Well, I’m still in
But it is fitting, being in
The national media have picked up the story that a
While here, serendipitously, I learned a few things about gay life that I wasn’t consciously aware of because I hadn’t thought about them. A friend and colleague who is openly gay and also an expert on the demographics of the
These are things I hadn’t thought about, but it just makes my feelings about gay marriage more clear. To oppose gay marriage is to be anti-family, homophobic, and frankly just plain mean and cruel. These are people who ARE families, ARE couples. And no one “chooses” to be gay; you discover you are gay—often at great pain and anguish (or don’t you remember beating up the kid in junior high you thought was a “homo.” Which he wasn’t, not then, but very well might be now.) To the religious nuts who say being gay is a sin because it says so in the bible, I pose two questions: (1) If being gay is a sin, why does God make so many gay people? (2) Do you own slaves? Because the bible is pretty clear about slavery being acceptable, and I’ve decided that I don’t want to hear from anyone about the bible as a guide to what should and shouldn’t be legal unless they own slaves.
(By the way, I respect everyone’s religious beliefs and their rights to them, but I feel very strongly that religion should be a private matter, not a public one. Your religion is between you and your God; not between you, ME, and your God.)
Finally, of course, there’s the Jim McGreevy thing. Guy is governor of New Jersey, has a gay affair, gets threatened by the lover with a sexual harassment, and so he resigns, admitting the whole thing, his wife (!) standing by his side.
Should he resign? Sadly, we know he has to. But what struck me is that he proclaimed, I think with pride, that he was “a gay American.” Bravo, Jim. He didn’t apologize for being with a man; he apologized for cheating on his wife. I wonder if that subtlety will be lost in the sound byte culture we live in; people will think in 6 months (if they remember this at all) that he resigned because he was outed. But I think his stand was heroic (cheating on the wife, of course, less so.) I don’t know if he was a good governor—because let’s face it, this is
Labels: The politics
There's so much to comment on, I'm not sure where to begin.
"a California court"? Well, no, not just "a" California court...it was the California supreme court.
Since when is marriage a civil right? Is it a civil right to run for President? If so, you better plan a march on Washington because the Constitiion says only people over 35 can be President. Society imposes all sort of limits on all sorts of things all the time. These are called laws, customs, traditions...and they are based on generations of trial and error.
In the history of civilized (and not so civilized) societies around the world, marriage has been recognized as a union between a man and a woman. There are many reasons for this. But ignore them for now. Modern society is the product of what has come before us. We didn't just appear wholly formed in 1960. This is one of the defining differences between the right and the left (and, as someone who identifies with both conservatives and libertarians, it is the place I am most conflicted - but at least I understand and respect both sides of the argument).
There are many reasons to oppose gay marriage - not all of which are homophobic or mean. John Kerry opposes gay marriage...what does that make him?
McGreevey should resign immediately because he gave a sensitive homeland security job (paying $110k) to his completely unqualified lover. The sexuality of any of the participants is irrelevant.
Changes in society - both good and bad - take time. You want to talk slavery and civil rights? Not to mention the fact that almost every society in the history of the world has enslaved other people, but only one fought a civil war over it.
We don't change state or federal laws by allowing judges to decide what they think is right, or by allowing mayors to break the law. There are rules and procedures and they are in place for a reason. You think there should be gay marriage? Fine...then fight the fight and make it happen democratically in the legislatures the way the Constitution provides. If enough people agree with you, then the law will change. It's a democratic federal republic at its best.
Oh boy. Is it me or is this nuts?
1. Who cares which California court? Was there any quarreling with the decision? Quite the contrary. The San Francisco mayor said he knew all along the courts would not uphold the marriages. That was presumably a foregone conclusion given existing law. Which court is really irrelevant to this discussion. My understanding is that it was a matter of when, not if, from day one.
2. Since when is gay marriage a civil right? How about, since always? Marriage IS a civil right; seems to me anything you can get done via civil ceremony is a civil right, and you can get married by civil ceremony. The question is whether to prohibit a sub-group of Americans from that civil right. And comapring it to an age requirement to run for president is just plain silly; EVERYone that doesn't die first gets to be 35 and eligible for president, 21 and eligible to drink, 25 and eligible for congress, 16 or 17 and eligible to drive, etc. (The only age requirement issue I ever remember was letting 18-year-olds get drafted but not vote, which was a fair enough argument that the country lowered the voting age to 18. And now we don't even have the draft.) None of these are discriminatory practices. Age requirements are so obviously not the same thing as discriminatory practices, I can't believe I've already wasted this many words on it. We once thought it was fine for women not to own property, not to vote, not to serve in the armed forces. All gone, because we know better. Thus will it be with gay marriage (a CIVIL RIGHTS area in which we are already behind the curve.)
3. "You want to talk slavery and civil rights? Not to mention the fact that almost every society in the history of the world has enslaved other people, but only one fought a civil war over it." Well, no, I don't. Obviously, the point was that there is no good reason to restrict gay marraiges and the only cases you hear are bible-based. I'm talking about the bible, not slavery. The point being, make a case that does not start with "the bible says..." Because who cares what the bible says? If we used that as justification, as I thought I made abundantly clear, we'd still have slaves. Are you under the impression I was coming out in favor of slavery? Or wasn't it clear that I was simply discrediting "Because the bible says so" as a good reason for banning gay marriage.
Unless your point is, hey, we can change the ways of the past based on contemporary sensibilities, we don't have to live like middle easterners from 1500 BC. In which case I am confused, because I thought that was MY point.
4. "In the history of civilized (and not so civilized) societies around the world, marriage has been recognized as a union between a man and a woman. There are many reasons for this." Oddly, I'm still waiting to hear a good one. We could just as easily say "In the history of civilized (and not so civilized) societies around the world, citizenship has been recognized as being limited to land-owning males. There are many reasons for this." But that doesn't make it right or just or moral, and we've managed to get past it.
5. What does it make Kerry that he's opposed to gay marriage? Well, it makes him wrong, and it makes him afraid to stand up to the hate-mongering of the White House ("Hate Gays? Vote Bush.") He should have the spine to, at minimum, say that he doesn't understand what makes this a presidential issue. But unfortunately he's so scared of being tarred with the Massachusetts liberal label, and that state did legalize gay marriage, so he feels he has to distance himself from it. Wrong move. Of course, it isn't like he's at risk of losing the gay vote to Bush, so maybe it isn't so wrong politically after all. But i'd have more respect for him if he played a whole lot less "mee too."
6. "McGreevey should resign immediately because he gave a sensitive homeland security job (paying $110k) to his completely unqualified lover." If this were true, sure. But I don't think we know the guy's qualifications; that's basically the verbaim right wing media spin. Let's investigate the guy's qualifications first. Although at this point it doesn't much matter because McGreevey did resign. But if the gay announcement was a smoke screen for putting his state at risk, then certainly that's a whole dofferent transgression.
7. "You think there should be gay marriage? Fine...then fight the fight and make it happen democratically in the legislatures the way the Constitution provides. If enough people agree with you, then the law will change. It's a democratic federal republic at its best." Again, that's sort of the point; hence the comparison to slavery (did a court outlaw slavery, or is there an ammendment somewhere in that constitution thingy?) No one is criticizing the California SUPREME court. But at the same time, Republicans led by Bush were trying to add a constitutional ammendment making gay marraige illegal, and it was shot down. So the constitution remains mute on the subject in either direction. Making one wonder if such a process is even necessary to recognize gay marriage (in other words, if an ammendment was deemed necessary to ban it, does that mean an ammemdment is necessary to recognize it? Or does it imply that in the absence of such an ammendment there are currently no federal barriers to gay marriage?)
Barring gay marriage remains mean-spirited and homophobic. I still haven'theard a single reason-- compelling or otherwise-- for barring gay marriage. It remains hurtful to good people, and it remains anti-family. I'm having a hard time understanding the libertarian anti-gay marriage position. And in 30 years, mark my words, after gay marriage is unambiguously legal and widespread, we will look back at those opposed to gay marriage (including, if that's how it goes down, John Kerry) as we currently look at those who didn't want to let them negroes vote.
I don't want to get into a whole back and forth on this (I know, too late...) but just on one point...
There are laws in (I think) every state that specifically define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. You may not like them. You may consider them homophobic and hateful. And yet, there they are. These are laws that were passed by representative legislative bodies and in some cases (hello California) by state-wide ballot initiatives. You can agree or disagree with them, whichever. The point is, to change them, there is a process. That process involves the same representative legislature. It does not involve activist judges or well-meaning mayors.
As for libertarians...they (sometimes me) believe that marriage is a private contract between 2 people that shouldn't involve the state at all. My tendency is to lean that way...but I respect the fact that society (and all 50 states, supported by a majority of the hateful people living in those states) have decided that for now...until enough people agree with you and change the law...marriage is defined the way it is.
And one more thing...one reason why societies have defined marriage between a man and a woman over time is because, generally speaking, clearly not in every case, and clearly there's plenty of ammunition on the other side, but generally speaking, the best "family" in which to raise kids is a family with a mom and a dad. Feel free to point out all the fucked up kids from 2 parent homes and world leaders from broken homes...fine...notwithstanding all that, that's just one reason.
You're making the classic liberal mistake of reacting emotionally to arguments with which you disagree. There's nothing wrong with being passionate about this stuff, but calling people hatemongers and ignoring honest, well-meaning people with sincere motives doesn't do anyone any good.
See, I don't understand how anything I wrote is is any way paradoxical or anathema with the process you describe. Indeed it is a question of going through available democratic channels-- just like everything I've compared the issue to. You seem to have this image of me jumping up and down because the mean old court took away my gay marriage. Not accurate at all.
Your last paragraph makes your real objection clear. You believe you see "the classic liberal mistake of reacting emotionally to arguments with which you disagree." Sorry, don't think so. (And by the way, if you don't want passionate writing you're reading the wrong blog.) This is my third post on the topic. The basic case goes like this:
1. There is no good reason to deny gays the right to marriage.
2. No one offers a good reason, even when they disagree; they generally cite "Sanctity of marriage" or "because the bible says so." I have successfully dealt with both these pretend arguments in the course of the 3 posts. (Successfully and humorously.)
3. People are born Gay (God makes them that way), they don't decide one day to flaunt the system and thumb their noses at right-thinking America. It isn't like one day you wake up, and you're feeling like a mischievous little scamp, so you go blow a sailor. (Hell, there are right wing conservative Gays. Usually closeted.) Once you accept this-- and abandon the popular evangelical right position that homosexuality is a disease that can and should be cured-- it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that denying these people the civil right of marriage is anti-family.
Simply put: there WILL be gays. How is it not mean and discriminatory to deny them from a "seat at the table," the right to form families? Especially if you happen to be "pro-family," and most of the objections to gay marriage comes from the "pro-family" place on the right where politics and Big Christianity meet.
Here the only answer gets to things like, its unnatural, its a sin, its a perversion, etc. If you don't go there at this point in the argument, than you are probably going to end up in favor of (or at least not opposed to) gay marriage.
Hell, given the above I bet even YOU aren't opposed to gay marriage. So you're making a hell of a stink about an issue you don't even disagree with, simply because apparently you don't like how the case is made.
You wrote the following: "To oppose gay marriage is to be anti-family, homophobic, and frankly just plain mean and cruel."
I wrote the following: "...society (and all 50 states, supported by a majority of the hateful people living in those states) have decided that for now...until enough people agree with you and change the law...marriage is defined the way it is."
Please reconcile.
Reconciliation is unnecessary. You are anthropomorphizing society and states. States don't have views, they have laws. Laws often exist simply through inertia. Is it bigotry to not allow blacks to vote? Was it not bigotry before blacks were allowed to vote, and only bigotry in hindsight?
The reason these laws WILL change is because they are hateful and homophobic. I'm still waiting for an alternative justification for disallowing gay marriage that dispels that notion. Once the laws about gay marriage are modified-- and its when, not if-- then "society" will be as unambiguous about anti-gay rights laws having been hateful and homophobic as we are now about slavery and not allowing blacks to vote being bigoted. Except, of course, for your occasional religious nuts.
By the way, that's 49 states, not 50.
The Massachusetts supreme Judicial Court voted 4-3 on February 4 that government attorneys "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny marriage to gay couples.
By the way, that's 49 states, not 50.
The Massachusetts supreme Judicial Court voted 4-3 on February 4 that government attorneys "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny marriage to gay couples.
Hence Dubya's election year hate-mongering zeal to get a constitutional ammendment in place.
Well, no, it wasn't bigotry that didn't allow blacks to vote. Only in hindsight do we see it as bigotry. At the time it reflected the common view among most people in society. I'm sure some of them at the time saw it as "bigoted" or unfair, but most people didn't. Is it bigoted not to allow polygamy?
Similarly, are you saying that right now most people in this country are hateful, bigoted, and homophobic? Because most people in this country are against gay marriage.
"Only in hindsight do we see it as bigotry." Thank you. Exactly.
You didn't answer my questions, but instead avoided them by snarkily taking a point out of context. Good strategy.
Don't confuse getting an answer you don't like with not getting an answer.
On the subject of non-responsiveness, I'm STILL waiting to hear the non-homophobic case against gay marriage.
Do I believe all people against gay marriage are hateful or homophobic? 2-part answer.
1. Most people are not, in fact, against gay marriage. Most people don't care one way or the other and would never even think about the topic unless someone asks them directly, like say in a public opinion survey. Don't confuse forcing a sample of respondents to pick among a fixed set of responses in a survey, though, with takng an accurate read on peoples' perceptions. Fact: most Americans don't care about this issue one way or another.
2. To be honest, I'd have to add fear and ignorance to meanness, hatred and homophobia to account for all the opposition to gay marriage. So fear, ignorance, hatred, and homophobia account for the sentiment against gay marriage that exists in a minority of Americans. Of course there are a few people who are opposed because they believe their health care premiums would go up, but I think I'd call that mean and homophobic.
But my previous answer really does nail it.
Is it bigoted not to allow polygamy?
And it's just not true that most people aren't against gay marriage. 61% of Californians are against it. Are they bigoted?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/03/07/politics/main169222.shtml
1. I have not formulated a policy on bigamy.
2. I didn't know you KNEW 61% of Californians.
3. STILL no case for banning gay marriage, just a lot of attacks. But then, for conservatives that appears to be par for the course these days.
4. Will you give it a fucking rest already?
I'll give it a rest. But just acknowledge that you're the one attacking, not me. I haven't said one thing that could in any way be construed as an attack.
I'm just trying to get you to realize that it's not as simple an issue as you would like it to be.
Post a Comment
<< Home