Engaging Our Opponents

by John Corvino on November 12, 2007

Opponents of marriage equality for gays often claim that the people most vulnerable in this debate are the children. They're right.

No, it's not because gays are snatching children out of good heterosexual homes and subjecting them to the "untested social experiment" of same-sex parenting, which "deprives" them of a mother or father. I've observed enough actual lesbian or gay parents to know how vacuous and insulting a description this is.

It's because in every walk of life, in every religious denomination, in every political party, and in every part of the country (and the world), some children grow up gay or lesbian. These kids deserve the hope of marriage, just like every other citizen.

And these kids are the main reason I continue to travel the country, debating same-sex marriage with Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family, a man some readers-who think they know him much better than I do, despite the fact that they've never met him-have variously labeled a "bigot," a "hater," and an "idiot" (and those are the nicer letters I receive).

Me, they call na�ve, an "Uncle Tom," and a "self-loathing homophobe" for my "complicity" with "the enemy."

I understand their anger and frustration. I understand the desire to tell one's opponents to go f*ck themselves. I've gotten close to it myself, some days.

And yet, some days, I want to tell the same thing to my letter-writers. Mainly, because of what they do to the children.

You see, even if you don't give a damn about Glenn Stanton, Focus on the Family, or any other arm of the religious right, please remember: these people have children, and some of those children grow up to be gay or lesbian.

You are not helping such children by telling their parents to screw themselves every time they raise an objection to homosexuality, no matter how sincere the objection.

Sure, it feels good to vent. Sure, it's satisfying to mount a moral high horse and shout, "I'm right and you're wrong!!!" But how much does it usually accomplish?

I'm not suggesting that we be timid in pursuing our goals. I'm not denying that anger has its place. And I'm certainly not saying that we should pretend that our opponents' arguments are reasonable when they're not. Anyone who knows my work knows that I don't pull punches in the face of fallacies.

I am saying that everyone ought to shut up and listen every once in a while. When we do, we learn that (surprise!) our opponents love their kids, too. Their opposition to homosexuality is partly motivated by that love, no matter how misguided it might otherwise be.

That doesn't make their position "okay," but it does make it more comprehensible, and ultimately a bit more tractable.

Recently in this column I've lamented the fact that my opponents are either not showing up or not speaking up at my public forums. I'm not sure how to fix this problem-or even if it can be fixed-but I continue to regret it, since it robs us all of the opportunity for dialogue. Their absence or silence does not mean their acceptance. (You may not give a damn about their acceptance, but their kids do.)

My critics might worry that I've proven too much here. After all, white supremacists have kids, too. So do the Phelpses. Would I engage in dialogue with them?

It's a good question. A few thoughts:

First, anyone who can honestly look at the current political and social landscape and think we're at the same place in fighting homophobia as we are in fighting white supremacy (or the Phelpses) needs to get a reality check. I wish our opponents' errors were obvious to virtually everyone, but apparently, they're not. Just check the polls.

Second, I have never observed a productive dialogue with a white supremacist or the Phelpses. Maybe more talented and patient people than I could achieve one. By contrast, I have both observed and engaged in productive dialogues on same-sex marriage-dialogues that move audience members, some of whom write to me. (Many of those audience members are students, who appreciate the fact that I challenge their parents without demonizing them.)

But to tackle the question directly: yes, white supremacists and the Phelpses have kids, too. And if I thought that I could save just one of those kids by patiently engaging his or her parents, I would. You may call me whatever names you'd like.

76 Comments for “Engaging Our Opponents”

posted by Randy on November 15, 2007

Bravo.

Only through such engagement can we make any headway. Sure, most of the people will leave the debate thinking you are wrong, but at some point in the future, they may realize their child is gay, or their neighbor, or best friend, and then your words and debate might come back to them.

I try to engage where I can, on various conservaitve blogs and in private. It’s hard, but I also find the after you’ve done a few times, you’ve learned all their talking points. It does force you to consider your weak points and find strong arguments to rebut their every concern. Yes, it’s possible.

One thing I always say, though, is that the only real arguements against gay marriage that I will accept are that your religion requires it, or you just don’t feel it’s right. Both are at honest answers. I of coruse disagree with the former, but everyone is entitled to their feelings.

But I draw the line after that. After those two arguments are exhausted, all others are bogus. And the more you argue them, the more you see it.

Anyway, good luck. We need more gay people to make these arguments.
posted by Samantha on November 16, 2007

John,

I agree with you on one thing, that it’s about the children. But some other points I’m not at all in agreement with. And, honestly I’m one of those folks who feels that an event set up as a debate/voice vote for a yes or a no on gay marriage is kind of adversarial and not very productive. I think engaging is very important, but the platform has to be right and the assumption going in has to be that all are deserving of equal rights. If anyone going in does not believe that, they should be corrected on the spot. I know you’re lamenting the fact that your opponents are not showing up at these forums. Personally I’m not surprised, why would they go, really. But, it may be for the best, anyway.

Imagine if we had a debate on whether handicapped people should marry. Can you picture a handicapped person sitting up on a stage fielding comments about how the handicapped are defective beings and shouldn’t marry, or should be sterilized? Would the host chearfully respond and thank them for their comments? Or would he set them straight. When black people fought for their civil rights, did they sheepishly respond to white ignorance or rather did they (and do they still) set them straight and forcefully explain what dignity is, what equality is, what Right is. When Alan Dershowitz one day had to listen to ignorant, careless comments from the United States Senate which demeaned him on national television, did he say, sir I respectfully disagree and we’re both entitled to our opinion? Or instead did he subject them to a 30 minute lecture (more of a sermon really) which admonished and informed them? (And when Dershowitz was done, his black co-counsel continued with his own tirade).

Sojourner Truth says, “Ain’t I a Woman?” Martin Luther King says, “Justice denied anywhere diminishes Justice everywhere.” Harvey Milk says, “if a bullet goes through my head then let it go through every closet door.” Melissa Ethridge says, “The legacy stops HERE.” And…..

Drum roll please…

John Corvino proudly declares, “homophobes are motivated by love! So pipe down you gay complainers.” (Actually I believe the words you used John, were “shut up.”

And we thought we weren’t standing on the shoulders of giants! We’re fufilling that legacy by gosh! Silence equals death? The Stonewall Riots? Eh…outdated concepts. Cordial conversation is the new black for fall this year.
posted by Karen on November 16, 2007

Wow, this feels like this is a direct response to my comments on “Winning or Silencing”, though I’m sure I’m not the only one.

I do see your point, and have actually been engaged in just such engaging for years.

The problem is, no matter HOW nice I am, pointing out ways in which their arguments do not make sense almost always gets interpreted as “shouting them down” or “namecalling” in the end.

I remember one guy who berated me for “attacking his logic” when I “didn’t have any other leg to stand on”.

One of my supporters commented, “What would you rather she ‘attack’? Your clothes?” I mean, seriously. It’s funny in retrospect, but I’m tired of making the same logical, reasoned arguments over and over and being dismissed (even by gays like ND30) as some kind of red-faced shrieker. I feel like I’m living in an absurdist play sometimes.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on November 16, 2007

The reason why, Karen, is because people see what gays are really saying.

And we thought we weren’t standing on the shoulders of giants! We’re fufilling that legacy by gosh! Silence equals death? The Stonewall Riots? Eh…outdated concepts. Cordial conversation is the new black for fall this year.

In other words, it is clear that REAL gays mock “cordial conversation”, and instead prefer riots and public screaming fits as means of getting what they want.

And the electorate has figured out what most wise parents do early on; the way to deal with children who scream and throw tantrums as a means of trying to control your behavior is simply to ignore them and do what you need to do anyway.
posted by Karen on November 16, 2007

Ooook, ND30. You win. Gays are horrible, evil, mean people who suck. They hate everyone and believe they can molest children because they are gay.
posted by Karen on November 16, 2007

Oh, and you got me.

By calmly reasoning with the people who disagree with me, I was ACTUALLY saying to them, “You bigot! SHUT UP YOU BIGOT! Do not dare voice your opinions! I will crush you!”
posted by Mike Wilson on November 16, 2007

I?m one who is not for gay marriage. I?m ok with civil union or something else that could be named to make it possible for two men or two women to ?bond? for life. And they can, and should have all the benefits of what we now know as marriage. Once that is done, there should be no complaints. Gays and straights are different. Gays, by definition, prefer same sex partners. Straights, by definition, prefer opposite sex partners. We have over the many years come to accept marriage as the bonding between a man and a woman. It is a very strong cultural part of our society. It should remain as such for those who view it that way, regardless if they hold religious beliefs about it or not. We would not go into another culture and step all over a long and strongly held belief and change it because we want it to fit our needs. Gays should have more respect and tolerance for the beliefs of others. This unending desire to make everyone and everything ?equal? is, well, quite frankly, impossible.

Straights generally do see gays as having their own culture, and the gay culture has done everything possible to force acceptance of it. Unfortunately straights see a gay culture that doesn?t appear??..should I say mainstream? It?s bizarre parades with sexuality on display, television channels with drag queens and male prostitutes, and self-absorbed drug users. Where are the mainstream gays? Could they be conservative? Republican maybe even? Are there gays that don?t swish and don?t always make references to sex in conversations? So now the strategy is ?let?s take this marriage thing that the straights have and cram it down their throats.? Yeah, and some of you gays out there just got a good laugh out of that.

Live your lives. Quit your whining. Let others keep their traditions. Develop your own ?fair? traditions. You are not being mistreated, you are being selfish, and actually, bigots.
posted by Lori Heine on November 16, 2007

I don’t believe the government has any business regulating anybody’s marriage — gay or straight. For most of history, the state stayed out of it — and that worked just fine.

Call them civil unions, holy unions, domestic partnerships or whatever you want. If straights want to obsess over semantics, then let ’em. They can call it pigeon pie and eat it up for all I care. There are, truth be told, very few straight people who would not be offended at which I think of THEIR marriages.
posted by Karen on November 17, 2007

“Where are the mainstream gays? Could they be conservative? Republican maybe even? Are there gays that don?t swish and don?t always make references to sex in conversations? So now the strategy is ?let?s take this marriage thing that the straights have and cram it down their throats.? Yeah, and some of you gays out there just got a good laugh out of that.”

Mike,

Are you aware of the existence of lesbians?

I am a mainstream gay. I don’t “swish”, even when you translate that into female. I don’t use drugs. I don’t constantly talk about sex. I am not a Republican, nor am I conservative. I am out – at work, at church, everywhere. I’m not sure what else I can do to ‘earn’ respect, other than literally disappear.

“We would not go into another culture and step all over a long and strongly held belief and change it because we want it to fit our needs.”

Ah, but the thing is, this is OUR culture. “Gay culture”, if it really exists, is a subculture. Marriage is a part of our shared culture as Americans. And I’m not “stepping all over it” – I’m participating nicely. We had an incredible wedding and we have an incredible marriage. I just do not understand why the fact that we are both women disqualifies us from governmental recognition of that marriage.
posted by Samantha on November 17, 2007

Karen, I loved your whole post. I really did. I loved it when you wrapped up one paragraph with: “I’m not sure what else I can do to ‘earn’ respect, other than literally disappear.”

And yes, that’s what they want us to do, disappear. You see, equality, liberty and the pursuit of happpiness are cherished values in this nation, and there’s just no way their side can stuff those values away in a vault somewhere, where we cannot eventually gain access to them. They are ours, too.

So they can stall. They can slander us for a while, but in the end, the light of day shines on their efforts and it doesn’t hold up. It crumbles.

So they need your help, Karen. They need your help to go away. Please stick around. 🙂
posted by Samantha on November 17, 2007

In regards to Mike’s post, I appreciate reading that. Because it’s not just blind ignorance, fear and bigotry talking there, -it’s honesty too. And we need to hear that. You won’t hear someone say that out loud at a party. But they’re thinking it.

Mike, all I can say is that I’ve heard a lot of those same sentiments before, only in a racial or ethnic context. Which is comforting in a way, because if blacks and hispanics got past that, and we’re eliciting some of the same reactions, then we can get beyond it too.

30 years ago Rosie Perez would have been ridiculed for being a mouthy, dirty little puerto-rican girl who could only get prostitute roles. Now, she’s dressed up, showing leg on David Letterman, smiling, talking about her movies, and proudly proclaiming to be a “newrican” from new york.

Similarly, to get exposure, black men, seen as threatening and dangerous, had to whiten up a bit, dress conservatively, speak clearly, and basically know their place. They needed to be like Sidney Poitier and Nat King Cole. Then along came “blacker” guys like Wesley Snipes, Samuel Jackson, Martin Lawrence, Ice Cube, etc. Some openly married white women. They openly criticized white people. You had Eddie Murphy with his rude routine making jokes about screwing Brook Shields, the virgin white woman of hollywood. And nobody got lynched.

So it takes time.

You know, sports is an excellent example. Before blacks were integrated into sports, football in particular, they were seen as inferior and if they had talent it was only to run and catch the ball. They couldn’t quarterback, or play other positions, (much less coach). White guys didn’t want them in the locker room, disliked them, thought they grandstanded in the end zone when they scored, were too flashy, pushy, rude and did not understand white values. Black athletes just did not seem to fit into white football culture. Now? lol…you have white linemen going on tv and bragging about his black teammate’s creative afro buzz cut. You’ve got whites immitating black endzone dances, and behaving more like them. Suddenly, all that behavior from black football players which seemed aggressive and threatening, now seemed humorous, fun, and expressive. That sport has really, really integrated, and the NFL culture, which in turn is a huge part of the broader white culture, has been fundamentally changed. It’s amazing to see.

Fundamental change. For us, one day, there won’t be such a concern about swishing, or co-opting straight culture. We’ll just be a part of it. And honestly, we always have been, – it was just behind a straight face, behind the closet door, and on the back of the bus.
posted by Mike Wilson on November 17, 2007

Well?.I suppose it?s possible to misunderstand what I wrote. I am only saying that there is no need to have gay marriage when there are other alternatives that would not change the overwhelming acceptance of marriage being between a man and a woman. Yes, there are people, who you could point out, that don?t particularly like gays. Be they of a specific religious orientation, had a sheltered upbringing and little exposure to differences, or just grew up believing in marriage as being between the opposite sexes. I see no reason to change such a fundamental view that they have regarding marriage. Why can?t they keep it for any reason??.from hating gays to loving them? It?s just part of ?their? American culture. I?m not suggesting that gays should have fewer rights than anyone else. I want however to show some respect for their feelings and allow them to retain this institution as it is currently understood. If gays find this demeaning or not acceptable, I can even understand that. But work on the alternative of civil unions with the same rights?.or some ?bonding? word to express same sex marriage.

I know this will not be acceptable to you Karen, or Samantha. You obviously feel slighted because the majority of people want marriage to be between a man and woman. And you feel left out and violated. You have no concern for these traditions of others and you will intellectualize it to death. Just as they will I might add.

You will continue to think of people like me as ignorant as you stated. And I will continue to think of people like you as intolerant?..a label that you would equally apply to me. Sometimes people need to find a way to live within their means as a group, with neither being denied what the government is meant to supply without prejudice.

And yes Karen, I know about lesbians. You later refer to yourself as gay in the same message yourself?and I often use gay to refer to both gays and lesbians. It sounds like you have a great life and are happy and out and doing well. So what?s the problem?

Samantha, you are simply making false assumptions about my thinking??and I might add that this is truly how becoming prejudice towards a group begins.

In summary, if you would both lighten up a bit and quit trying to find fault with everyone?s thoughts?.how biased they are, how prejudiced they are, how racist they are?.you might actually be able to enjoy life to an even greater degree. And I hope you do.
posted by Samantha on November 17, 2007

Let me preface this response by saying that it doesn’t matter what either of us think as individuals, Mike. I mean, it matters, but there’s a bigger picture. Whichever way the culture goes, the law leans, the nation moves,…so goes our lives. And if history is any indication, things move in the direction of more rights, not fewer, inclusion not exclusion, and equal not separate but equal.

“there is no need to have gay marriage when there are other alternatives that would not change…marriage being between a man and a woman.”

Obviously I will say this is separate but equal. Why would blacks need to use white water fountains if they have their own? Just listen to your verbiage: “There are other alternatives.” Equality does not mean desperately seeking “other” alternatives, “other” arrangements for another group of people. That’s a red flag that you’re uncomfortable and trying to get around the constitution. That word “change” is also interesting. Has there been no change in the practice of marriage? Do we allow men to marry underage women? Did we always embrace interracial marriage? Did we used to allow divorce (til death do we part)? Did we used to assume equality between the spouses (love and obey)? Certainly marriage has changed tremendously. It doesn’t serve us well to pretend it hasn’t. The best you can offer is to say, “well, yes it’s changed but I was ok with that, it served MY interests, but this new change that serves someone else’s interests is going too far.” It’s a natural thing for humans to be selfish. We’re all that way, for the most part.

“from hating gays to loving them? It?s just part of their American culture.”

First of all, I hear this idea of “love” a lot on this site. I don’t expect love. You don’t go from indifference to love so easily. Or from hate to love so quickly. What is possible, and what is expected, is respect. That’s all. That’s what the law provides for. When you get the rights, the respect follows. I want every hotel desk clerk to know that they have to give that gay marriage couple a room and there’s nothing in the world their personal views can do about it.

“The majority of people want marriage to be between a man and woman.”

What majority? Because, the majority in Massachusetts instituted gay marriage. The majority in some other countries have no problem with gay marriage as well. Maybe it’s the majority in Alabama. Ok, I’ll give you that. But the majority in Alabama didn’t want a lot of things. If we left them alone, they’d still be part of a confederate south, with an economy built on cotton plantations and slave labor. (Actually, now that I think of it, that wouldn’t be so bad in this global economy.)

“You have no concern for these traditions of others and you will intellectualize it to death.”

Quite the opposite. I have a lot of concern. I don’t live on the isle of lesbos. I live in america. I have family and tradition. Intellectualizing it is the worst thing to do. I want to recognize people’s fears, and their gut reactions, their experiences. But still take their hand and move them forward. Or drag them forward kicking and screaming, whichever the case may be.

“Sometimes people need to find a way to live within their means as a group…”

Yes, and we have, for generations. For centuries, probably. As I said before, there is no island. We live together, in your family, at work, at school. We appear in every new generation again and again. When your wife bears your child, we might be that 8oz baby boy. I know that makes you crazy, because you see us at the “other.” But we’re just folks. We have found a way to live here. Often, living very well. But the time of the closet is nearing its end. The time of inequality is drawing to a close. It’s time to take a good look around and have a good look at ourselves.
posted by Karen on November 17, 2007

Mike,

Yes, *I* call myself gay. But when you said “gays” up there, in no way were you including me in your representation. You were talking about drag queens, male prostitutes, casual drug users (a stereotype of gay men, not women), blowjob jokes, etc etc etc. All male. Helloooo! There are gay females too!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on November 17, 2007

Ooook, ND30. You win. Gays are horrible, evil, mean people who suck. They hate everyone and believe they can molest children because they are gay.

I see; since you can’t argue with what I said, you’ll exaggerate it so you can.

Just like you do with religious people, and like is being done with Mike’s argument.

I want every hotel desk clerk to know that they have to give that gay marriage couple a room and there’s nothing in the world their personal views can do about it.

Of course you do, Samantha — even though straight married couples aren’t guaranteed rooms.

Just like you want guaranteed job protection regardless of performance and guaranteed greater penalties if a crime is committed against a gay person.

That rationalization, of course, is due to this thinking.

What majority? Because, the majority in Massachusetts instituted gay marriage.

Wrong.

The unelected Supreme Court of Massachusetts instituted it.

The people were denied their right to vote on it by the gerrymandered Massachusetts Legislature and by palm grease spread to various legislators by gay groups. Gays fought to deny the people the right to vote on their own issues and Constitution.

Why is that, when they claim “the majority” supports gay marriage? Better yet, why is it that they invoke “the majority” — especially since they loudly scream that “the majority” should never be allowed to weigh in on issues?
posted by Mike Wilson on November 17, 2007

I enjoyed reading your response and understand how you feel. I understood how you felt before your response. You should go after it if you feel so strongly. There are of course several inaccuracies in a few of your statements?.but I can live without correcting you. I can tell you are an intelligent person, and you already know what the inaccuracies are??but they make for a better debate when you think the other person is ignorant of the information.

I simply leave you with the statement that I have absolutely no problem with gays, both of the man and woman variety (that?s for you Karen ? so you won?t feel insecure again). I would hire them, they can live by me, they can care for my children, and they can be community and government leaders. I will wave to them, admire them if it?s warranted, and fight for them if necessary. We will simply have to disagree about the marriage issue. I think it is best left alone and honor the men and women who marry, and maybe have children as well. I have great respect for the commitment between two women and men as well.

I think by the way, you should restrict your use of gay/black analogies. You are gay, not black. Being gay is a behavior, not a pigment (I know, other issues there as well).

Oh, and I?d share my water bottle with you too. Have a great holiday season!
posted by Samantha on November 17, 2007

Thanks Mike, I hope you have a good holiday too. One comment though, in reply to the last part of your post. I feel the equality issue for gay/black/hispanic/handicaped/woman’s rights and to some extent immigrant rights have equal validity and I’ve mentioned all of them on this site. The civil rights struggle is unique to america and to our experience and it warrants looking at more closely. It is even exported to other countries (and certainly they don’t claim to be american blacks). Another american experience is the jewish-american experience. I’m mentioned it where relevant. But that road is not really so different from what gays do already – toning down the “jewishness” or “gayness,” blending in the population, advancing quietly in business and commerce, valuing education, and for the most part avoiding civil disobedience. So all these experiences will continue to be quoted where relevant in my posts.

Enjoy your holiday.
posted by Karen on November 18, 2007

ND30,

I’m perfectly capable of arguing with you. I just won’t anymore. You win! I’m a horrible person for refusing to coddle gay marriage opponents by pretending their stances are logical. I should go back in the closet, lest I be associated with other horrible, embarrassing people.

Mike,

Hey, don’t get snarky with me because I pointed out your obvious assumption of maleness.

“I think it is best left alone and honor the men and women who marry”

Those are mutually exclusive, see, because my wife and I did marry. In a church. In front of friends, family, and community. We made that committment; how can you pretend to honor it and have respect for it when you won’t even grant that the government should recognize ours equally?
posted by Mike Wilson on November 18, 2007

I was just pondering this morning how gays that are for gay marriage view all the people that have voted against allowing gay marriage. It has basically been a landslide everywhere??except in Massachusetts where the public has not been able to vote on the issue. So tell me about how you view the thought processes of those who are voting against gay marriage. Do they not understand the issue? Is it just pure prejudice and discrimination? What about the highly educated ones who vote against gay marriage as opposed to the less educated? I?m interested in knowing if you think there is any good argument for them to make. Is there any circumstance where you would see their side of the issue as being a valid point? A sort of trying to understand the feelings on both sides of the issue might make it clearer.
posted by Karen on November 18, 2007

Mike,

I can understand their feelings and still know that they are dead wrong.

There are no good arguments for them to make. I think it’s safe to say I’ve heard them all, and not one stands up to scrutiny. They are almost always simply based on misunderstanding – of what civil marriage is and how it relates to religion, of what it is like to be gay, of the history of marriage and homosexuality, of what studies show. But underneath these misunderstandings is an unwillingness to learn that I can’t stomach.

No matter how educated you are, if you believe that no society has ever allowed gay marriages or approved of homosexuals, you are NOT educated about the history of homosexuality. No matter how educated you are, if you believe that marriage is about religion, or that there is nothing about civil marriage that we cannot create with legal contracts, you are ignorant about marriage. No matter how smart you are, if you believe that I could have decided to be straight, you are wrong – I could only have decided to live a lie.

As for how I view them, it’s mostly with bemusement and impatience at this point. For instance, my parents – who participated enthuiastically in my own wedding – would not vote for it. The only explanation they can come up with, being fairly irreligious, is “It’s tradition.” Weak sauce, my beloved parents, weak sauce.

They also usually try to turn the conversation back around to arguments (like yours) about the validity of our representational government in this situation. Like how you say that despite the fact that they voted for their representatives AND their judges/the people who put their judges in office, somehow Massachussetts voters have had gay marriage ‘forced’ on them illegitimately. But of course, I’m not talking about any of that… I’m wondering why T2HEY would not vote for it, given the chance, or tell their representative that they support it.

“Tradition.” That’s just a circular argument: Gay people’s marriages aren’t recognized because they aren’t real marriages, and they aren’t real marriages because our government does not recognize them. Tradition is great up until it hurts families and children, and it hurts my family and my children.
posted by Samantha on November 18, 2007

Mike,

It depends on who the “they” are. I have great faith in americans. Yes, we can be selfish, we have prejudices, we tend to stick to our own, and half of us couldn’t even find canada on a map. But, when push comes to shove, we all usually end up doing the right thing. If left alone from meddling, that is.

If you’re someone who generally views it to be the natural course of things for there to be more inclusivity with time,…then you wouldn’t be shocked or overly concerned about Vermonters scratching their heads one day and coming to the conclusion that heterosexuals shouldn’t exclusively have the right to form unions. So, civil unions were born. Very exciting moment for us. Most americans just shrugged. However, The well-financed, well-organized fundamentalist groups didn’t shrug. They were wildly alarmed. By the time the issue came to Massachussetts and marriage became legal, they were on the attack. When Gavin Newsome in California started allowing marriage licences, Dobson and his ilk filed lawsuits and wanted Newsome arrested. If Gavin had been convicted of a crimminal offense, he would have spent over 1,000 years in jail from the accumulated counts. The fundies called gay couples “sex criminals.”

Now, do I think this is behavior representative of my fellow countrymen? No. Do I think Dobson is carrying out their wishes? No.

Contrary to what you might be thinking, Mike (I don’t know) these groups did not seek popular votes on these matters, no more than they want votes on abortion or birth control or women’s rights or evolution or anything else. They want to crush it, period. And they’re not shy to use whatever avenues are available. If the courts in Massachussetts make a ruling, then pressure the legislature. If, in California the elected officials seem to be against you, then go through the attorney general. If you can predict a positive ruling in the California Supreme Court, then the problem of so-called “activist judges” is suspended and you gleefully push the case back to the courts! That’s the way it’s gone.

Curiously, with all their efforts, the fundies were still not able to kill gay marriage in Massachussetts. Their attempts to get the legislature to pass a constitutional ammendment failed. Meanwhile, the public has had several years now and many opportunies to express their supposed displeasure with gay marriage, if they felt that way, through the power of the vote, and kick out those legislators. They chose not to.

So, Mike, I agree with Karen and disagree with your assumption that there was no public vote in Massachussetts. There certainly was. Do you mean instead to put it on a ballot? Fine, you need only 50 legislators to sponsor it. Just 50 out of 200. Last June they mustered only 49.

So why did this happen? Why is it legal in Massachussetts and not elsewhere? Answer: Because by then, the anti-gay fear and smear machine was in full swing. Same queston regarding other countries. Why Canada and Norway and not here – the country of the famed constitution, bill of rights, and infamous civil rights struggle? The answer is the same: The fundies. Spain! Why Spain?? One of the most Catholic countries in the world voted to legalize gay marriage BEFORE my beloved country ever will. Why? Because they don’t have the religious right wing money machine burrowed in their country like a boll weavil.

So when you say “people” it does depend on what people. Most polls, even now, show that most americans are against a constitutional ammendment and want to leave it up to the states. Good for them. Not all of them are comfortable with the idea of gay marriage but they know enough to not take the right to it away. None of them are lawyers or experts on the constitution, but they have a basic sense of fairness.

It’s hard for some, because of the pulls of the church, or fears of what the future may bring. But not being in favor of something is a lot different than actively voting against it. Most americans want to be able to sleep at night, and not be viewed as some sort of bigot. They have their prejudices, but they know down deep inside they may have to be uncomfortable for a little while so that the whole country can move forward.

That’s a long answer to a short question, but basically my reaction to anti-gay opinions depends on the nature of those opinions and the agenda of the person behind them. Grandma may have an opinion, and so may my homophobic boss. Odds are I’m going to respond differently. If you’re very religious, I won’t expect much from you. I’ll let you stick to your religion as long as you admit you’re shackled to that bible. And that’s not meant in a bad way. It’s the holy book, and you’re following it to the letter (maybe). But don’t pretend to do that AND be open minded at the same time. That will just make me angry. If you’re not very religious, pand retty reasonable in other respects, I’ll expect more from you. I’ll expect you to read, and to expand your comfort zone and be exposed to people different than yourself. If you don’t do that and come to me and give me your preferences, like saying “oh we ought to just put it on a ballot and vote on it,” I’ll likely start getting upset. Because I expected so much more.

On that point I’ll be exasperated and say that we don’t even vote for the president by popular ballot. Work is done through committees and legislatures and courts. I no more want my civil rights on a popular up or down vote on a particular Tuesday, than I want to be thrown in front of a jury and have that jury of my peers decided everything from what property I can purchase to how many children I can bear. And you wouldn’t either. It would seem incredibly unfair. And yet, we will face the ballot too. We are willing to face it all.
posted by Joe on November 19, 2007

Samantha- You made an argument that when entering a debate that your opponent has to agree with what you consider a basic concept. That is absolutely absurd. That IS the very purpose of a public debate; to have these discussion.

Do you think Glenn Stanton and his majority should be able to tell John Corvino going into the debate that they must accept Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior as a basic concept? The debates will naturally prove whose opinions are stronger.

Karen-

Try and win an election with your “logic.” Stand up before the electorate as a whole, and say “I demand gay marriage NOW!” See how far it gets you.

The only way to approach the issue is using pragmatism. Absolutism will NOT help aid our cause.
posted by Karen on November 19, 2007

Joe,

I’m not trying to win an election, I’m trying to win my civil rights and protect my family and children. So, how would you prefer me to win, if using logic is not permitted? Or would you prefer that I lose, or give up?

And “standing up before the electorate as a whole and saying ‘I demand gay marriage NOW'” is not what I am suggesting, but nice straw man. Where’s the logic in that? Where’s the debunking of the claims of the opposition? Where’s the principles?

Seriously. You people are so ready to condemn everyone who pushes hard for gay marriage, everyone who argues, as my old orchestra conductor would have said, ‘whole-assed.’

Somehow, you seem to think, if we can just see their perspective, everything will be better.

What do you expect to happen when gay people say with one voice, “Maybe you’re right – maybe our families DON’T really deserve the same treatment. We really ARE second-class. You’ve got a point, after all – your attachment to the status quo really IS worth more than our dignity and equality”? What will change? What will be better?

Gay marriage will likely happen someday, as long as we keep living open lives and proving that we’re not disgusting freaks trying to drag marriage through the mud. If nothing else, my life and marriage will be an example. But being examples is not the only tool at our disposal – logic and rationality happen to be on our side, and I fail to understand why you want us to cede that advantage.

I want marriage in my lifetime. I don’t think that goal is well served by waffling and cringing and pretending that there is something other than fear and ignorance driving the opposition.

The key is, as my creative writing teachers have always said, “Show, don’t tell.”

There’s no point in saying “You are ignorant and afraid of change.” That’s just rude, and it is too sweeping – they’re ignorant ABOUT THIS, not in general. They’re afraid of THIS change, not all change.

But you can get the point across quite clearly by SHOWING. Show how the religious right has twisted facts and logic in their smear campaign against gays. Reveal their lies for what they are. Use evidence! Use logic! Dispel their fear of the change by showing how innocuous it really is, and how unjust the status quo is.

I will fight for crumbs, but I will not accept that crumbs are enough or are all I deserve. I’ll eat the crumbs because I am hungry, but I will also keep demanding my full share of equality because it is right.

You can debate with some of the people all of the time, and (almost) all of the people some of the time. Just because we can’t debate all of the people all of the time is no reason to half-ass the debates that we DO have.
posted by Karen on November 19, 2007

Let’s get back to John’s actual message:

“You are not helping such children by telling their parents to screw themselves every time they raise an objection to homosexuality, no matter how sincere the objection.”

OK, who is telling them to go screw themselves? Not I. Maybe some people, on some days, throw up their hands and walk away, but that happens on BOTH sides, and the conversation as a whole is ongoing.

What we ARE telling them, however, is that they are incorrect. And they are, no matter how sincere their objections. So what’s the problem?

Well, the problem is that John, like these people, seems to be equating a consistent message of “No, you’re wrong, here’s why” with saying “Go screw yourself.” Not saying “Yeah, you’ve got a point, this isn’t a dire matter of civil rights that is hurting my family right now” is not the same thing as saying “Go screw yourself.”
posted by LongviewCyclist on November 19, 2007

NDT, I’m a ‘real gay’, and I would prefer the cordial conversations. Meaningful exchanges, where both parties bring open minds, and leave arogance, loaded language, and cheap shots at the door. That’s the way I operate. But yes, I do know that most of the more verbal and noticed gay people tend to be arogant, deluded, self-destructive, dishonest, full of overused sickening cliches, and in denial. It’s very sad, and frankly, I’m not sure what to do about it. How can they be inspired to change?
posted by Samantha on November 19, 2007

Joe,

Your analogy is ridiculous. Asking someone to convert to your religion is a lot different than asking someone to accept your humanity.

Karen,

Another excellent post with very good, very sincere points which reflect the real world we face and not the one some wish to hide in.

I especially like paragraph five. I was getting to the point of wondering that myself, since the pushback against gay civil rights on this site is so hard sometimes,..of what conservative gays expect to gain from gay voices quieting, from lawsuits stopping, and gay lives going unnoticed. I mean, what do they want, if not equality?

Then I thought,…wait, their lives are probably very satisfactory to them right now. They would risk more than they would gain. Just think of the single (or partnered without children) gay male executive, with the nice corner office, fat salary, comradery with the straight fellows at work and at the golf club, living a quiet life under the radar. Very different life than the gay boy holding up at a local shelter because dad threw him out of the house. Different too from the family-oriented gay man who wishes to marry his partner and adopt his kids, or the gay marine thrown out of the service, or the lesbian mom living paycheck to paycheck, afraid to lose her kids in divorce court because of her orientation, etc.
posted by Joe on November 20, 2007

Karen & Samantha-

Gay “rights” do not exist at this point. To get them would take political actions (elections) That IS what it is about. Please show me where I said logic is not permitted? What I do think is that a lack of pragmatism that people show on these issues is self defeating.

How do you get gay marriage legalized? I think the answer to that will prove that my initial assertion is spot on. It’s about elections, politics, public relations. These things require diplomacy, hard work and dedication, not an angry rabble.

I am not discounting your positions and I welcome your part in this struggle. Each person has a role to play in it. Can everyone be ‘in your face’ angry when discussing gay issues? Probably not. Especially not when a vast majority is opposed to our view.

You are absolutely right about equality but to say that everyone should fight for the cause in your manner is absurd.

Karen- if you aren’t in it to win an election, then just go home. That is what it is about. Should it be? I don’t know the answer to that. But is it? Certainly, yes!

Samantha- your assertion that someone should be forced to except your premise as a criterion for debate is insane and fascistic.

VIVA CORVINO!
posted by Karen on November 20, 2007

“But yes, I do know that most of the more verbal and noticed gay people tend to be arogant, deluded, self-destructive, dishonest, full of overused sickening cliches, and in denial.”

Who are these terrible people that you are referring to?

“Gay “rights” do not exist at this point.”

The whole idea of “rights” is that they exist whether a government recognizes them or not. Do you really believe that black people’s rights did not exist during slavery? Relativist.

“To get them would take political actions (elections).”

Not every civil/political action is an election. The passing of a law is not the same as an election. A court judgement is not an election (nor is it some kind of illegitimate dictate.) The education and changing of public opinion is not an election.

“Please show me where I said logic is not permitted?”

And I quote, “Try and win an election with your ‘logic’… see how far it gets you”. Again I ask you, what would you have me use instead? Also, why do you put logic in quotes? Do you believe my logic is flawed? On what grounds and evidence?

“What I do think is that a lack of pragmatism that people show on these issues is self defeating.”

What would be self-defeating is to allow them to frame the debate in such a way that it “makes sense” that they would consider us immoral degenerates, even though we’re actually not (At least, I’m not. Are you?) To grant that it “makes sense” that their consternation matters more than my family’s protection and recognition. To concede that our rights “don’t exist yet”… THAT would be self-defeating.

“These things require diplomacy, hard work and dedication, not an angry rabble.”

Experience would tell us otherwise – experience tells us it requires both. (And who says an angry rabble isn’t demonstrating hard work and dedication?) Regardless, what exactly do you think I’m doing that makes me merely part of an “angry rabble”? All I’m saying is that we should not back down on our principles just because they are whining that they look like bigots when they talk to us. Of COURSE they look like bigots when they tell us our families are second-class, and then we proceed to disprove every “supporting point” they have.

What’s that expression? “It’s not bragging if you can back it up.” Well, it’s not ‘shouting someone down’ if they have a completely adequate chance to respond, but they have nothing of substance to say.

“Can everyone be ‘in your face’ angry when discussing gay issues?”

Good heavens. Why are you interpreting what I’m saying as “Everyone should be in-your-face angry”? Have you listened to a thing I said? I’m not saying “be angry”. Never have.

Look. Here are the facts of the matter.

Some lady was afraid, during a debate specifically set up for both sides to air their views, to stand up and air her views.

What was she afraid of? There are three ways to look at it:

1) Her views are unsupportable and offensive, and based on ignorance and fear. She was aware that she would not be able to defend them in the context of a rational debate. She was afraid of looking like a bigot because holding on to offensive views in the face of logic and equality does have the effect of making one look like a bigot.

2) Her views are reasonable, secular, and based on logic and principles of equality. Her facts are true. The studies she uses to back up her beliefs are unbiased and use solid methodology. However, she knows that gays can manipulate the laws of the universe. Somehow, in the context of a rational debate, the irrational view point (the gays’) will appear rational and hers will appear bigotted, even though it isn’t so.

3) Her views are reasonable, secular, and based on logic and principles of equality. Her facts are true. The studies she uses to back up her beliefs are unbiased and use solid methodology. However, she knows that she will not even get a chance to make her case before being called a bigot and told to shut up – even though this debate was specifically set up for just such a discussion.

So which is it? Do you believe that there ARE reasonable, logical reasons to believe that my family doesn’t deserve the protections of civil marriage? If so, please provide. Very interested to hear them. If not, then what exactly is the plan?

1. Pretend that opponents of civil marriage equality have a point

2. ???

3. Profit!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on November 20, 2007

The amusing thing, Samantha, is that you wouldn’t recognize equality even if you had it.

For example, right now, on a Federal level, no one has employment protections because of their sexual orientation. It is perfectly legal to fire people for being straight. That is equality; government does not pick and choose, nor does it intervene, for any of its citizens. In the same manner, crimes are prosecuted and punished without consideration for the victim’s sexual orientation.

What you define as “equality” is best illustrated by this statement.

Then I thought,…wait, their lives are probably very satisfactory to them right now. They would risk more than they would gain. Just think of the single (or partnered without children) gay male executive, with the nice corner office, fat salary, comradery with the straight fellows at work and at the golf club, living a quiet life under the radar.

If you want to see what gay rights looks like, that’s it in a nutshell — a person who, regardless of their sexual orientation, having the ability to be and live as they see fit.

But in your opinion, that person isn’t really gay and is malevolent, evil, and selfish, because obviously they’re not struggling and suffering enough. Their life is not nearly as rotten as it should be because they’re gay.

That’s what happens when you go beyond gay merely being gay and use it as an explanation and excuse for all of your life problems; you become intolerant and hateful towards other gays because they aren’t suffering as much as your belief requires them to be.
posted by Samantha on November 20, 2007

Karen, I’m scratching my head too…since when are sincere, thinking, family-oriented gay americans an angry rabble? At this point, we’re simply discussing civil rights, and as you said, discussing what would be the best forums for discussion with others on the issue.

Opportunities for equality come in spurts, it’s not just a gradual progression toward rights with the march of time. Because the same culture marches along with time, the same bible is carried, the same fears are indoctrinated into each new generation. So, right now we’re at one of those crossroads, one of those opportunities. We can sit back, kick back, and wait for folks to start liking us, or we can take more direct action with laws, courts and cultural change.

I don’t have a problem with Corvino discussing gay issues in forums. All I was suggesting is that as a minority you’re already at a disadvantage and unless you frame the debate in the right way, it leaves the door open to to the legitimizing of anti-gay beliefs. You’ve got to get the public to think outside the box, and move them from the suggestion that gay marriage is something they will have a thumbs up or down vote on, in an outright popular vote, and towards the idea that this is about human rights, not special rights. It’s about moving the country forward, about thinking of people in equal terms, and honoring the constitution and honoring families. If you don’t get people thinking that way, then what you’re left with is preference. And it’s always going to be their preference to not change things.

Show me one minority movement, any one, which relied on pragmatism, cordial relations, and compromise ALONE in getting what they wanted. Name one.

Anyone in this world that won any kind of rights won them because they went out there with a) the assumption the rights were god-given, and b) actively demanded and fought for them.

Even some of the most peaceful people in the world – the Tibetan Monks, are marching in the streets, knowing full well that they would be arrested – because dignity and rights were something worth standing up for.

All around the world, people are standing up. Benazir Bhutto is over in Pakistan right now risking her life for her people. She could have easily compromised with Mushariff and waited for his promised elections like GWB is suggesting. But girlfriend is turning in all her chips, and aiming for full freedom for her people, sensing the moment is right. In Iraq, women’s rights movements persist despite the obvious threat. The persistance of the MLK movement, the Anti-Apartheid movement is legendary. No one backed down, everyone stood up. And there were very good reasons for this. If you’re not going to believe in yourself and stand up for yourself, then no allies will stand up with you.

Frankly, we can’t all be log cabin republicans.
posted by Joe on November 20, 2007

Karen-

I will again try and illustrate my point. You are tap dancing around it.

The answer to your question on rights for slaves is simple. No they did not have rights and every serious student of history will tell you that. Whether they had inherent rights is irrelevant. In practice they had none. I think one of your problems is you mix up theoretical with reality. It is a recurring theme with you it seems.

You say “The passing of a law is not the same as an election. A court judgement is not an election (nor is it some kind of illegitimate dictate.) The education and changing of public opinion is not an election.”

I believe you are dancing around what I am saying again. Laws to potentially protect gays are passed through elections of pro gay politicians. Pro gay politicians are influenced by public opinion and voting (elections). They are all connected.

Theoretically you have inherent rights. But inherent rights do not mean they are enforced. If slaves did have rights, and you do too, then go get married tomorrow!

Karen | November 19, 2007, 7:23am | #

You said:

“So, how would you prefer me to win, if using logic is not permitted?”

That is not what I said, you are twisting it. You tout logic but live in a theoretical world. I think what you call logic is in fact “your logic.”

You complain about them framing the debate but it is a simple question of numbers. When you are roughly 90% of the population, that is your prerogative. What we can do is refute what they are saying.

The question is not whether your rights exists…the question is how do we get the government to recognize and enforce that?

Like I said, in regards to the angry rabble. Everyone has there place in the struggle. You should be more respectful of John’s as he is of yours.

I know first hand that your assertions about John Corvino are inaccurate which is why I am on here refuting them. You are flatly wrong.

Could you please answer this question… have you heard him lecture or debate?

I think if you had, you wouldn’t have the position you do.

Your comment about the lady at the debate afraid to express her opinion is absurd. I have also seen first hand where conservative opinion was attacked on campus, sometimes physically. I have seen trash thrown on and threats made to people espousing a conservative viewpoint at events like this.

Please think about what I am saying carefully before you respond. Put your emotion in a box while you read it, and think about it. I am certain that most level headed people will understand what I am saying.
posted by Joe on November 20, 2007

Samantha-

Let me know when you organize the rabble and take to the streets, I will be right there with you!

What I won’t do is attack people in our community who have a different approach.

Everyone has their role to play.
posted by Samantha on November 20, 2007

Joe,

Agreed. Everyone has their role to play. But I also hope we can agree that no one is attacking Corvino. I’m giving my views on his actions and words, which he voluntarily puts out there. Silencing a progressive voice for a conservative one is not one of the goals of this blog, I think it’s fair to assume. (Although you never know I could be assuming too much).

I’d like to make one comment on this:

I have seen first hand where conservative opinion was attacked on campus, sometimes physically. I have seen trash thrown on and threats made to people espousing a conservative viewpoint at events like this.

I think that backs up my point. I don’t think it’s productive to frame it as a “debate” and set up adversarial positions. I’ve seen lots of forums where it’s discussion-oriented and education-oriented, and no one is throwing trash on anyone. Speech can be much like an “I hate fags” t-shirt…when someone opens their mouth, sparks can fly. That can be controlled by setting the right tone and expectations. And yes, part of the expectation is that you’re agreeing at least that gays are deserving of human rights. Discussion can then start from there.

One more comment on your last post, I disagree with you, I do think it’s relevant that slaves had inherent rights. In fact, I think that speaks to the core of the issue.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on November 20, 2007

Recently in this column I?ve lamented the fact that my opponents are either not showing up or not speaking up at my public forums. I?m not sure how to fix this problem?or even if it can be fixed?but I continue to regret it, since it robs us all of the opportunity for dialogue.

Why should they?

All I was suggesting is that as a minority you’re already at a disadvantage and unless you frame the debate in the right way, it leaves the door open to to the legitimizing of anti-gay beliefs.

Or:

There are no good arguments for them to make. I think it’s safe to say I’ve heard them all, and not one stands up to scrutiny.

Thus is the message is made clear: I’m right, you’re wrong, and I’m going to spend hours haranguing you for the fact. I’ve already decided your arguments are all bad, I’m the only logical and rational one, and you should just shut up and do as I tell you, because I’ve decided your beliefs are inferior and you are stupid.

That only appeals to people who want their prejudices reinforced — which is why, more and more, you’re finding yourself in front of audiences who only want to take potshots at Glenn Stanton.
posted by Mike Wilson on November 20, 2007

Your parents and I are very much alike as I certainly view marriage as a tradition as well. And they would not vote for gay marriage and because of this you are bemused. They are no doubt equally bemused by the idea of marriage being man-man or woman-woman, but I am certainly glad they have accepted your decision and celebrated it, as I do.

So you are asking them (and me and many others) to change how they view a long held tradition – something that is a part of their lives and community. I assume that this is why you understand their feelings about this issue. I am happy about that. Your belief is that this tradition is harmful to you, excludes you, and must now include you.

I think that this change is simply too much to ask (at least currently) of the generation after generation that has held it. Although it may seem like a simple semantic issue, it is not. It is a core, or ?gut? feeling for so many. You want to be treated equally, and they want to keep their tradition. I?m saying that in this case there can be another alternative that can force the government to treat you and married individuals the same (yes, I know all about the separate but equal issue). Perhaps it is an issue of timing. We all want things to happen so quickly.

I take the views of my parents very seriously although they are far less educated than me. I learned a long time ago that although they may not be able to articulate their views, they had much wisdom. I know they have done their best to pass down traditions and beliefs that were important to them. I find it a violation of how they have lived their lives to do it (gay marriage). They don?t have anything against gays, they just want to keep their belief in marriage being a man and a woman. I have been instructed in school after school and college after college, that it is not right to harm and infringe on the culture of others??yet we are doing it to our own. Our excuse in this case will be our highly educated and articulated arguments that ?no matter how educated you are,??. ?.?you are ignorant.?

If this was about another group/culture (American Indians for example) and we were thinking about changing a definition of something that had been in existence in their culture for centuries, ?progressives? would be outraged about it.

Perhaps you are right and we should just force the issue and not respect others? views and lives. So what if they hurt a bit? They?ll get over it. We?re obvious right. And that makes me so sad. It is because of people like your parents, and my parents, and many others that I have such difficulty with this issue. There is always another way. This isn?t about gays gaining respect, it?s only about a few extra concerns that the government currently applies to the married, and with some effort you can have them too. Or make a compromise and obtain them through a civil union. You cannot gain respect by obtaining ?marriage.?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on November 20, 2007

You cannot gain respect by obtaining ?marriage.?

Truer words were never spoken.

The problem is, Mike, that Samantha and Karen’s worldview is made obvious by their attitude towards this sort of person:

the single (or partnered without children) gay male executive, with the nice corner office, fat salary, comradery with the straight fellows at work and at the golf club, living a quiet life under the radar

You see, to them, these people are selfish and evil because they’re successful and normal; they’re not “struggling” enough, since they’ve got a good job and good salary, they’re not “confronting gender prejudices” enough, since they have a good relationship with their fellow male coworkers, and they’re not being “gay enough” or “outspoken” enough, since they’re “living a quiet life under the radar”.

What they don’t realize is that, to the vast majority of people in the non-gay universe, this is normal — and this person, by virtue of their position, their relationship with their coworkers, and so forth, has the respect — perhaps even the admiration — of his peers.

You see, in their world, you’re not really gay unless you’re poor, victimized, and struggling. It’s not unlike the mentality of the black Americans who call successful people like Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, and others “house niggers”, “oreos”, and “Uncle Toms”, and mock them for “acting white”; those black people who have succeeded make it difficult for them to argue that discrimination is what’s keeping them down, so they demonize those people as somehow having “sold out” their race.

To them, truly, respect is only granted by legal mandate. They have no concept of the fact that respect is earned, not granted, and is dependent on the content of your character, not the color of your skin or your sexual orientation.
posted by Rob (a.k.a Xeno) on November 20, 2007

I think by the way, you should restrict your use of gay/black analogies. You are gay, not black. Being gay is a behavior, not a pigment (I know, other issues there as well).

This paragraph triggered my alarm bells. It is the only one I needed to read in order to really understand Mike?s opposing views. The perception that being gay is a choice and a behavior is one of the foundations between the divided views on gay issues.

I?ll make this clear Mike: by gay, people here primarily define it as an alias for a homosexual orientation, and by that definition it is certainly not a choice, nor a behavior. It is also considered an identity, but the alias definition is the default one. I?ve known gays that were virgins (including myself, a long time ago), so by your definition, they couldn?t be considered gay before having sexual relations, would they?

We?re talking about the issues and (limited) options for those that are attracted to the same-sex. I strongly suggest you read the Ex-Gay Watch, and Box Turtle Bulletin blog posts concerning the involving factors of sexual orientation.

Samantha, I’m surprised you haven’t countered Mike on this bit. Don’t let it escape you next time. :p

Oh one last thing, I honestly don’t care about what some antigay folks think, and dialog with brick walls are futile if the point is to convince your opponent the validity of your views. Face it, you’ll never convince everyone, however what really matters is having dialogs for those sitting on the fence (well a brick wall in this case) and explaining them our views while pointing out the flaws of the opponent’s views on the other side of the fence (wall). I’ll bet good money that Corvino’s debates are affecting those that are undecided in the audiences than the conservatives that have already made up their minds. In the end, that’s all that matters, and gradually anti opinions will have a much lower profile (just like racism).
posted by North Dallas Thirty on November 20, 2007

I?ll make this clear Mike: by gay, people here primarily define it as an alias for a homosexual orientation, and by that definition it is certainly not a choice, nor a behavior.

I am always amused by this, especially given the “t” in “glbt”.

As transgender individuals assert, biology has no influence over behavior; one can be male and choose to act female or vice versa, despite there being clear identifiable and repeatable genetic, physical, hormonal, neural, and other differences between males and females. Gender is absolutely variable and mutable; individual choice is the overriding factor determining behavior.

Yet when it comes to sexual orientation, which has no identified and repeatable genetic, physical, hormonal, neural, or other differences between straight and gay individuals, gays claim that it is purely biology and absolutely fixed and immutable; individual choice is nonexistent, and biology determines behavior.
posted by Rob (a.k.a Xeno) on November 21, 2007

I am always amused by this, especially given the “t” in “glbt”.

Why be? You need tomatos for a gay bacon lettuce and tomato sandwich. :p

As transgender individuals assert, biology has no influence over behavior; one can be male and choose to act female or vice versa, despite there being clear identifiable and repeatable genetic, physical, hormonal, neural, and other differences between males and females. Gender is absolutely variable and mutable; individual choice is the overriding factor determining behavior.

Yet when it comes to sexual orientation, which has no identified and repeatable genetic, physical, hormonal, neural, or other differences between straight and gay individuals, gays claim that it is purely biology and absolutely fixed and immutable; individual choice is nonexistent, and biology determines behavior.

I’m not surprised that ND30 got sex and gender (identity) mixed up, since he’s obviously talking out of his arse. The MTF transgendered I’ve met definitely do believe that biology influences their behaviour, and they definitely do assert that their psychobiology is immutable, but not their physical appearance. That is they believe they have an female brain (immutable in terms of sex) stuck inside a man’s body since birth, and there is good medical evidence that what they believe is the actual case. “Talk cures” certainly haven’t helped switch their brain into a male one in the same manner that ex-gays have practically failed to change to a heterosexual orientation (though some have succeeded in killing their libidos though via castration and hormone therapy).
posted by North Dallas Thirty on November 21, 2007

That is they believe they have an female brain (immutable in terms of sex) stuck inside a man’s body since birth, and there is good medical evidence that what they believe is the actual case.

Perhaps, instead of accepting rationalizations, you ought to actually check and cite the scientific evidence you claim exists.

You might also wish to check your assertion that everyone who claims to be transgender has a “female brain” in a male body, and that no other psychological or other disorders could cause such behavior.
posted by Rob (a.k.a Xeno) on November 21, 2007

Perhaps, instead of accepting rationalizations, you ought to actually check and cite the scientific evidence you claim exists.

Heh… You sound like the antigay assholes that always demanded the evidence for the biological causes of sexual orientation. Here’s a bone.

You might also wish to check your assertion that everyone who claims to be transgender has a “female brain” in a male body, and that no other psychological or other disorders could cause such behavior.

I never made that assertion. I was talking about the transgendered that I personally know. But what about your assertion ND30? Can you back that up?
posted by Karen on November 21, 2007

Joe,

As Samantha said, the fact that the rights I am fighting for already exist, but the government is infringing upon them, is not irrelevant. In fact, it is the whole point.

As to John himself, I am not responding to what he says at his debates, so whether or not I’ve been to one is irrelevant (though I haven’t). I’m responding to what he’s said in these columns on IGF – which I have, in fact, read – that WE are at fault for that woman’s fear, and not her own recognition that she can’t support her arguments rationally.

I really wish you would quit calling me “angry rabble”, since nothing could be further from the truth. I’ve said over and over again that I’m not advocating angry-rabble-ness. I’m just flabbergasted by John’s theory that it’s all the gays’ fault that this woman wouldn’t speak, and not at all the fault of her insufficient arguments.

I’m also not understanding what his suggestion is – if it’s “don’t throw trash on people or be violent”, I wholeheartedly agree, but then, I’ve never thrown trash on people or been violent, nor has ANY gay person that I’ve ever known, period.

So what is he lecturing us about? What would he have us do? It seems that he wants us to stop them from looking like bigots when they spout opinions that can only be arrived at through bigotry.

(Or can’t they? My objection would go away, if only you could present an argument against gay marriage that doesn’t come down to “I don’t LIKE gay marriages! My disapproval counts more than your rights!”)

Well, sorry there buddy, but we don’t control those sorts of things. You’ll have to take it up with whoever invented logic. Even if we never say the word, there it is: someone who believes I am a moral degenerate looks like a bigot to anyone who knows me.

Our entire argument is based on the fact that their position goes against logic and is based on fear and ignorance about us. If we stop pointing that out, and just decide that whoever’s feelings are strongest wins, guess what? We lose.

John would have a point if the rest of us were just shutting down in the face of debate and yelling “Hater! Bigot!” But this is not what is happening. We’re just giving them enough rope to hang themselves… and they are hanging away. The conclusion that their views spring from simple, baseless, anti-gay sentiment is not conjured by magical gays out of thin air just for the purpose of silencing critics.

Mike,

I do understand our parents’ position, but it’s still wrong, it still hurts my family, and I’m not going to let them get away with sloppy thinking and “gut feelings” and act like those are valid ways to support a position.

And you keep harping on the fact that we’re “trying to change someone else’s culture”, but we’re not. For one thing, it’s OUR culture, so your native american analogy fails. For another thing, in a US where same sex marriage is legal, nothing would change about the culture that hasn’t already changed. Gay marriages already happen. Mine did. All that would change is that the government would have to recognize mine equally. If they don’t want to do that, they’re more than welcome to get out of the marriage business altogether, but that’s a little radical for my conservative soul. What they aren’t welcome to do is exclude my marriage from legal recognition and justify it with only “tradition”. If tradition were a valid legal justification for a law, we’d be in big trouble.

ND30,

“I’ve already decided your arguments are all bad, I’m the only logical and rational one, and you should just shut up and do as I tell you, because I’ve decided your beliefs are inferior and you are stupid.”

Boy, who’s exaggerating now? You would have a point, except I’m not calling anyone stupid or inferior, I’m not telling them to do what I say or to shut up, and I haven’t decided anything about any arguments that I haven’t heard before. I’m more than willing to hear and consider any new ones. That’s the point of debates. The fact that they never seem to have any… well, that’s not my fault, is it?

The fact of the matter is, if that woman had any arguments that hadn’t already been thoroughly debunked many times over, she wouldn’t have been “afraid” to speak up. She HAD her chance. Whether or not the debate itself is a good idea or well-attended by the opposition, the chance is there for the taking, and no one is silencing anyone.

Unless, of course, she was afraid of getting trash thrown on her and physically assaulted in this community center full of old people, since liberals are so very, very violent and scary.

If we’re going to talk about the looming threat of septuagenarian violence, wouldn’t it make sense to acknowledge that, if the area is so anti-gay, the people who expressed pro-gay views in that safe space would have more to fear in terms of the eventual repercussions? And yet somehow they were ok exercising their right to free speech. The idea that conservatives in that town were any more afraid for their physical safety than the liberals is ludicrous.

ND30, I never said anything about gay executives, so do please leave me out of that (you’re also misreading badly what Samantha was saying, but I think you do that on purpose.) You have a very bad habit of going into these flights of fancy about what other people believe.
posted by Mike Wilson on November 21, 2007

I disagree and think the native American comparison is an interesting one. Being a part of OUR culture makes it even more remarkable to me.

So why do you think the majority of Americans do not favor gay marriage? When allowed to cast a ballot, it is defeated again and again. Why doesn?t everyone think like you? Why are the majority not convinced with your argument?

Also?.I?m trying to understand gay relationships vs. straight relationships. Do you think there are some differences in the dynamics of gay relationships that are different from straight? Do gay relationships have some unique differences from lesbian relationships? Is there something unique that might even suggest that a lesbian or gay relationship is stronger or weaker than a straight relationship? There must be some differences other than biology.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on November 21, 2007

Karen, what is amusing is how you claim to be open-minded and tolerant on the one hand, and then spout statements of obvious prejudice and bigotry on the other.

Note that this woman never actually spoke or expressed her full views. But this is what you claim:

I’m just flabbergasted by John’s theory that it’s all the gays’ fault that this woman wouldn’t speak, and not at all the fault of her insufficient arguments.

It seems that he wants us to stop them from looking like bigots when they spout opinions that can only be arrived at through bigotry.

The fact of the matter is, if that woman had any arguments that hadn’t already been thoroughly debunked many times over, she wouldn’t have been “afraid” to speak up.

Notice that you have not heard word one of this woman’s argument….but because she disagrees with you, you automatically assume she’s wrong and a bigot.

Why? Because, as you state:

Our entire argument is based on the fact that their position goes against logic and is based on fear and ignorance about us.

You have no idea what this person is saying, but you automatically assume she is wrong and that it is based on “fear and ignorance” — because you flatly state that there is no other outcome and that anything else, no matter what, is not logical or rational.

That would explain nicely why people don’t show up to these events; why should they waste their valuable time talking to people who have already firmly and publicly established that they won’t listen, that they won’t change their minds, that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, and who will spend hours haranguing them for their religious and social views? The only people you should expect at Corvino’s events are militant gays and their supporters who want to throw bricks at a Focus on the Family person, and that’s magically what they’re getting.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on November 21, 2007

Do you think there are some differences in the dynamics of gay relationships that are different from straight? Do gay relationships have some unique differences from lesbian relationships?

Absolutely and absolutely.

And I think the reason the bulk of Americans do not favor gay marriage is because the fact that our relationships are different than theirs is a matter of common sense and simple biology.

If the question of the benefits and protections around marriage was raised separately, my perception is that most people would have far less of a problem with it. Indeed, skillfully managed, it can be pointed out that the issues facing gay couples, i.e. wills, proxies, health arrangements, and so forth, are not dissimilar to those facing aging Americans, particularly those who would like to be able to pick and choose who can make end-of-life and financial decisions for them, without having to marry to do it.

However, the problem is that marriage, to the antireligious gay left that dominates gay politics and public appearances, is not a matter of practical benefits or protections; it is primarily a matter of having a trophy, a means of antagonizing the religious right, and of exercising the mistaken belief that gays and lesbians who are eminently unlikable can force others to like them through legislation.

In short, the intelligent way to have this discussion is to take changing marriage itself off the table and discuss what can be done to provide practical access to benefits and protections that are useful outside of marriage. But that does not satisfy the need of the gay left for antireligious activity and for external validation, so it usually dies an ignominious death.
posted by Karen on November 21, 2007

“I disagree and think the native American comparison is an interesting one. Being a part of OUR culture makes it even more remarkable to me.”

I don’t understand. You seem to be saying that we shouldn’t disparage anti-marriage-equality views because it would be like trying to change some aspect of Native American culture to suit our purposes… assuming, of course, that neither of us is Native American.

But this is OUR culture. Civil marriage in the US is common cultural property. The basic assumption of equality (which someone called Samantha a “fascist” for insisting upon, to my great amusement) is part of our culture as well. Criticism from within the culture, of people who place traditional beliefs about the former over the full application of the latter, does not strike me as anything like your Native American analogy. The fact that we are part of the culture in question doesn’t make the comparison more remarkable, it makes it irrelevant.

But perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean? It seems so obvious to me that the analogy is a bad one; I must be missing something.

“So why do you think the majority of Americans do not favor gay marriage? When allowed to cast a ballot, it is defeated again and again. Why doesn?t everyone think like you? Why are the majority not convinced with your argument?”

I think it’s a combination of several things. Stubbornness – it is not easy or pleasant to admit to yourself that you’ve been wrong, or to change your mind, especially when you’re the first on your block. Misinformation – the anti-gay smear machine is powerful, and we spend so much time combatting the lies and half-truths that we’re constantly on our heels. Lack of visibility – how many people have actually heard a coherent debate about this, instead of bumpersticker sloganizing and pulpit-pounding (on both sides)? Religion – people of faith sometimes have a very hard time separating what THEY regard as “truth” through their faith from what everyone views as “truth” through empiricism. Squeamishness – when it comes down to it, this is a sexual topic, and many Americans are deeply uncomfortable talking or thinking about it all. Love for parents and family – since most of us grew up in “traditional” families, it’s hard for us to picture a happy childhood that does not map neatly onto our own, leading to all the misplaced concern about my children’s happiness in a two-mom family. Etc etc.

“I?m trying to understand gay relationships vs. straight relationships. Do you think there are some differences in the dynamics of gay relationships that are different from straight? Do gay relationships have some unique differences from lesbian relationships? Is there something unique that might even suggest that a lesbian or gay relationship is stronger or weaker than a straight relationship? There must be some differences other than biology.”

Well, it’s hard to measure these things. How does one measure or compare the “strongness” or “weakness” of relationships? Usually, even in “soft” sciences like social science, the goal is to reduce the variables to 1 – like same-sex vs. mixed sex. But that’s impossible to do, since there are so many inherent biases that are impossible to control for. What if your statistics, whatever you choose to look at, show that gay relationships are “weaker”? How do you know that’s an inherent quality of same-sex relationships and not a product of a society that devalues, discourages, and does not legally recognize such relationships? What if it shows they are “stronger”? How do you know that it’s not because of all the adversity that gay relationships face? “All else being equal” – an elusive concept to begin with in social science – is impossible to conceive of in our current circumstances.

I don’t see my marriage to be particularly different from anyone else’s. It mirrors very closely what I see of heterosexual relationships. There are only a few things that could not occur in a heterosexual relationship: some (but not all) of the particulars of our sex life are a little different. We both have a menstrual cycle and female reproductive anatomy, which has its pros and cons (We both get hormonal, but we both know what it’s like to be hormonal. We have to use donor sperm to make babies, but we have two uteri to choose from.) Unlike hets, we have to deal with the assumption of heterosexuality and the constant dilemmas that brings up, as well as dealing with/anticipating/avoiding flat-out discrimination.

But these differences are not so drastic that I think they make my marriage substantially different from my straight brother’s. Any inherent differences, I think, are dwarfed by the differences that one could expect between ANY two marriages.

Anyway, I’m off to enjoy my thanksgiving break. Be well, all. (Yes, even you, North Dallas.)
posted by Karen on November 21, 2007

“it is primarily a matter of having a trophy, a means of antagonizing the religious right, and of exercising the mistaken belief that gays and lesbians who are eminently unlikable can force others to like them through legislation.”

Ummm… no. It’s a matter of, there is no way to separate the actual repercussions (“benefits and protections”) of having a legally recognized civil marriage from the *word* marriage, since that’s how it’s phrased in piles and piles of existing legislation.

It’s about equality, not validation. I already HAVE the only validation that matters, and I am not under the impression that laws can make anyone LIKE me, likeable or not. I don’t care if you LIKE me. I do care whether or not my government treats my family with justice and equality.

Seriously, though. Happy thanksgiving!
posted by Samantha on November 21, 2007

Samantha, I’m surprised you haven’t countered Mike on this bit. Don’t let it escape you next time. :p

Rob, it didn’t escape me, I just let it go…lol. That’s a longer conversation than I want to have. Oh and btw, we ignore North Dallas Thirty. We don’t respond, because he’s a troll. Sorry you got sucked in.

This isn?t about gays gaining respect, it?s only about a few extra concerns that the government currently applies to the marriage.”

Oh Mike, That’s just so wrong. It’s certainly not about just a few extra concerns. I’ve tried to explain it in very lengthy posts, I really have, and there isn’t much more I can say. I’m sorry you’ve made up your mind that marriage is out of the question, however as I said in an earlier post, it’s not your decision alone to make, nor mine.

Also?.I?m trying to understand gay relationships vs. straight relationships. Do you think there are some differences in the dynamics of gay relationships that are different from straight?”

Mike, I pulled the above quote from your post as well, and I have to admit, it really threw me. Your mind seems to be set on certain things and yet you show a curiosity about gay life. I’m afraid I’m not going to indulge you. However, here’s some homework for you: Rent and watch Brokeback Mountain and then join in the discussion on Dave Cullen’s forum. It’s a great website where you can ask all the questions you want and the gays will happily answer, as long as you share a little about yourself.

http://www.davecullen.com/forum/

The point is, you need a more cultural website to interact in, not a political blog.

Have a great Thanksgiving.
posted by Mike Wilson on November 22, 2007

No Samantha, I will not leave this discussion unless you have decided that you don?t want to respond like you have apparently done to NDT. I would like to have some conclusion and further understanding of this topic.

Rob thought I was making some statement about homosexuality being a choice, and I was not referring to that. Just to clear that up, I do not think that homosexuality is a choice at all. It is likely a combination of genetic, biological, possibly hormonal conditions during development, and some learning. I am well read in this area and do not need remedial work as you suggest. You know very little about me but you want to jump to a conclusion that is not warranted. In fact, it appears that I want to be the one to make an informed decision?.and you want to brush off the riffraff. You obvious have made up your mind and are stuck in groupthink?.so why don?t you indulge me and let me come to my own determination, and you can continue with your generally informed answers so I can learn a few things. My impression was that I could get some information here rather than just have some partisans shout at me.

I ask these ?simple? questions to you for good reason. I know much more about gay life than you realize and you need to stop the assumptions about others when you really know nothing about them. Brokeback Mountain?..enjoyed the movie.

Since you thought it appropriate to tell me what I need, let me tell you what you need?.

Eat turkey and enjoy.
posted by Rob (a.k.a Xeno) on November 22, 2007

Rob thought I was making some statement about homosexuality being a choice, and I was not referring to that. Just to clear that up, I do not think that homosexuality is a choice at all. It is likely a combination of genetic, biological, possibly hormonal conditions during development, and some learning. I am well read in this area and do not need remedial work as you suggest. You know very little about me but you want to jump to a conclusion that is not warranted. In fact, it appears that I want to be the one to make an informed decision?.and you want to brush off the riffraff. You obvious have made up your mind and are stuck in groupthink?.so why don?t you indulge me and let me come to my own determination, and you can continue with your generally informed answers so I can learn a few things. My impression was that I could get some information here rather than just have some partisans shout at me.

Sorry Mike, but you didn’t leave much in interpretation when you stated that ‘Being gay is a behavior, not a pigment’, as if gay were a behavioral choice. That’s not a statement that makes me believe you primarily here to learn concerning gay issues, and you have already expressed partisan opinions. If you do believe prenatal factors affect a practically immutable sexual orientation, then what is wrong about making an analogy to previous civil rights issues concerning the plight of black Americans?
posted by Samantha on November 22, 2007

Mike, I never suggested you leave the discussion, – I recommended another great website for the questions you had related to intimacy, relationships, dynamics, etc. I’m glad you saw the movie, and Dave’s website is THE website for discussion on that, as well as unrelated gay/bi topics. This forum is too political and debate-oriented for that.

As far as Rob’s question, it’s perfectly understandable given your comment about homosexuality being a behavior and not a pigment. Obviously that speaks to choice and lifestyle, and suggests further that being black is something you can’t change while being gay is. You’ve since clarified your remarks, but I still find them a bit contradictory. Still, thanks for clarifying.

I think we’ve had some good discussion here, despite some unfortunate comments you’ve made such as:

Quit your whining. Let others keep their traditions. You are not being mistreated, you are being selfish, and actually, bigots.

Considering inflamatory statements like that, I think I’ve been more than accommodating.

And btw, I haven’t “done” anything to NDT. He’s a troll and I’ve stopped bothering to even read his posts much less comment on them.

Everyone have a great Thanksgiving, I’m going now to salvage what I can of it since my travel plans were cancelled due to illness in the family. Still, there’s always turkey!

Take Care.
posted by Samantha on November 22, 2007

Hi Rob! I didn’t see you post. I agree with everything in your last comments. It’s stuff we’ve all seen before, eh? Have a great day!
posted by Mike Wilson on November 22, 2007

Well?.for one thing, the overwhelming number of blacks does not agree with that comparison, so that is the one big reason I wouldn?t use it. Gays have no concept of the discrimination blacks suffered. But go ahead and use it if you?d like. It currently does not weigh heavily on my view of this issue.

This forum is what we make of it. And I want to understand this issue. I want you to convince me why you think gays need marriage. I see the way it has been for centuries and now you want it changed. The burden is on you, and I am willing to give you the time. Remember that the majority of Americans are not going for gay marriage. You are in the minority. You can be offensive about it or attempt to educate and persuade.

You are operating from a self-imposed platform of being ?right.? You show no desire to compromise or understand how a large number of people are not happy with changing this tradition to two men or two women.

If this is your view, then we will just have to wait for things to move at their typical snails pace in our government. And there are no guarantees of your success.

Maybe if you would just do what you are doing now apparently ? living good lives with family and a sense of moral values ? the tide will finally turn and society as a whole will view ?gay marriage? as something that should happen. That is what I meant by the whining statement that offended you. Forcing gay marriage on the current generation, asking for people to alter long held cultural traditions doesn?t appear to be the best way to do this. I think the more you complain about being discriminated against the worse matters are going to get. But give it a try if that?s your strategy?.you certainly have free will.

I asked that basic question for a reason?..not to learn about menstrual cycles as Karen seemed to think I was interested in (actually I enjoyed your response Karen). I want to know if you believe there are any psychological or emotional differences between gays and straights and their relationships. Is there something that makes them uniquely different? All of this is important when we are also considering the procreation aspect of marriage and how technology has now allowed two men or two women to ?procreate.? There are several important issues to consider when it comes to marriage and this is certainly a big one.

I respectfully wait for a response as turkey digestion proceeds.
posted by Samantha on November 24, 2007

Turkey day is over, and here’s my take on things:

for one thing, the overwhelming number of blacks does not agree with that comparison

Mike, you always seem hooked on the “majority” thing. The majority this, the majority that, the overwhelming number feels this, etc. I’m certainly interested in what the majority thinks, but it’s not what the constitution was designed for. It, and the democracy itself, is not a “majority rules” construct. It is about protecting the minority within the larger group. Resistance against the majority is also built right into the legislature, where the Senate is designed as a brake to the House. (The House is quickly turned over every 2 years in order to respond to the desires of the unwashed masses…the “majority” if you will.) And then of course there’s the Judiciary, which nulifies any unconstitutional legislation that makes it past the Senate. (Legislation that might illegally expand powers, or deny rights to individuals or groups.) In regards to the context you use it in – that the majority of blacks don’t agree, it’s not the whole picture. Yes, many blacks want to keep the civil rights struggle their own and not diminish it. That sentiment comes more from self-protectionism than an examination of gay issues. Because, frankly, they are still struggling and trying to move forward. Why would it be in their interest to risk that? Jews have similar feelings about the holocaust. They don’t want anyone co-opting it. Still, Jews, to their credit, have trememdously stood up for discriminated groups, such as gays and blacks. (Even to the extremes in Cosovo, no one stood up for the undesireable muslims except Israel). As far as american blacks, the question of standing up for OTHER groups or integrating them into the struggle was a subject of debate even back in the MLK years. Ultimately, they decided at that time, not to water down the message. Sad decision for black gays to be sure, but they accepted it because of the greater racial challenges before them. In time, one would expect that the issue would be addressed. And, predictibly, it has been, by black folks like Coretta Scott King.

Gays have no concept of the discrimination blacks suffered.

There are many, many black and brown gays and bisexuals. They certainly understand. Being white, I don’t. But I understand discrimination, and I can borrow the lessons of the civil rights struggle. Not only that, but being white I’ve been on the other end. I know what it’s like to exclude, or to treat someone thoughtlessly just because you can. And I know that it is wrong. I hear a lot of the same attitudes toward gays, I recognize them, that’s why in fact it gets me so crazy, because it’s NOT something new.

I want you to convince me why you think gays need marriage. I see the way it has been for centuries and now you want it changed.

I don’t think I CAN convince you. You’ve declared you’re solidly against it. Your position would have to evolve, not be reversed. As far as your “centuries” comment, I think it would probably be good if you began to see marriage for what it really is instead of the ideal 2007 version in your mind. It has very much changed over the centuries, very much. If you don’t view it that way, then I don’t see you changing your mind. Because that’s a lot to ask of a person – something has been unchanged for centuries, coveted, and handed down from gen to gen like hebrew text slowly and painstakenly put down by candlelight. But no. It’s not at all that way. Here is an interesting link which addresses that question:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm

The burden is on you, and I am willing to give you the time.

No, I think the burden is on the country. It doesn’t seem like it at first glance, but it’s more accurate to say that than the other way around. Look, the majority always thinks the minority should prove themselves in some way or behave a certain way, otherwise they’re chopping off their nose to spite their face. Despite how disgusted some whites were with blacks, the black community survived, didn’t it? They kept all their culture, beliefs, behaviors, good bad and ugly, and they succeeded. Not only that, it’s obvious they were strengthened by it. Their attitude now to white america is, “YOU learn cause I ain’t gonna teach you.” That seems kind of rude, but it’s reality. As whites, if we’re not going to educate ourselves then they’re not going to bother to explain it all to us. The burden shifts to US. Sadly, I don’t see this strong position emulated by the womens rights movement. It was gang-busters in the 60’s and 70’s but then faded away because no other strong women took up the torch. They were all too concerned with upsetting the apple cart. “Make everyone more comfortable with us” seemed to be their new mantra. And you see the result. There’s a whole lost generation of young women without any strong female role models at all, who are vulnerable to misusing their bodies, misusing sex, drugs and men. It’s a train wreck that is just horrible to watch. Speaking of train wrecks, politically you can point to the democractic party as the poster child of now not to succeed. Placating the majority is never a good idea. Acting out of fear is never a good idea. Waiting for people to like you before you stand for something is never a good idea. Some have learned this lesson and others have not. I would like the gay community to not learn the hard way.

You are operating from a self-imposed platform of being ?right.?

Aren’t you? I think there’s a difference though, in our being “right,” and that word is precedent. There is precedence for my position, for progress. There is precedence in interpreting the constitution to allow for expanded rights, such as women’s rights, slave rights, handicapped rights, etc., and by the structure of the document itself, which the founding fathers said was designed to not preclude other “future” rights for it’s citizens. Now, with your position there is also precedence. There is the precedence not of progress, but of obstruction. And that is everything we’ve seen before – small, organized groups of citizens (religious right) moving against a certain disliked group hoping to marginalize, strip existing rights and reduce any possiblity of future rights. There is precedence in the general populace too, which has traditionally been slow to accept inclusion and change. There is precedence in feelings of fear, bigotry, or cultural and religious practices which promote hate, death or disinformation towards an excluded group. The $1,000 question is…which precedence is more valid, and which is more likely to hold up with the test of time? You know my answer to that.

I want to know if you believe there are any psychological or emotional differences between gays and straights and their relationships. Is there something that makes them uniquely different?

I think there are lots of differences, but none of them are relevent to the decision to “grant” rights to gays. Just as marriage for women has changed to move away from ownership and more towards partnership, so has relationships between 2 women, which removes many of the last of the authority-based restrictions. If two women are together, they certainly have to work out roles and who does what, but it’s pretty much a level playing field from there on out. There isn’t any patriarchal behavior to deal with or power imbalance. Straight women do have to deal with a potential power imbalance and unequal distribution of work, while gay women do not. However all other factors are probably the same. Relationships are tough all around, everyone argues and everyone, gay and straight, has baggage they bring to the relationship, and have inlaw issues and childcare issues.

I had a straight friend who recently married and had 2 problems in her marriage. One was his kids, and the other was his anger issue. By coincidence, my (unrecognized) marriage was similar. The biggest issues besides finances were her kids. There was less anger issues but still some, and big trust issues. Gay Marriage would help solidify gay relationships, because let’s be honest here, even though at the time I considered myself married, we weren’t. That piece of paper also would have helped big time with the inlaws.

All of this is important when we are also considering the procreation aspect of marriage

You know, the thing is, we’re already parents. It’s not like there’s going to be this radical change in families where gays can now procreate. They’ve always been procreating, the only difference is they were living life as a lie while they were doing it. Also, really, you’re always going to have gay people who become parents first in a straight relationship then find a gay relationship, because of bisexuality, and the length of time it takes to come out and realize your own identity. Children often arrive not long after high school, often too early to know. What do we do then, take their children away? Even as fully out gay women, lesbians have wombs, are natural mothers and procreate in gay relationships (and you don’t need a lab for that either). For gay men it’s a bit trickier, they would have to find a surrogate or adopt. That is really the only “new” baby issue in this mix. Maybe you are uncomfortable with that. Personally, I prefer a baby to have a mother figure in the early stages of life and not just two dads, but frankly if the two dads are interested in being parents then they’ll be good parents. I know that child will likely be loved, cared for, appreciated, educated and encouraged, (and not molested by a straight step-father.) And hopefully, they’ll get a mom-figure in there somewhere with an aunt or sister. When you’ve legitimitized the family with marriage, that aunt or sister is a lot more likely to be involved in that child’s life, and the family will be stronger. I just can’t list all the ways that marriage would improve things, there are just too many.

But, let’s not put the cart before the horse. We’re talking marriage here – the right of two consenting adults to have their relationship legally recognized and receive the same state and federal benefits as their straight counterparts.
posted by Brian Miller on November 25, 2007

So why do you think the majority of Americans do not favor gay marriage? When allowed to cast a ballot, it is defeated again and again.

The same was true of interracial marriage. In fact, during the time of Loving vs. Virginia, the opposition in American society to a black person marrying a white person was in the 60th percentile — far higher than the national average opposing marriage equality for gays and lesbians.

Since almost 2/3 of Americans opposed interracial marriage in the 1960s, is interracial marriage unnatural? Did the Supreme Court destroy the will of the people and undermine the institution of marriage with the Loving decision? Should interracial marriage have been legalized through a majoritarian process in the 1990s or later, rather than through a Constitutional legal process?

(I love asking these questions of advocates of majoritarianism, since they address the legal heart of the matter).

Incidentally, if I could get a majority of our town’s citizens to decide that *your* marriage is “bad for public policy,” and have them vote to nullify it, would you accept that judgment? Or would you assert that you have a right to your own relationship that eclipses the opinions of others?
posted by Brian Miller on November 25, 2007

Gays have no concept of the discrimination blacks suffered.

I hate it when someone — usually a black heterosexual person — drops this canard.

Black gay people are some of the worst off in our society. Not only do they deal with latent racism in society, but “traditional” African American institutions such as churches, youth groups, mosques, etc. also reject them.

Also, while it’s true that many white gay people haven’t lived “the black experience,” many black people haven’t lived “the gay experience” either. I often point out to black heterosexual people that much of what they take for granted — including societal recognition that racism is, on some level, wrong — doesn’t apply to gay people.

When racist stuff happens in society, there’s generally much stronger condemnation of it than of homophobic stuff. And, of course, black people achieved equality under the law decades ago. Anti-miscegenation laws and other such legal segregation disappeared — but gay people today continue to pay taxes to a government that states that they are permanently inferior citizens. To claim that’s somehow “not as bad as what I go through” is patently dishonest. At this point, heterosexual black Americans have had equality under the law for over 40 years — something I’d *love* to have and that gay people still don’t have today.

Cultural arguments to the side, my only interest in the political realm is equality under the law. Talk of culture is all well and good, but it’s far less relevant than the idea that gay men and women are segregated even today, legally, and that black gay men and women are not only segregated by the law — but are often also segregated by leaders in their own community who rage against other forms of segregation.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on November 26, 2007

Since almost 2/3 of Americans opposed interracial marriage in the 1960s, is interracial marriage unnatural?

What Loving makes obvious is that, while you may cite statistics that allege a majority of Americans were opposed to it, oddly enough, that hardly translated into action at the ballot box.

Meanwhile, a majority of Americans are opposed to gay marriage and have, quite legally, put in place, via the ballot box, not only statutory, but constitutional, amendments banning it.

Incidentally, if I could get a majority of our town’s citizens to decide that *your* marriage is “bad for public policy,” and have them vote to nullify it, would you accept that judgment? Or would you assert that you have a right to your own relationship that eclipses the opinions of others?

Yes, I would accept that judgment.

Because doing the latter does two things; it repudiates the basic principles of democracy upon which this country is built, and it legitimizes the same argument that could be made by Warren Jeffs and others that their right to their (polygamous, incestuous, and child) relationships eclipses the opinions of others.
posted by Karen on November 27, 2007

“it repudiates the basic principles of democracy upon which this country is built”

Except that it doesn’t. If something is a fundamental right – as marriage was established to be in Loving – then it is not up for a vote. We live in a constitutional republic with representational government, not a pure democracy.

“it legitimizes the same argument that could be made by Warren Jeffs and others that their right to their (polygamous, incestuous, and child)”

Although polygamous and consanguinous marriages might be arguable, child marriages most certainly are not: children are not capable (legally or practically) of giving that consent.

As to consanguinity and polygamy, there are several rational reasons not to permit these, that stand up to constitutional scrutiny even when marriage is recognized as a fundamental right.

Consanguinity can be shown, clearly and scientifically, to raise the chances of birth defects. Also, marriage makes two people related to each other, and adding multiple layers of relatedness weirds things. On closer examination, forbidding a certain level of consanguinity is not particularly narrowly tailored or least restrictive, but since the characteristic in question is not one like sex, race, ability, etc, there’s no need for it to meet anything other than the rational basis test.

As for polygamy, the laws are not built to deal with multiple marriages at the same time. They would have to be significantly overhauled, which is not true of the same-sex marriage question. There you go: a rational basis. Again, the characteristic in question is not a fundamental characteristic of one of the participants, so no need for higher scrutiny.

The question is, does the “fundamental right to marriage”, as established in Loving, mean “marriage” as defined by the traditional male-female idea of the word, or just the legal consequences of the civil action of marrying?

The answer to that is clear to me. No one has a “right” to a sacred and unchangeable definition. There are heterosexual married couples who are still virgins (read Postsecret this week.) That doesn’t fit most people’s definition of marriage, but so what?

The only thing that matters, legally, are the legal consequences of the action: choosing to becoming each other’s closest relation, to put it in the simplest terms. That is the fundamental right, and constitutionally, it must not be restricted without cause – and in the case of using one party’s sex as the criterion, without REALLY good cause.
posted by Karen on November 27, 2007

If it gives you any consolation, though, you can tell your conservative straight male friends to blame women’s lib. I have a feeling they’ll be happy to hear it’s all the fault of the bra-burners.

Without egalitarian marriage, this debate would be impossible to have. If the legal consequences of marriage are defined, in part, by sex role – the man gets this, the woman loses that – then it would be nonsensical to say that the legal consequences of marriage are sexless, just as it would be nonsensical to marry one’s toaster. The legal consequences couldn’t be put into action. What does it mean to have a toaster as one’s next of kin? If one of the marriage partners – the female one – thereby gives all property ownership over to the male, what does that mean in a two-male relationship?

Same-sex marriage is “new” in our society because it is only with the advent of egalitarian marriage that it became possible.
posted by Samantha on November 27, 2007

The Loving case illustrates rebuttals to three arguments in particular that I’ve been refuting all along, one – that marriage has never changed, two that marriage is not a civil right (The Court stated it was a civil right in 1967), and thirdly, that the voice of american blacks is in opposition to same-sex marriage. Not all blacks oppose it, and certainly it’s significant that black individuals who have personally gone through a struggle, seem to be more aware of equality for all and more likely to advocate for it. Here is a recent quote from Mildred Loving:

I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on November 27, 2007

Try again, Karen.

Consanguinity can be shown, clearly and scientifically, to raise the chances of birth defects.

Irrelevant. Gays and lesbians have claimed that procreation and childrearing have nothing to do with marriage rights.

Also, marriage makes two people related to each other, and adding multiple layers of relatedness weirds things.

Irrelevant. Gays and lesbians have claimed that they should be able to marry regardless of anyone else’s opinion, and that nontraditional structures should not be judged as “weird” and should be given the full rights and benefits as everyone else.

As for polygamy, the laws are not built to deal with multiple marriages at the same time.

Irrelevant. Gays and lesbians have claimed that having to change the wording of laws is insufficient grounds and constitutes discrimination when used as a reason.

Although polygamous and consanguinous marriages might be arguable, child marriages most certainly are not: children are not capable (legally or practically) of giving that consent.

Irrelevant. “Romeo and Juliet” laws, as well as laws giving minors the right to request and consent to having abortions without their parents’ notification or consent, demonstrate that minors are more than capable of consenting to sex and to long-term contracts.

So let us again demonstrate the “rationality” being used here.

She claims that issues around procreation are sufficient grounds for banning other people from exercising what she claims is an automatic constitutional right, but insists they should have no effect on her own.

She claims that other people should be banned from exercising what she claims is an automatic constitutional right because their relationship is “weird”, but insists that other peoples’ opinions of hers constitute bigotry and should not be allowed to set public policy.

She claims that other people should be banned from exercising what she claims is an automatic constitutional right because laws would have to be rewritten to accomodate it — but insists that laws must be rewritten to accomodate her, or it’s a violation of her constitutional rights.
posted by Karen on November 27, 2007

I shouldn’t have used the verb “to weird” – I should have known you wouldn’t understand the concept.

“Verbing weirds language”. Get it now?

“Irrelevant. Gays and lesbians have claimed that procreation and childrearing have nothing to do with marriage rights.”

No, the fact that my wife and I need ART to procreate has nothing to do with marriage rights. We’re not endangering children. Try again, NDT.

“Irrelevant. Gays and lesbians have claimed that they should be able to marry regardless of anyone else’s opinion, and that nontraditional structures should not be judged as “weird” and should be given the full rights and benefits as everyone else.”

No, you are using the wrong definition of “weird”, but for what its worth, beyond 1st degree consanguinous heterosexual marriages (which DO substantially endanger the resultant children), I see everything else (plural marriage included) as merely people trying to control other people’s lives.

“Irrelevant. Gays and lesbians have claimed that having to change the wording of laws is insufficient grounds and constitutes discrimination when used as a reason.”

No, changing the wording to include same-sex couples is very different from the structure of family law itself. If you have two wives and you die without a will, who inherits? There’s no laws in place to deal with it. Saying that it’s too hard to remove the “Sex” box from marriage licence applications isn’t discrimination, it’s just stupid. And FWIW, I think that we should be working towards a more flexible civil family law that does allow for plurality. Try again, NDT.

“Irrelevant. “Romeo and Juliet” laws, as well as laws giving minors the right to request and consent to having abortions without their parents’ notification or consent, demonstrate that minors are more than capable of consenting to sex and to long-term contracts.”

Misdirection. Romeo and Juliet laws address the fact that when two unconsentable minors have sex, who can charge who with statutory rape is unanswerable. Minors cannot consent to sex, period. Abortion consent/notification laws are not what we’re discussing here, and you have no way of knowing my position on them even if we were. Try again, NDT.

“She claims that issues around procreation are sufficient grounds for banning other people from exercising what she claims is an automatic constitutional right, but insists they should have no effect on her own.”

That’s because my procreational “issues” are not a 30% rate of birth defects, genius.

“She claims that other people should be banned from exercising what she claims is an automatic constitutional right because their relationship is “weird”, but insists that other peoples’ opinions of hers constitute bigotry and should not be allowed to set public policy.”

Again, you need to check your definition of “to weird”. That’s not at all what I said. I’m referring to the legal complications of multiple layers of relatedness. I have not studied this enough to know if it is practically surmountable or not.

“She claims that other people should be banned from exercising what she claims is an automatic constitutional right because laws would have to be rewritten to accomodate it — but insists that laws must be rewritten to accomodate her, or it’s a violation of her constitutional rights.”

No. I don’t think plural marriages “should” be banned because the structure of the law does not currently support it. I think we should be working towards flexible family law. What I’m saying is this:

Changing the law to allow for same-sex marriage is trivial (see: Massachusetts.) Changing it to allow for plural marriage is very non-trivial. The number of participants in a marriage is not a suspect class, whereas sex is. My marriage is prohibited on the basis of my sex. This is a much more invidious and clear violation of my constitutional rights than bigamy laws are, AND it’s simple as pie to fix. So fix it.

Try again, NDT.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on November 28, 2007

Nope, try again, Karen.

No, the fact that my wife and I need ART to procreate has nothing to do with marriage rights. We’re not endangering children.

Unfortunately for you, Karen, you are.

You stated that relationships in which offspring have a higher risk of birth defects should be banned because it endangers children. Since your relationship requires ART, and ART has been consistently shown to produce a higher rate of birth defects, your relationship should be banned by your own logic.

If you have two wives and you die without a will, who inherits? There’s no laws in place to deal with it.

Yes there is; the section of the law that invalidates plural marriage, or, in other words, “first come, first served”.

Minors cannot consent to sex, period. Abortion consent/notification laws are not what we’re discussing here, and you have no way of knowing my position on them even if we were.

Or, in other words, there is no way of reconciling your assertions with the clear FACT that minors, under law, are fully capable of having sex without penalty, making legal decisions, and making medical decisions, ESPECIALLY pertaining to sex, love, and relationships.

My marriage is prohibited on the basis of my sex.

So is your walking into a men’s bathroom, or men walking into a women’s bathroom.

Please state for the record, Karen, that there is no difference between the sexes and that any differentiation whatsoever in law or practice is unconstitutional.

And finally, thank you for admitting that the goal of gays and lesbians like yourself is plural marriage.
posted by Karen on November 28, 2007

NDT,

That rise is less even than 1st cousin marriages – which many states and countries allow. Also, I’m not infertile, I’m a lesbian. All I need is fresh sperm and a pipette. Did they study that? ART is a blanket term. Anyway, a 30% chance is very different from a 2% chance – giving birth over 40 is more dangerous than me, a 26-year-old, availing myself of a male friend and a turkey baster. We don’t prohibit that, do we? You have problems seeing the big picture, don’t you? 30% > 2%.

“Yes there is; the section of the law that invalidates plural marriage, or, in other words, “first come, first served”.”

Now, this HAS to be on purpose. Oh Brilliant One, bigamy laws are necessarily excluded in a thought experiment about what would happen if there were no bigamy laws.

“Or, in other words, there is no way of reconciling your assertions with the clear FACT that minors, under law, are fully capable of having sex without penalty, making legal decisions, and making medical decisions, ESPECIALLY pertaining to sex, love, and relationships.”

Sex is not marriage. Minors do make decisions about sex as a practical matter – although we still regard them as unable to consent below ~16. Marriage is a legal commitment. If they can’t enter a contract legally, there’s no reason that they should be able to enter a marriage legally. It’s that simple. No, I’m not ok with them being able to abort pregnancies without parental notification – I find it hard to believe that they can consent to that without permission, but not a tongue ring. I do understand the thinking behind it, though, w/r/t abuse and coercion and the consequences of a teen keeping a pregnancy secret, although I don’t agree with the result. Anyway, like I said, that’s not what we’re talking about, you twisty little man. You presume to know that I support abortion AT ALL, when in fact I am deeply ambivalent towards it. If you’re looking for inconsistencies in my positions, you’ll find it problematic, considering there are very few matters that I feel have clear answers. This marriage thing is pretty much it. I don’t know much, but I know I should be able to marry my wife. (And thaaaat may beeeeeeeee… all I neeeeed to knooooooow… hehe.)

“So is your walking into a men’s bathroom, or men walking into a women’s bathroom.”

Bathroom usage is a matter of social policy. It may get you kicked out of a store or bar, or dirty looks, but it should not get you arrested (even though it does sometimes.) There is no law on the books that I know of regarding women’s vs. men’s restrooms.

What there IS, though, is law that states exactly what you sarcastically say: that there is no difference between the sexes and that any differentiation whatsoever in law or practice is unconstitutional.

It’s Title VII. Unless it is for a bona fide occupational qualification, the *law* cannot, de jure or de facto, make a disctinction based on gender. People can (except in the case of housing and employment) – allowing such things as segregated bathrooms and men-only 19th holes – but the federal government cannot, nor can they give money to those who do.

So, um, yeah. By law, male citizens must be treated the same as female citizens.

My goal isn’t “plural marriage”. My goal is marriage equality and justice. If someone wants to marry 3 women, it’s none of my business as long as they all consent. The problems with polygamous societies like the FLDS are not fixed by prohibiting plural marriage.

Do you think it’s your business who someone else chooses to espouse, in the absence of coercion (actual or statutory)?
posted by Karen on November 28, 2007

Sorry, the employment thing is Title VII. The rest of the Civil Rights act, along with amendment 14 and the accompanying “suspect class” case law, is what creates the situation you describe so sarcastically, where (gasp!) the government, government funded agencies, public accommodations (hotels, restaurants, theaters, etc), public facilities, and schools must not treat citizens differently based on their sex (amongst other classifications).
posted by Mike Wilson on November 29, 2007

I get back to finally read responses and I see we are now down to the level of turkey baster and pipette. My we are such a bright group.

But it did make me consider evolutionary theories a bit. Here we have lesbians with turkey basters making sure they can have a genetically related child. Our genes desire to reproduce themselves is certainly more powerful than I ever believed. And I thought men were the ones going around trying to impregnate any orifice they could find. It seems gay men are the ones on the short end of this deal??.what, with finding the vagina a disgusting physical attribute. Looks like their genes? only hope is to chase after a lesbian with an empty baster or visit a sperm bank and hope they are accepted.

I?m beginning to think now that maybe gay men should be allowed to marry, but lesbian couples?.I don?t think so.
posted by Karen on November 29, 2007

And if, at this moment, I call Mike and idiot and walk away… in John’s world, I get the blame for the failure of the debate, and for the failure of future debates in which Mike’s buddies won’t say shit like that because they know they’ll just be called idiots if they do.
posted by Karen on November 29, 2007

Excuse me, should read:

“And if, at this moment, I call Mike AN idiot…”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on November 29, 2007

We don’t prohibit that, do we?

Ah, but there again, you argued that procreation or what could happen during procreation is grounds for banning marriages.

In that case, the state is perfectly within its rights to consider the fact that it is impossible for you to create a child that biologically belongs to both parents.

Oh Brilliant One, bigamy laws are necessarily excluded in a thought experiment about what would happen if there were no bigamy laws.

But unfortunately, we’re not in a thought experiment; we’re in the real world, where there are bigamy laws that neatly deal with the two-wives problem you just brought up by invalidating the second marriage.

Sex is not marriage.

You argue that your right to marry should be based on your sexual attractions.

Unless it is for a bona fide occupational qualification, the *law* cannot, de jure or de facto, make a disctinction based on gender.

Unfortunately, that interpretation neatly renders laws concerning benefits and protections for pregnancy, domestic abuse, and whatnot unconstitutional, as well as “affirmative action” programs that explicitly give preferential treatment to women and minorities.

Do you think it’s your business who someone else chooses to espouse, in the absence of coercion (actual or statutory)?

If it were none of my business who someone chooses to spouse, I wouldn’t care about coercion either.

But, since I can care about coercion, the precedent is set that I can care about other behaviors and issues that are relevant to society in deciding who can and cannot get married, and still have it be constitutional.
posted by Karen on November 30, 2007

Let’s address this first:

“But unfortunately, we’re not in a thought experiment; we’re in the real world, where there are bigamy laws that neatly deal with the two-wives problem you just brought up by invalidating the second marriage.”

-head explodes-

Let’s go over this again, very slowly.

The point I was making is that changing the law for same-sex marriage is trivial. Changing the law to deal with plural marriage is not.

So I posed a question. Let’s say all of a sudden bigamy is not illegal, and you marry two women. Then you die. Which one inherits?

Pointing to bigamy laws to answer that question is stupid. Yes, we ARE in the middle of a thought experiment. To allow for plural marriage, a lot more has to change than the removal of the “Are the applicants of opposite sex?” step in marriage license approval. Family law is tied right now to the idea that marriage is a two-person, exclusive arrangement – laws and policies about inheritence, benefits, decision-making, and a lot more have been designed with two people in mind for centuries. Because of the legal equivalence of male citizens and female citizens, it is actually tied to the idea of opposite-sex marriage in any practical way.

“Ah, but there again, you argued that procreation or what could happen during procreation is grounds for banning marriages.

In that case, the state is perfectly within its rights to consider the fact that it is impossible for you to create a child that biologically belongs to both parents.”

I did not argue that “procreation or what happened during procreation” was grounds. That is so vague as to be absurd.

I argued that a 30% chance of birth defects (as opposed to the normal rate of ~1%) is a pretty significant argument for child endangerment, where a turkey baster baby is not. Child endangerment is NOT the same thing as “procreation or what happens in procreation.”

Now, whether prohibiting such marriages is an effective way of preventing or discouraging such procreation is arguable – but the distinction does not rely on a suspect class, and is therefore constitutional – even fundamental rights are sometimes restricted, but it cannot be because of suspect classifications.

“You argue that your right to marry should be based on your sexual attractions.”

I do no such thing. I argue that the decision to grant or deny a marriage application cannot be based on the sex of either or both of the applicants.

“Unfortunately, that interpretation neatly renders laws concerning benefits and protections for pregnancy, domestic abuse, and whatnot unconstitutional, as well as “affirmative action” programs that explicitly give preferential treatment to women and minorities.”

If a male becomes pregnant, he’s more than welcome to any pregnancy benefits and protections. Some laws might have “pregnant woman” in the place of “pregnant person”, which would be technically incorrect, and as soon as a pregnant male sues, he’ll win the case.

Domestic abuse laws cover abused males, too. There’s a problem of recognition, taking them seriously, and availability of shelters, but not of lawful protection. As for various “affirmative action” laws, yes, there’s a case to be made that some or all of them are unconstitutional. There’s also a case to be made that requiring educational and employment opportunities to be granted in a way that at least vaguely reflects demographics is a necessary and proper reason to look at a citizen’s suspect classification. Your point is?

“If it were none of my business who someone chooses to spouse, I wouldn’t care about coercion either.

But, since I can care about coercion, the precedent is set that I can care about other behaviors and issues that are relevant to society in deciding who can and cannot get married, and still have it be constitutional.”

Coercion differs from same-sexness in a major way: one denies a citizen freedom, the other doesn’t. You are constitutionally required to care about the one, and constitutionally required not to care about the other.

Duh.
posted by Karen on November 30, 2007

Sorry, should read “it is NOT actually tied to the idea of opposite-sex marriage in any practical way.”
posted by Karen on November 30, 2007

Also, ND30, the verb is “to espouse”, not “to spouse”.

Language is interesting…

You can also espouse a cause, if you’re attached to it – not if you’re the opposite of it in some way.

Two different flavors can marry in a dish, if they meld together to become one flavor. Am I the same “flavor” as my wife, simply because we are both female?

In other words, is marriage about the union of the two sexes, or is it about the union of two individuals? Legally, sex disctinctions do not exist unless there is a compelling government interest that can only be addressed by making such a distinction. Therefore, since restricting marriage to opposite-sex does not promote any such compelling governmental interest in a narrowly tailored and least restrictive manner, the government has no choice but to view marriage as being about the union of two INDIVIDUALS.

You are welcome, and your church is welcome, to disagree. Any truly private facilities are welcome to refuse to serve anyone on any grounds, including this one. But the legal system is not free to disagree just because a bunch of people want it to, any more than my friends and I are free to vote you into jail because we feel like it. That would be a bill of attainder, which is unconstitutional. To take the clause which forbids bills of attainders out of the constitution is possible – as is putting a specific prohibition of same-sex marriages into the constitution. But both actions go against the principles of this country as much as voting a dictator into power would.
posted by Karen on November 30, 2007

I do see what you are trying to do, ND.

You want to make me admit that I want this because it benefits me, whereas I hypocritically deny equally valid arguments because they are inconvenient.

Understandable, but wrong.

I do want this because it benefits me. Your mistake, though, is saying that the arguments for plural and consanguinous marriages are equally valid. I’m allowing myself to get sucked into the details, but let’s look at the big picture:

Citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law. The courts have stated that sex classifications are suspect with regards to equal protection and deserve strict scrutiny. It doesn’t matter if the sexes, as groups, are treated “equally”, because INDIVIDUALS have rights, not groups. If Jane can’t marry Sally, and all else being equal, John could – Jane has just been treated as a member of class “female”, instead of as “Individual Jane”. It doesn’t matter that John can’t marry Steve, because we’re talking about Jane.

It is unconstitutional, period. It’s that simple. Neither plural nor consanguinous marriages come down to an equal protection question, because current valid marriages as well as degree of consanguinity (and age, and consent) are individual traits, not class traits.

Philosophically, I would like there to be flexible family law that allows citizens to create the kinships that make sense for THEIR lives – no matter how bizarre – as long as no one’s rights are being violated.

But such a wonderful, flexible structure is not guaranteed by the constitution. My right to be treated as an individual, and not as a member of class “White”, or class “Female”… that is.

I want what is guaranteed to me, first and foremost. After that, we can start talking about how or if we should change the other stuff.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on December 2, 2007

Unfortunately, Karen, what you miss is that your argument is that you should be allowed to marry based on your sexual attraction to the same sex.

I say fine; then admit that sexual attraction is a valid basis for marriage, and that it is unconstitutional to deny the right to marry anything to which you are sexually attracted.

It doesn’t matter if the sexes, as groups, are treated “equally”, because INDIVIDUALS have rights, not groups.

And every individual may marry someone of the opposite gender, but not of the same gender.

That applies to everyone. End of story.

Furthermore, the basis of the court’s decision in Loving is that distinction on the basis of race makes no sense because there are no outstanding or meaningful differences that exist between members of different races.

Between male and female though, that argument is impossible to make.
posted by Karen on December 3, 2007

“Unfortunately, Karen, what you miss is that your argument is that you should be allowed to marry based on your sexual attraction to the same sex.”

Gortunately, NDT, you are completely and utterly wrong.

Sexual attraction as a “basis for marriage” has nothing to do with it. In fact, I argue that I would have the fundamental right to marry my wife even if I were NOT AT ALL sexually attracted to her.

Who I choose to espouse and why is not the concern of the government, unless it serves a government interest in a constitutional manner. For instance: if sex distinctions are made, it must be a compelling interest, and the distinction must be narrowly tailored and least restrictive. End of story.

“And every individual may marry someone of the opposite gender, but not of the same gender.

That applies to everyone. End of story.”

But every female has the right to marry Steve Smith, and every male doesn’t. Individual rights are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, not on a class basis. That is why they are called INDIVIDUAL.

“Furthermore, the basis of the court’s decision in Loving is that distinction on the basis of race makes no sense because there are no outstanding or meaningful differences that exist between members of different races. Between male and female though, that argument is impossible to make.”

There is no legal basis for this “Outstanding and meaningful difference” test you wish to enact. Who is to say what’s meaningful? Skin color is very meaningful to some people. Disability is CERTAINLY an outstanding and meaningful difference. Religion is a meaningful difference. You’re just making things up because you don’t want to admit that I am right – that sex-based classifications are completely unconstitutional unless they serve some compelling governmental interest in a narrowly tailored and least restrictive manner.

Legally, there are no outstanding or meaningful differences between male citizens and female citizens. Of course there are practical differences, but LEGALLY, none of them matter. My vagina can no longer be used as an excuse to deny me the right to own property or vote. Neither can it be used as an excuse to deny me the right to marry Jane Jones.
posted by Karen on December 3, 2007

Gortunately?

Erm, you know what I mean. Fortunately.

Comments are closed.

IGF CultureWatch

76 Comments for “Engaging Our Opponents”

posted by Randy on November 15, 2007

posted by Samantha on November 16, 2007

posted by Karen on November 16, 2007

posted by North Dallas Thirty on November 16, 2007

posted by Karen on November 16, 2007

posted by Karen on November 16, 2007

posted by Mike Wilson on November 16, 2007

posted by Lori Heine on November 16, 2007

posted by Karen on November 17, 2007

posted by Samantha on November 17, 2007

posted by Samantha on November 17, 2007

posted by Mike Wilson on November 17, 2007

posted by Samantha on November 17, 2007

posted by Karen on November 17, 2007

posted by North Dallas Thirty on November 17, 2007

posted by Mike Wilson on November 17, 2007

posted by Samantha on November 17, 2007

posted by Karen on November 18, 2007

posted by Mike Wilson on November 18, 2007

posted by Karen on November 18, 2007

posted by Samantha on November 18, 2007

posted by Joe on November 19, 2007

posted by Karen on November 19, 2007

posted by Karen on November 19, 2007

posted by LongviewCyclist on November 19, 2007

posted by Samantha on November 19, 2007

posted by Joe on November 20, 2007

posted by Karen on November 20, 2007

posted by North Dallas Thirty on November 20, 2007

posted by Samantha on November 20, 2007

posted by Joe on November 20, 2007

posted by Joe on November 20, 2007

posted by Samantha on November 20, 2007

posted by North Dallas Thirty on November 20, 2007

posted by Mike Wilson on November 20, 2007

posted by North Dallas Thirty on November 20, 2007

posted by Rob (a.k.a Xeno) on November 20, 2007

posted by North Dallas Thirty on November 20, 2007

posted by Rob (a.k.a Xeno) on November 21, 2007

posted by North Dallas Thirty on November 21, 2007

posted by Rob (a.k.a Xeno) on November 21, 2007

posted by Karen on November 21, 2007

posted by Mike Wilson on November 21, 2007

posted by North Dallas Thirty on November 21, 2007

posted by North Dallas Thirty on November 21, 2007

posted by Karen on November 21, 2007

posted by Karen on November 21, 2007

posted by Samantha on November 21, 2007

posted by Mike Wilson on November 22, 2007

posted by Rob (a.k.a Xeno) on November 22, 2007

posted by Samantha on November 22, 2007

posted by Samantha on November 22, 2007

posted by Mike Wilson on November 22, 2007

posted by Samantha on November 24, 2007

posted by Brian Miller on November 25, 2007

posted by Brian Miller on November 25, 2007

posted by North Dallas Thirty on November 26, 2007

posted by Karen on November 27, 2007

posted by Karen on November 27, 2007

posted by Samantha on November 27, 2007

posted by North Dallas Thirty on November 27, 2007

posted by Karen on November 27, 2007

posted by North Dallas Thirty on November 28, 2007

posted by Karen on November 28, 2007

posted by Karen on November 28, 2007

posted by Mike Wilson on November 29, 2007

posted by Karen on November 29, 2007

posted by Karen on November 29, 2007

posted by North Dallas Thirty on November 29, 2007

posted by Karen on November 30, 2007

posted by Karen on November 30, 2007

posted by Karen on November 30, 2007

posted by Karen on November 30, 2007

posted by North Dallas Thirty on December 2, 2007

posted by Karen on December 3, 2007

posted by Karen on December 3, 2007