody print as much money as they wanted to buy houses and cars and whatever. Why not?

.

Richard Baker| 11.5.09 @ 8:54AM

Homosexual perversion (I know, that's redundant) has been frowned upon for thousands of years. Would you"gay" folks rather that we stoned and killed you in the Old Testament and ancient way? Would that somehow make you inwardly happy? Curious thought processes you folks have. Regarding morality, read the Founding Fathers' thoughts on that subject before you attempt to "clarify" their thoughts.

Jim Hlavac| 11.5.09 @ 10:34AM

The old testament says stone to death divorcees too, and those who eat pork and shellfish, it is an abomination, as is mixing cotton and wool, as Leviticus says -- but hey, get rid of all that, just keep the vaguest provision -- being Christian was frowned on by Roman Pagans, I guess that tradition should have stayed, if tradition trumps all. Being Jewish was frowned on by Christian Europe, I guess that tradition should have stayed. After all, tradition is everything, right? Even if it means throwing virgins into volcanos -- "why, that's the way it always was!" Why, even the divine right of kings is in the Bible, so why worry that someone, say Obama, wants to be king - why, he's just bringing back an age old tradition. How wonderful.
But again, you seem fixated on prohibiting what a free people ought to be able to do with their own lives -- how un-conservative, even, dare I say, un-American. But hey, I must be so mush filled due to my inability to think due to the gay-perversion overload coursing through my brain.
And now, so persuaded am I that I was delusionally gay I have seen the light of your God and changed my ways. Who wants to be my father-in-law as I seek his daughter's hand?

Bob| 11.5.09 @ 11:15AM

Jim, as a social libertarian, I have no problem with homosexual civil unions. Giving a gay couple the civil rights and legal protections of a union is fine. But how do we define a community's social standards? Where do you draw the line? I don't like baggy pants that guys wear down to their thighs. I think a community has the right to bar public nudity. I agree that the religious component of this -- i.e., the arguments based on the bible -- lead us into the direction of a state sponsored religion and thus should be unconstitutional. Thus, the issue is community standards. Is there sociological evidence that homosexual marriage hurts a community? I guess if there is discrimination that leads to physical abuse, you could say this is the case. But there is a right for people to form communities and develop community standards. Is one discriminating against gays if they decide this behavior is not wanted in their community? For those religious fanatics, I'd say yes. However, with unmarried births reaching over 40% in black communities and 20% in all communities, I would like to promote some form of marriage. That said, you should have the civil right to the legal protections of a relationship, and I also thus support civil unions. In my mind, "marriage" should be restricted to religion and not be attached to the state. The state should have the right to perform civil unions, but not marriages. That would take religion out of the state and put it back where it belongs, in the church.

The biological arguments people make here are bigoted and bogus since it is based on procreation so that if a couple could not have children, they should not marry.

So we are not dealing with a black or white issue here unless you are an extremist on either side. Thus, leave this up to local communities to decide and give partnerships legal status. Pushing the envelope to "marriage" does not increase those legal rights and is thus, by its nature, religious in nature whether that is an organized or secular "religion".

Nick| 11.5.09 @ 1:58PM

Don't waste your time with 3/5 Bob folks.

In case you didn't know, until recently (last June), 3/5 Bob thought that blacks had 3/5 of a vote under the U.S. Constitution, as originally written.

He also doesn't know when biological HUMAN life begins because he is not sure when "ensoulment" takes place.

He is a pseudointellectual, ignore him.

Gina| 11.5.09 @ 5:41PM

Bob also lied about translating the Bible when he was 15 years old: Ran scorched him for it.

Real American| 11.5.09 @ 12:36PM

Young people are typically the least educated, least experienced, participate in our politics the least and have the smallest stake in our economic system. Why their views are considered all that important is beyond me.

Richard Baker| 11.5.09 @ 4:51PM

Hlavac:
Try reading just the parts regarding homosexuality since that was the subject of this article. Pretty clear, I think. Of course, you'll probably go on about not suffering a witch to live. Again, for your tired mind, read the Founding Fathers regarding morality.