In one of the most bizarre arguments against state recognition of same-sex marriages, social conservative Melanie Scarborough reaches for her pen and writes:
permitting individuals of the same sex to describe their relationships as marriage gives them a right not extended to heterosexuals, for whom "marriage" is very narrowly defined. Although a man and a woman may legally wed, the law does not consider the marriage valid unless it is consummated .... But unless the relationship includes the one act defining marital union ... the question is moot; homosexual marriage is physically impossible.
Now, the assertion that marriage is and can only be "consummated" and thus made legal by vaginal intercourse, or else it isn't marriage, is circular in the extreme. Scarborough is also implying that marriage is as marriage always was, which is ridiculous. Women are no longer property, and marriages (legal ones, at any rate) are no longer polygamous.
And while I haven't read the marriage laws in all 50 states, I know that two people are considered married, with all the legal rights and obligations, without producing evidence of a broken hymen - and that particularly among the elderly, where many late-in-life marriages are companionate, it's a good thing that no bloody sheet need be produced.
It seems that many social conservatives are clearly losing it, and not in a good way.
More. And let's not fail to take note of conservative columnist (and sometimes Culture Watch reader and commenter) Maggie Gallagher, who predicts:
Polyamorists, Muslims, and breakaway heretical Mormons can expect to find at a minimum new comfort in this sweeping moral support (if not yet legal support) for the dignity of their own favored family relationships, since the right to marry is the right to have one's family relationship officially recognized and accorded equal dignity.
Oh dear, it's that old slippery slope again. But to paraphrase Jon Rauch, gays are not fighting for a right that no Americans now legally have (to multiple marriages, or "to marry everybody"), just a right that most Americans have ("to marry somebody").
Furthermore. Liberal columnist E.J. Dionne writes in the Washington Post:
As it happens, I am one of the millions of Americans whose minds have changed on this issue. Like many of my fellow citizens, I was sympathetic to granting gay couples the rights of married people but balked at applying the word "marriage" to their unions.
"That word and the idea behind it," I wrote 13 years ago, "carry philosophical and theological meanings that are getting increasingly muddled and could become more so if it were applied even more broadly.
Like a lot of people, I decided I was wrong. What moved me were the conservative arguments for gay marriage put forward by the writers Jonathan Rauch, Andrew Sullivan and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
They see society as having a powerful interest in building respect for long-term commitment and fidelity in sexual relationships and that gay marriage underscores how important commitment is. Prohibiting members of one part of our population from making a public and legal commitment to each other does not strengthen marriage; it weakens it.
31 Comments for “Desperate Arguments?”
posted by Charles Wilson on
Here’s the deal: There’s a group of people for whom homosexual "sodomy" (typically only that between males) is just as objectionable as incest, polygamy, kiddie sex, bestiality, and anything else their busy little minds can imagine.
So, they figure that if we loosen the reins on one of them, then we’ll loosen the reins on all of them. There isn’t any evidence to support that, but it doesn’t matter because your average wingnut lives in a world of myth and not fact.
In reality, U.S. society has become less tolerant of some of the others over time, in particular kiddie sex. When I was coming of age in the 1970s, you didn’t have today’s hysteria about kiddie sex. Not that it was welcomed, encouraged, or tolerated, but it wasn’t portrayed the way it’s potrayed now.
Now, before North Liar Forty and his amen chorus start in on me, I do not approve of kiddie sex. Thank God it never interested me. And adults who run after kids are to be scorned, at the very least. And if NAMBLA was in the gay pride parade, it would bother me a lot.
In any case, my point is that acceptance of gay people does not mean acceptance of the whole list of sexual outlawery. Unless, of course, you’re a certain sort of Republican who likes it nasty, mean, and (best of all) hypocritical as hell. Makes the blood run faster, and we all know where that ends.
Editor’s note: We don’t have time to edit comments, but we’ve made the policy against personal insults clear. In future, we’ll start deleting comments that refer to other commenters as "liars" "morons," "jerks or other descriptives along those lines, even if due to time constraints it’s on an ad hoc basis.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Can’t argue with you there Charles.
The ADVERSE effects of polygamy are WELL documented and are almost exclusively the domain of a religious sect of Mormons. Therefore, even with trying to maintain a ban on marriage between gay people is an extension of religious ABUSE.
Females and homosexuals in the most influential religions byt their inherent and narrow restrictions on gender and orienation lines, makes that abuse inevitable.
So it makes more sense to reign in religious infringement on human and civil rights, than the other way around.
The is NO COMPELLING reason to grant any other marriage arrangments that are a clear redundancy and require the abuse and control of individuals.
I was listening to Elissa Wall today. She had been a member of Warren Jeff’s compound and she was married at 13 to a cousin of hers that she loathed. (no choice or freedom there.)
She was a mother by fourteen and had been raped by her husband.
And male romantic rivals are abused as well.
No religion should have so much power to wield on individuals by voter fiat or civil law, it’s too irrational and essentially inconsistent.
There ARE no adverse affects from gay couples marrying.
The only adverse affects are in the wild imaginations of the opposition.
An even worse reason to create a civil law exclusively against gay people.
posted by Charles Wilson on
+The ADVERSE effects of polygamy are WELL documented and are almost exclusively the domain of a religious sect of Mormons.+
In the U.S., that’s the case. Elsewhere in the world, it’s different. I believe Islam allows a man to have up to four wives.
posted by RIchard on
I have not looked at marriage laws in a while, but I think that whether or not the man and a woman have vaginal intercourse really only means much in terms of an annulement vs. divorce.
posted by RIchard on
Also, it is possible that a parent could — in theory – force their child to marry some one against their will.
The minimum age in many states to marry is rather low, often too low in my opinion. I seem to recall a webpage about it.
posted by Tim on
I think you are missing the point of the “old slippery slope” argument. What arguing gay marriage relies on is the idea that any legal definition of marriage that limits a person’s “natural right” is a violation of civil liberties. This argument taken to its ultimate conclusion means that a marriage can only be defined by the individuals involved, and the government is obligated in recognizing those marriages by giving the legal rights and privileges granted to any legal marriage. This means that every conceivable type of relationship involving consenting adults must be allowed.
posted by tavdy on
Maggie Gallagher doesn’t exactly have a good track-record when it comes to thinking before she speaks, and betrayed her attitudes towards gays quite clearly in her response to the CA Supreme Court decision – “The Court brushed aside the entire history and meaning of marriage in our tradition.”
She was talking about a tradition which for centuries has rejected the LGBT community wholesale. That so many of those rejected by that tradition have turned around and consistently shown great respect and ardent desire for one of it’s most important institutions is a remarkable thing.
posted by Charles Wilson on
This argument taken to its ultimate conclusion means that a marriage can only be defined by the individuals involved, and the government is obligated in recognizing those marriages by giving the legal rights and privileges granted to any legal marriage. This means that every conceivable type of relationship involving consenting adults must be allowed.
You’ve bought into the wingnut hatred against gay people. Something I’ve noticed in that crowd (and among the unfortunates in the gay population who go along with them) is that they increasingly don’t talk much about the main topic, gay relationships.
Want to know why? That’s lost its shock value. Even those who hate gay people, including some gay people themselves, know that gay relationships widely exist. So, rather than talk about them, they conjure up other horrors like pedophilia, bestiality, incest, polygamy, and rape.
Recognize what’s all around us, these people say, and the “logical conclusion” is that you must recognize all the rest. It’s as if to say, allow someone to have a beer, and the logical conclusion is that little Johnny will be shooting heroin with society’s blessing.
This sort of sophistry goes under the label, reductio ad absurdum. It’s a fave among the wingnuts on all sorts of subjects, but its popularity doesn’t make it logical. Sorry!
posted by Charles Wilson on
Editor’s note: We don’t have time to edit comments, but we’ve made the policy against personal insults clear. In future, we’ll start deleting comments that refer to other commenters as “liars” “morons,” “jerks or other descriptives along those lines, even if due to time constraints it’s on an ad hoc basis.
Scratch an “independent gay” and you’ll eventually find a censor. I fully expect that you will be implementing this policy in such a way as to protect those who have viciously attacked me, while excluding my content. It’s the “independent gay” way.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Stephen, I undestand you highlighting some pretty bizzare arguments against gay marriage and, in some strange way, they are entertaining in their sheer lunacy… but these aren’t the arguments that I heard from the supporters of Michigan’s DOMA… in the long, 15 month battle we were engaged in here. I would imagine the arguments we heard here on the campaign trail to defeat DOMA will be similar to the ones voiced in CA.
I learned the hard way, from being part of Michigan?s gay GOP speakers? bureau working against the 2004 initiative, that what conservatives were really ticked off about was the pressure from the gay community to validate and sanctify marriage between two SS partners. They noted it was part of the culture wars? and the perception that the gay community was relentlessly on the march to destroy families and schools and churches (and God knows what else) by forcing gay marriage down everyone?s throat? and it could happen -so they said- anytime because all the gays needed to do is find a willing judge to legislate from the bench.
Ghee, I wonder where they got that idea?
Many of those I spoke with on the campaign trail -and the thousand of questions our group of 13 speakers tracked from audience listeners- shows that most folks weren?t adverse to progress on gay civil rights? including equality in tax code treatment, adoption, federal laws, medical treatment decisions, etc? and generally were open to civil unions.
The issue we most often ran into was the sense amongst voters that gay unions would weaken marriage by bringing into that class of relationship individuals perceived as coming from a community that fundamentally fails to value sexual monogamy, family, stability and the better interests of society over the interests of self. It wasn’t a fair assessment, but it was one created in the minds of voters after years of adverse PR on gays.
Some of them (voters) would tell us that if our community didn?t have such a black eye for being narcissistic, having shallow values, a high level of collective anti-social conduct and pure utter flippancy, we?d be further along on gay civil rights and not begging judges around the Nation to reverse ballot initiatives ?which just fuels the opponents even more.
It isn’t a fair assessment -and our group of speakers waged heated discussions in hundreds of small towns and cities across Michigan- but it was one that was at the core of support for DOMA.
What the CA decision will do, if the initiative isn?t RESOUNDINGLY defeated, is give even greater force to those perceptions (and embolden the opponents of gay civil rights in the process) because the MSM is already explaining that gays in CA have everything right now to create one of the Nation?s best civil union partnerships? (so the sneer goes) ?All they want is the word marriage to prove society?s validation of their being gay?.
And that’s what we need to really address to secure progress in beating the initiative… we need to make certain the voters are abused of their notion that this is all about “validation”… or worse, “sanctification of gays”.
It can’t be, or we’ll all lose for a decade or more.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Some of them (voters) would tell us that if our community didn?t have such a black eye for being narcissistic, having shallow values, a high level of collective anti-social conduct and pure utter flippancy, we?d be further along on gay civil rights and not begging judges around the Nation to reverse ballot initiatives ?which just fuels the opponents even more.
And what did they say when you mention their 50% divorce rate? You did point it out, right? Or did you just stand there and hang your head in shame at what the “bad gays” do?
posted by Charles Wilson on
I understand, Matt. Your strategy was to hang your head in shame about the bad gays. How did that work out for you, anyway? And, seeing as how you’re a Log Cabinette in good standing, how about a synopsis of your club’s track record within the Republican Party over the past 30 years?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Charles, thank you for acknowledging that you were wrong and you understand that now.
That is a TERRIFIC step forward for you in our effort to restore civility to the threads… thanks.
But our group didn’t hang their head in shame about the “bad gays” as you put it. We were responding to the image of typical gays that our community’s most vocal and radicalized and headline stealing folks had been able to cultivate in the average voter’s mind and heart.
That’s all.
I’m not going to discuss anything about LCRs in this tread because it has nothing to do with the topic.
posted by Charles Wilson on
As for the divorce rate, there are honest disagreements about it. However, to say that Nichigan has a divorce rate of 6%-8% is not true. An honest discussion of divorce rates in the U.S. can be found here, and another honest discussion can be found here.
One interesting statistic pops out. The divorce rates are highest within the groups most vigorously opposed to homosexuality in general and gay marriage in particular — the evanglicals and the Baptists. They’re at 34% and 29%, respectively.
Massachusetts, currently the only state with gay marriage, Catholics are the largest group, at 44%. Evangelicals are 11%, and Protestants as a whole are 30%. The Catholic divorce rate is 21%.
So, while we can debate whether the overall divorce rate will hit 40% or 50%, we know this: The groups with the highest divorce rates are, except for Jews, the most anti-gay. This is also true regionally; the Bible Belt has the highest divorce rate in the United States.
But Matt doesn’t want to mention that. God forbid!
posted by Charles Wilson on
The simple truth is that I worked very hard to defeat Michigan’s DOMA effort -first in the House, then on the ballot drive, then on the ballot and within my Party. I’m head of a group of 37 statewide groups working behind the scenes to move forward on a litany of gay civil rights bills.
Which group might this be? In an earlier post, you claimed to be the head of a Republican “speakers bureau” in Michigan. There is no record of such a group, so I don’t think your claim can be trusted until it can be verified.
Does the new group that you claim to head work as successfully “behind the scenes” as the Log Cabinettes, which since their founding 30 years ago have stood by as the Republican Party has become steadily more vicious against gay people?
posted by Charles Wilson on
What does “behind the scenes” mean, anyway? Is this “from inside the closet,” like Larry Craig and David Dreier? How have their efforts worked out, anyway?
posted by Craig2 on
Let’s get back to the subject of the slippery slope. When fighting NZ’s Christian Right over our Civil Unions Act, I decided to actually have a look at the Commonwealth and New Zealand laws on marriage and polygamy.
Wouldn’t it be equally possible to do that in the US context, to prove that the Christian Right’s histrionics about the latter are not bourne out by mainstream interpretations of family and marital law in your country?
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Charles Wilson on
Wouldn’t it be equally possible to do that in the US context, to prove that the Christian Right’s histrionics about the latter are not bourne out by mainstream interpretations of family and marital law in your country?
The Christian Right will never be convinced, nor will they bow to reason. But they’re only about 20% of the electorate, so the rest are up for grabs. They can be persuaded, and I think over time they have been on many issues connected to homosexuality.
What I have not yet seen, though, is anyone take them on directly for their false analogies.
The only things that homosexuality has in common with incest, polygamy, pedophilia, etc., are that all of these are sexual behaviors and that the Religious Right hates all of them equally.
This doesn’t mean that they are equivalent for everyone else. In fact, I’d argue that they’re not even equivalent for the Christian Right. If they were, there’d be no need for them to divert attention from homosexuality.
In any case, though, when it comes to Republicans on steroids, “reason” is elusive at best. Fortunately, though, they’re only 30% of the electorate. There’s still 70% who can be reached.
posted by Richard on
Part of the problem is that American media has become much more partisan over the past few decades — i.e. Fox News, right and left-wing talk radio, etc. Yet, partisan media often pretends to be non-partisan.
European media has a long history of being partisan, favoring one party or philosophy, but tends to be rather open about it.
This contributes to many Americans confusing objective, imperical facts with subjective, normative opinions, beliefs and mores.
posted by Charles Wilson on
The U.S. media are in the process of reverting to their state during the 1800s. Pure cacaphony without much of a center. From what I’ve been seeing on Faux News these days, they’re not making much of an effort to cover their tracks. At least we’ve got Olbermann, Stewart, Colbert and the majority of the blogosphere. Air America is gaining, too.
Where the rubber’s really going to hit the road is in about 10 years when newspapers actually start disappearing from major cities. That’s when it gets interesting.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Charles notes: “As for the divorce rate, there are honest disagreements about it. However, to say that Nichigan has a divorce rate of 6%-8% is not true.”
Charles, nothing ?honest? about the disagreement regarding your “divorce rate”. You’re just wrong again and won?t admit it.
Like I said, our speaker?s bureau knew we?d run into that argument out on the campaign trail in ?04 and it would be raised by the gayLeft, just like you did here.
The Michigan divorce rate we were working with was provided by experts in state govt here in Michigan. I told you the rate was projected to be 6% in 2004 and ten years earlier in 94, it had been 8%. The trend was downward.
http://www.mdch.state.mi.us/pha/osr/marriage/g305.asp
The numbers you’d like to use are deliberately misleading for the reasons I’ve already outlined for you but you’ve again elected to ignore facts. I can’t help with your problem on that score. You have to put down the blinders voluntarily to learn. Luckily, in all of those community forums, media opportunities, debate events and briefings with editorial boards, we never ran into guys like you? not that you?d have made it tough, just that you?d have made it counterproductive to learn.
As it turned out, the annualized and finalized number for Michigan 2004 came in slightly higher (by .9%) than the experts had been projecting and the numbers that we relied upon back then. Those numbers were released in Mar 2005, long after our group’s work was complete.
You’ll find those stats here
http://www.mdch.state.mi.us/pha/osr/Marriage/DivorceTrendRates.asp
Repeating for you, we thought it better to talk about rates like “first time marriages” than divorce rates and remarriages and what constitutes a statistical pathway. Those are important differences that you might prefer to simply call “honest disagreements about divorce rates”. Unfortunately, we saw time and again that very argument just played into the hands of the proponents of DOMA-MI. And when we used the argument you express, or some variation (it?s really not that creative an insight, you know) then the nodding of heads by reasonable people in the room would begin to our disadvantage when the proponents would predictably argue ?if the rate is that bad, it means we should be working harder to save marriage, not let it be used by those who think a relationship is three dates in a row; two to hop in the sack and move in?… not exactly “cool” for our side.
Part of learning to win public policy discussions with reasonable people begins by trying to convince them you aren?t a threat ?that you, too, can be reasonable, understanding and compassionate. And civil (wink). It doesn?t mean you need to be the doormat? but it does mean you HAVE to treat voters as if you respect their opinions and values and want their vote. Something I think you have yet to master, eh?
But before I go, thank you for working on being more civil since the IGF Editors told you to cool it. I appreciate it. I hope you’ll keep mindful that not every blog excursion for you has to end in banning, barring, blocking and blacklisting. What is the line? “We take our biggest steps as baby steps, in increments”. You’ve taken a few baby steps this day. Thanks.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
CW, you asked “What does “behind the scenes” mean, anyway?”
It means, behind the scenes.
It’s an allusion to the theatre, Charles my boy. It refers to the hard work of riggers, set designers, property masters, etc… all the stageworkers who work “behind the stage scenery” to make the production a go.
I meant it not in the coarse way you’d might like to presume… I meant that I wasn’t serving in an official capacity in the Party, I wasn’t a county or state official (although I was on candidate campaign committees and worked as a Bush Finance Committee co-chair in 2004… 2004, you might recall, was the year we cleaned FlipFlop’s & SlickyPony’s clock.
Anyway, behind the scenes.
I’m sure it must be familar to you for someone with so much drama in his life? Surely? (j/K)
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard offers “Part of the problem is that American media has become much more partisan over the past few decades — i.e. Fox News, right and left-wing talk radio, etc. Yet, partisan media often pretends to be non-partisan.”
Not at all, Richard. The prevailing argument supported in most nat’l journalism schools today -as it is at the US’s best J-school: the Univ of Michigan’s J-School- is that the modern era MSM has always had a decidedly liberal bias… and some would say a decidely Left bias.
Today, sub-performing cable-cum-network outlets like MSNBC or CNN have gone way past just a liberal bias… they’re outright hostile to America’s interests and feed sheeplike viewers a steady diet of diseased “food” in the form of AndieCooper’s evening of angst, LarryKing’s creampuff interview of the Left’s favorite talking heads, and that whole cabal of anti-American, anti-troop, anti-values pundits over at MSNBC try to out-do JonStewart in the war over who claims the gutter first.
It ahs always been so, it’s just that the liberally biased MSM got away with it all… like Cronkite telling the Nation the war in VietNam was too much… or crying when JFK was murdered and the entire Camelot fantasy he entertained would be crashing down after one last performance by the Kennedy family before the camera.
Nawh, going back to the beginning of this country when TommieJefferson hired journalist goons to stalk GeoWashington and scrap up mud on the great man, or steal papers of the Adams’ family in order to reveal their “pro-Brit” sentiments… the press has always been partisan and cut-throat.
Charles, don’t you claim somewhere that you were a “journalist”? I mean, there you have it. Case proven, no?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Finally, Charles writes “At least we’ve got Olbermann, Stewart, Colbert and the majority of the blogosphere. Air America is gaining, too.”
LOL! “You got” a former sports reader who can’t name the last five presidents… two comedians and a place where spite, rumor and no journalistic skills are rewarded by the vacant minds who troll the blogosphere looking for that tiny morsel they can claim is a “scoop”… proving that even the language of the blogosphere is newspaper-centric while all decry it’s the brave new world.
And Air America is gaining?
Did they pay back the money they stole from the Girl Scouts? Is that legendary newsman Al Franken coming back? I think his show used to be called “The O’Franken Factor”… they couldn’t even be original over there… like Coulbert.
Are they still in Chapter 11 bankruptcy? Is RancidRhodes back? I heard she took nearly the entire audience when she left… and the lightbulbs, the toilet paper, the pencils, the coffee pot.
Oh yeah, Air America is gaining alright. Like Obama will win Oregon by 18 points… lol!
posted by Tim on
CW, I believe you miss the point of my comments. This is an issue of legislative verses court action. Legislation can be narrowly defined, but court action requires making arguments that cannot be limited to just the gay community.
Point in fact, the California Supreme Court used precedence created by a previous court action that was specifically regarding interracial marriage. Those against same-sex marriage say that interracial marriage and gay marriage are two different animals, but it was the arguments of that previous case that set the stage for this win. The whole basis of the gay marriage argument is that government has no right making a moral judgment in these matters by limiting people’s personal behavior. If that is the case, then any consenting adult relationship must be allowed.
You should also note that I said consenting adult relationships, so injecting pedophilia, bestiality, and rape into the argument is off topic. In addition, polygamy and adult incest may have cultural taboos, but do not necessarily equate to abuse. If there is no abuse, then the only objection is based on some sense of moral indignation. This moral indignation is what at one time had interracial marriage illegal, now has people against same-sex marriage, and causes discrimination against various alternative lifestyles.
posted by Richard on
I wonder how much it really matters whether or not the opposition to gay rights is based on rational, coherant arguments.
Some people do not really seem to care if what they believe — politically — is rational, sound, effective or even based on a coherant set of arguments.
I am not saying that its wrong to point out bad argumements, I am just doubtful that they have much impact.
posted by RIchard on
It sort of reminds of American drug policy. A lot of it makes no sense and does not even seem to work, but remains highly popular with voters.
Or take the Iraq War. It was initially very popular, even through it was based on pretty flismly intelligent and no real understanding of what regime change in Iraq would entail.
Or take the many quirks in our election law. We vote on Tuesday, because that makes sense to 18th century dead, farmers.
posted by Craig2 on
On a much happier note, NZ is celebrating our third year of civil unions, recognised since May 2005. No-one’s talking repeal, and even our current centre-right Leader of the Opposition opposes a same-sex marriage proper ban…which is the province of our fundamentalist microparties* on the fringe, anyway.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
*NZ has a Christian Right, but it’s dying. Our fundamentalists don’t have their own ‘universities’ or television networks, and we have fairly robust broadcast content regulation.
posted by Patrick on
Craig, your country is way ahead of most free-thinking, free-world countries and you’re lucky to be living there. Of course, it also helps to have men like th All Blacks and Kiwis to look up to.
posted by Priya Lynn on
“Editor’s note: We don’t have time to edit comments, but we’ve made the policy against personal insults clear. In future, we’ll start deleting comments that refer to other commenters as “liars” “morons,” “jerks or other descriptives along those lines, even if due to time constraints it’s on an ad hoc basis.”
What about those situations where a commenter does lie about what someone else has said or done? Am I free to point out that what they’ve done is in fact a lie? Will you be deleting those comments where its demonstrated to you the commenter has lied?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
PriyaLynn, I don’t know what crawled down your craw but I’ve found the editors here to be fair, prudent and balanced in the application of the policy you note above.
Maybe it would help you to stay on-topic, refrain from outrageous personal attacks that were once rampant here due to the ministrations of 2-3 commenters and focus on the the more important goal of an honest, open, direct exposition of the issues.
No way, you say?
Hey, I can at least hope –aren’t “hope and change, change and hope” the new coins of the realm?