How many heterosexual married men are starved for affection, let alone sex?

As you might suspect, I'm not a big fan of man-hating feminism. I pretty much hate all happy people.

This has probably been addressed elsewhere, but I'll bring it up again, just as a reminder. At least for the Christian faith, marriage is *decidedly different* from a legal contract. It is:
1. A union of two people in which the two "become" one united new creation.
2. A picture of the union of Jesus Christ and his church.
3. A place in which human sexuality is expressed within the bounds of a lifelong commitment.

While the state may "bless" such a marriage covenant, the marriage itself is not dependent on state support. It is ordained and recognized by God. This recalls the statement in the declaration of independence: "man is endowed by his creator with certain inalienable rights..."

While the Christian "marriage" is not an inalienable right, it is not dependent on the state for recognition.

The Christian concept of marriage carries a number of responsibilities of the parties to the marriage.
1. They are to be mutually submissive to the needs and desires of the other party.
2. They are to remain faithful to one another for a lifetime.
3. They are to endeavor to practice their faith in the context of their family.

I should note that *none* of these responsibilities or underlying concepts of marriage are *necessary* in a state-recognized "marriage."

I assume that there will come a time when the Christian concept of marriage is divorced from the state concept, which would probably be a good thing for Christians and the state.

I agree. The problem is that different uses of "marriage" in society, many of which explicitly point to the state concept, implicitly point to various combinations of the facets of the Christian concept.

When you change the state rulebook, everyone that's relied on it has to change THEIR rulebooks as well. This has the dual function of ticking off the people who have to change the rulebooks, and ticking off the people who (reasonably or unreasonably) freak out when rulebooks are changed.

SFT

You know, what's truly unique about the way we view marriage in our culture and at this time is that we marry for love, which is sort of a novel idea, geo-historico-culturally speaking.

Considering the fact that *now* -- not ancient Roman times -- modern society, especially American modern society, ties more than just a contractual gesture to marriages... for example, benefits, tax breaks, the ability to visit your mate in the hospital and many other things hetero couples take for granted... no slack will be granted.

Comparing this request to the past and how it was handled at that time is pretty much moot. Yes, if we *were* right now living during that period, maybe the request would be unusual... but now, no. I honestly don't think it is.

Dean -- I understand that many times you're just playing Devil's Advocate. But we've also got to understand that this issue is frightening to many and abhorant to some. It does need to be taken seriously and not made to look as a silly idea.

Asking us to cut anyone slack on the "Whole Gay Marriage Thing", as you've put it, is acting as if we're being absurd and silly for expecting to have the same rights, benefits and pursuit of happiness as any other American. Notice I said "American" -- I did not speak of sexual preference... that shouldn't matter.

Now, we've got President Bush on television saying he'll support a Constitutional Ammendment banning gay marriages. *That's* absurd. His whole premise is based purely on his religious beliefs. In this day and age, marriage isn't an institution or contract that's solely based on religion. You can be married by a judge, a ship's captain or in your church. Any and all are legal marriages. But religion isn't the only driving force and should not be allowed to dictate Constitutional Ammendments.

See http://www.techfluid.org/blog/archives/000670.php#000670 for more of my views.

People who aren't comfortable with the idea of same sex marriage can take all the time they want to think about it. But don't expect the people who feel their civil rights are being violated to wait with you. Should women have waited patiently for men to 'get comfortable' with the idea of them voting? Should blacks have waited for whites to 'get comfortable' with the idea of drinking from the same fountain?

For people who consider the prohibition against same-sex marriage to be a civil rights issue, there is a moral imperative to correct the problem. ANY civil rights issue carries with it a moral imperative to change the status quo. Those of you who disagree that its a civil rights issue don't have to march in the streets or even call your legislator to demand a change. But to suggest that people who DO consider it to be such an issue should sit quietly, talk sweetly and hope you come around eventually is just short of insulting.

I'm with Michael Kinsley:

End the government monopoloy! Privatize Marriage.

I do agree strongly with Dean. Not only is it an historically unprecedented idea that two individuals of the same sex should form a partnership that has the same legal and social status as marriage (whatever you care to call it), but also that there are large numbers of people who are in a position to do so, and indeed have already performed all the necessary pre-requisities to doing so. This all rests on an equally historically unprecedented state of affairs, that gay people in the US and Western Europe now to a very large extent understand their homosexuality as something that is a morally neutral and personally positive human variation (not a sin, crime, sickness, weakness, perversion, disgrace or whatever); and, in view of this, increasing numbers of them affirm their homosexuality and live openly as homosexuals. This has come about as a result of demographic, social, political, cultural and ideological changes that are irreversible. We are in uncharted waters, and new socio-legal arrangements are in order. Which is a reason, in and of itself, not to look to or force ancient religious institutions to initiate reformation to order; it is, however, reason in and of itself to look to and expect the civil order to be progressively reshaped to reflect those changes, and make possible non-conflictual personal and contractual general relations between its members.

"modern society, especially American modern society, ties more than just a contractual gesture to marriages... for example, benefits, tax breaks, the ability to visit your mate in the hospital and many other things hetero couples take for granted"

Sorry. All the things you listed are basically things that are contractual gestures, legal things that the state gives in recognition of marriage. And actually, IIRC, there is a penalty attached to being married from a tax standpoint. CPA help me out here.

There is a tax benefit to having children, like that helps offset the bills having a child brings. :-)

Not recognizing that it would be setting a new precedent would be counterproductive, as Western law is essentially precedent-driven. A new thing can be good, but you use different arguments than if you are citing precedent.

What I dont get is why cant heteros keep SOMETHING...please??? Can we just keep the word 'marriage'???

I understand and have a great deal of compassion for the fact that homosexuals who are in longterm committments might want to make it official...indeed, that they want to clear the legal hassles of buying a home or inheritance...but from a hetero standpoint, I often wonder if they have any clue what marriage means for a hetero couple? Do they? Do they have any respect for our perspective at all? That it is a bridge between man and a woman that no other entity can encroach upon? Not even the state? And playing by the same setup and gaining the same "priveleges" does not make them married?

Bob Barr had some excellent things to say about the damage a lot of HETERO couples are doing to the state of marriage, and my criticisms toward them are no less severe. But even to a couple who by all other purposes and intents have done everything to be "married" EXCEPT become sanctified by society and state, "playing house" does not make them married. It is hard work and it has meaning.

What I am trying to get out is that with all the creativity that lawyers exhibit in their interpretation of Law and State and Society, can't the Homosexuals just think up another Word and Meaning?

Let the Heteros keep 'Marriage'...please????

Chari : forgive the correction...but I don't remember Bush saying he would approve the Constitutional Amendment. I remember his statements as taking a diplomatic middle of the road stance (and I cant quote him directly)...that he was uncertain that an Amendment was necessary at this time.

It is parallel to his position on the matter of abortion : let the hearts of the American people decide the matter.

I object to teh ruling of the SC less on its stance in favor of privacy for homosexuals than I do over the SC's ridiculous and over-reaching grab for power from the states. The Constitution spells out where the powers lay and nowhere does it say that the SC decides for the states where that power shall lay.

The way I see it, that before this ruling, an Amendment would have been out of the question...but now, it has to be seriously considered, if only for the fact that it is the people's only way of re-asserting its representative power over a branch of the Government.

Do I think a Constitutional Amendment is necessary to "protect" heterosexual marriages? No. I would prefer it to be worded along the lines of "HEY YOU ACTIVIST SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, GET YOUR FUCKING BUTTS OUT OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS, AND STICK TO INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION AS IT WAS INTENDED BY THE FOUNDERS.

THAT's what I would want the Amendment to tell the Supreme Court.

Just my humble opinion.

Yes, I believe Chari is mistaken. I heard Bush speaking on this issue recently and he avoided endorsing the idea of a Constitutional Amendment on the matter. But yes, he is opposed to gay marriage--like most Americans still are, if you look at the surveys.

So now: is it better to try to persuade people like Bush and others, or is it better to be angry with them? Which do you think will get you what you want quicker?

As someone who has had doubts and concerns in this area, I am tired of being treated like a moral leper for having concerns. Okay? It's just that simple. And that's what I mean about cutting people some slack.

Should women have waited patiently for men to 'get comfortable' with the idea of them voting?

Certainly not. But let us acknowledge this: women did have to persuade men to pass the 19th amendment. Do you think they did that by berating them as a bunch of hateful neanderthals?

Men gave women the right to vote. Women didn't take it by force. Please keep that in mind: men had to be persuaded. By and large, they were.

Should blacks have waited for whites to 'get comfortable' with the idea of drinking from the same fountain?

If thoughtful and decent persons such as Martin Luther King hadn't focused on the basic injustice, while preaching tolerance and brotherly love, do you think they would have persuaded as many people as they did?

Do I really deserve to be treated as an abomination for simply having concerns? I'd like to know, I really would.

Sharon said: What I am trying to get out is that with all the creativity that lawyers exhibit in their interpretation of Law and State and Society, can't the Homosexuals just think up another Word and Meaning? ... Let the Heteros keep 'Marriage'...please????

Sharon, you can have your "marriage." If you want to go into a church and get "married," knock yourself out. I have no desire to go to church and get "married." I'd still feel that way if I were straight.

The current legal language uses "marriage" to describe the contract a man and woman enter into, so that's the terminology we're using. If we want to do away with using the word "marriage" to describe the legal contract altogether, that's perfectly fine. As long as we're all clear that every pair of people is entitled to a "civil union" (or whatever the word may be) for legal purposes, and if you want to take it a step further and get "married" in a spiritual sense, you're on your own and free to do so and that has nothing to do with your legal status as partners.

And "the Heteros" are more than welcome to suggest terminology, too.

Dean said: Do I really deserve to be treated as an abomination for simply having concerns?

No, of course not. But not all those who have concerns are able to express them in a reasonable and calm fashion. And I will acknowledge that not all gay people are able to explain their position in a reasonable and calm fashion.

Maybe we're a little spoiled by the success of the women's suffrage and civil rights movements. I'm not old enough to know what it was like during the civil rights movement, to truly experience and appreciate the struggle. I just see the benefit. So I guess now I'm learning what that's about.

Aw, fair enough Erica.

Look, I'm truly with you almost all the way. I really am. This crap where two gay people live together for 40 years, then one gets sick and can't visit the other one in the hospital.... or where one dies and the other loses his home... I mean, come on man, that's just not right.

No let me say it real clear: THAT'S JUST NOT RIGHT.

No really it isn't. Even if you're a Christian or Muslim or Jew or whatever who says homosexuality is "sinful," that's one thing. You think what you think, and we all have a right to our opinions on religion or whatnot.

But beating people up for who they sleep with? Or screwing someone out of her home, out of visiting her lover who's in the hospital? Come on man, that is just not acceptable. That is not acceptable at all.

Fine, whatever, this guy thinks, "Ewww those yucky lesbians, I don't want anything to do with that." Whatever. It's you and it's your problem. But it is not right to mess with other people's lives because you think something is "icky."

I'm so down with the cause on this. I really am. I just wish some folks would calm down a little and say, "Okay, look, we get it, what we're asking for here is a little strange if you look at the history. But we're just looking for fairness on this whole thing."

Is that so tough?

"HEY YOU ACTIVIST SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, GET YOUR FUCKING BUTTS OUT OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS, AND STICK TO INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION AS IT WAS INTENDED BY THE FOUNDERS.

Sharon, you do not have a contitutional freedom to deny someone their civil rights. Hell, even the French know that.

"Bob Barr had some excellent things to say about the damage a lot of HETERO couples are doing to the state of marriage.."

Two things on that. Bob Barr has NEVER (NEVER!) had anything excellent to say about ANYTHING! His most intelligent outburst are his farts. And secondly, did he include himself as an example of the damage he's done?

Thankfully our nation had some "activist" Supreme Court Justices when most southern states were denying minorities their civil rights. Thankfully the Federal Government was willing and able to intervene when little black children wanted to go to school. Now, of course the Alabama police and fire departments were very effective with their fire hoses and dogs. States rights don't mean squat when we are dealing with issues such as consenting adults and otherwise legal activities. Without certain so-called "activist" Supreme Court Justices, we wouldn't have progressed as much as a society to date. Of course, marriage as a civil union regardless of gender is the next logical in our social progression. Even though the Catholic Church opposes remarriage after divorce, it isn't seeking to make it illegal in our country. We are not talking about church sanction.

Tim the Soldier (banned from Sharon's site)

Sherri writes:

The way I see it, that before this ruling, an Amendment would have been out of the question...but now, it has to be seriously considered, if only for the fact that it is the people's only way of re-asserting its representative power over a branch of the Government.

Number one, Sherri is so completely inaccurate here that it's almost beyond addressing. The proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman has been in the works, literally, for years. This ruling is merely a timely political context in which to push it forward.

But have no doubt: they were going to do it all along. Why? Because they know that a lot of gay people (and a lot of straight people) want full, equal marriage under the law, and that we aren't going to stop until we get it.

When rulings like Lawrence v. Texas come down the pike, people who don't understand the history of gay rights in this country act like this is a brand new idea -- "Wow! The gays got a victory, and now the anti-gay politicians are going to rise up in a backlash!"

That's the perspective you get when you read the mainstream media. The struggle is deeper than that, older than that, and more complex.

In response to Sherri's question, "Don't heterosexuals get to keep anything?" -- I honestly have a hard time understanding what you're saying. If you think that my relationship, if sanctioned by the state (not the Church -- the State) demeans your marriage, then you've got your fingers in too many pies. Your marriage doesn't demean my relationship, despite the fact that social pressures seek to invalidate it.

Straight individuals will keep their right to marry legally, and will keep their right to get married in whatever church they want -- including no church at all. They will retain their legal freedoms and religious freedoms. What they will lose is the right to exclude us because they don't think we should be admitted to the club.

Old ideas about what straight people are entitled to versus gay people will change.

Dean: when did I call you a pariah? Fine, you've got concerns. You've shared them. Thanks, it's been a blast. You aren't a pariah, but I simply disagree. Gay people have learned this well, and I suspect you are too: respect isn't something you can demand, but it isn't something you necessarily need, either. I could give two squats if straight people respect my relationship. My beef isn't with the American people. It's with the American government.

I kinda sound like a foreigner, don't I? Maybe because I've been made to feel like one.

John,

respect isn't something you can demand, but it isn't something you necessarily need, either.

Maybe there's another way. For example, I was taught by my father's example to command respect.

On the day that the laws of this country and its several states permit a contract of marriage, with all its legal ramifications, between an adult and a child, or between a group of persons, or between a person and an animal, or between a person and an inamimate object...

On that date will I bestow acceptance upon those who undertake such contracts between two persons of the same sex.

Because otherwise, I would be singling out homosexuals for special privileges granted to no other subset of perversia. And that, I argue, would be more unconstitutional than any conceivable type of sexual behavior, aberrant or otherwise.

Remember that a standard loses all meaning once it is diluted.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Arnold,

I don't even know how to comment on your comment. Your analogies to "perversia" and a "diluted standard" don't even register in what I thought was my logical brain.

Of course, I now realize that you were just joking when you equated beastiality to man-man love at least on the legal/civil standard. You really had me going there for a second.

Marriage as a special privilege, you're killing me!

"Remember that a standard loses all meaning once it is diluted."

What is...A southern governor's response to allowing blacks to share a lunch counter, drinking fountains, and other facilities with whites? What did I win Alex?

Tim the Soldier

What I just...don't...understand is why the people who are opposed to gay marriage feel like their own unions will somehow be compromised if we (gay people) get to use the same word. It's just a WORD, people.

Ms Ferguson said, "Let the heteros keep marriage..."

And that really gets under my skin. It's not like there is only so much "marriage" to go around. I have to politely and respectfully (but totally) disagree. Whether or not our government officially acknowledges my union with my partner should not make one subatomic particle's worth of difference in the daily workings of your home and your marriage.

Dean, it may be the first time in history (that we know of) that homosexuals have been allowed to "wed", but I believe that it is an idea whose time has come. We are CITIZENS. We should be entitled to equal protection under the law. It's what America is all about. Tolerance. Diversity. And the inalienable right of each citizen to pursue his or her happiness.

I believe that the right to marry will bring a measure of stability to the unions of same sex couples. To be recognized under the law is a powerful incentive to stay married, stick it out when things get rough, and see things through, til death do us part.

I dunno. I am "married" to my partner within our own set of laws and dynamics. If we were a heterosexual couple, would we be married or would we cohabitate? I *think* so, although neither one of us particularly likes parties or big family gatherings. We would go through it, I think. At least for the appliances.

DF

I think it's...intriguing...(yes, that's a polite word, now, isn't it?)...I think it's intriguing that a lot of straight people think same-sex marriages will somehow cheapen the institution of marriage, as a whole as well as individually. The idea that heterosexual marriages are generally, if not always, for the "right" reasons, while homosexual marriages will be based solely, or even primarily, upon a desire for legal privilege, is bigoted, at best. There have been PLENTY of heterosexual marriages, throughout history, that have been based, not on love or the wish to start a family, but on money, status, privilege, and a host of other reasons that heteros now say are illegitimate. Before heterosexuals go pointing fingers and blaming the "demise of meaningful marriage" on homosexuals, they might want to take a look around them and see if the (heterosexual) unions they're attempting to "defend" are truly so "legitimate", themselves.

How can we call ourselves a free society if we deny fundamental fairness and equality in one of the most pivotal of all relationships?

But, that's just one hetero's two cents.

I don't really care what these types of unions are called, since I think it's only fair to agree that it WILL happen, I just want two things to come out of it.

First, if we give legal sanction to a union between two people of the same sex, then it should come with all the rights and privileges of what is accepted as a 'marriage' now. However, it should also come with all of the same legal impediments as a 'marriage', up to and including requiring a legal divorce under the same laws as anyone else, the same responsibilites of child support and custody and the same legal and societal concerns as with a marriage between to hetero people. You know, IRS disputes, legal disputes, all that.

Second, and really the most important thing to me that needs to happen, is that they, the gays who wanted this and all the other protections that they as a group demand, shut the hell up about it! I'm sick of hearing it, I'm sick of seeing it, and I'd like to stay out of other people's bedrooms and personal lives. I don't advertise my business, why do I have to know everyone else's?

Candy:

As long as heterosexuals wear wedding rings and put pictures of their families up at work, I'm afraid your complaint about "hearing it" and "seeing it" will carry little weight. You take the privileges straights currently have for granted; otherwise they would be as glaringly obvious to you as to me.

If gay marriage does come about in this country, the opposite of what you asked for in your second paragraph will come to pass: you'll see more gay families living as openly as straight families do. You'll see gay couples holding hands, strolling their children about, getting married, and putting anniversary announcements in the paper.

We'll be as visible as you are -- though your visibility seems to be invisible to you.

The proposed Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage has indeed been "in the works" for many years. What I don't understand is why John thinks this is so significant.

A Constitutional Amendment must be passed by a 2/3rds majority of both houses of Congress, AND by 38 states before it goes into effect.

The only way such an amendment could possibly pass is if huge numbers of people support it. Literally huge: not just a majority, but an overwhelming majority.

If you want to understand history, John, understand this: there are all sorts of Constitutional amendments "in the works" by all sorts of groups with all sorts of ideas. Generally none of them go anywhere until enough people are convinced that it's even worth the trouble of trying. There are proposed amendments to end the income tax, for example, amendments to lower the drinking age, amendments to outlaw abortion, and so on. They've been "in the works" for literally decades, and so far haven't been able to get enough popular support to even make it to the stage of having either house of Congress vote on them.

So, do you reallyl think that a backlash against judicial overreach cannot add enough fuel to the fire to make this proposed amendment more viable?

A point I've tried to make time and again, John, is that folks like you make the Perfect the Enemy Of The Good. "We Want The World And We Want It Now" may just cause backlashes that make progress go backwards, not forward.

I live in thoroughly Republican Michigan. My boss is a black dyke. The company recently extended insurance benefits to its gay employees. Over the last 15 years, sodomy laws were quietly being removed by legislatures in state after state, and were steadily being taken less and less seriously in those states that did have them. Out of the closet gays can now be found just about everywhere, most of them holding decent jobs and living their lives unmolested.

Social progress is made in fits and starts, but jesus: the gay rights movement is only about 30 years old, and during its first ten to fifteen years most people laughed at them and thought of them as a lunatic fringe group. Just look at what the differences are between when you were 15 years old and where they are now.

Why make the perfect the enemy of the good? Why provoke people, pound on them, revile them when you're perfectly capable of persuading them?

Hell, why not just say, "Okay look, if we can get all the important benefits--hospital visitation, adoption, inheritance, credit protection, etc." with something called "Civil Unions," and you guys can keep "marriage" as something special you want to hold up as different: why the hell not?

If you look at any survey on this issue, the majority of voters still oppose gay marriage. Now, do you find ANY compromise with these people acceptable? And do you have ANY fear of the repercussions if you force stuff on them before they're ready?

Why make the perfect the enemy of the good?

Speaking as a congenital conservative, (a fallen away Irish-Polish Catholic, to be specific) I have to say that the idea of gay marriage does not threaten me. Rather, I approve of measures that foster stable social arrangements.

Life is difficult enough. Let's not look for ways to make it harder.

"Civil Unions" are tantamount to tossing us a bone. We pretty much already have civil unions anyway. And domestic partnership benefits. We just can't pay for them with pre-tax dollars and we usually pay more.

No matter when or if gay marriages are forced upon people implemented, the repercussions will be something we'll have to deal with... just as we always have. It's not like having people depise us without even knowing us is anything new.