One of the truest statements in that article was that in the ream of gay rights, the side loses who brings it up first. To me, this means that because the entire topic of gay rights is uncomfortable, and because the topic of gay marriage is particularly uncomfortable, one often pays the price for merely bringing it up.

While I can't deny that some people are going to push back against what they perceive as a push for gay marriage, I want to remind everyone that constitutional amendments and DOMA laws were proposed in the past in response to the mere idea of gay marriage. Now that such an idea has a chance of becoming reality, it only stands to reason that opposition would strengthen.

Backlash, yes. I can't deny it. It's inevitable in any campaign for social change. Bigtime backlash? I think that's merely a function of how far people let it go. I'll be fighting a backlash in my day-to-day life. Will the people who warned us of this backlash do the same, or will they sit back and let gay activists get "what they had coming"?

Will the people who warned us of this backlash do the same, or will they sit back and let gay activists get "what they had coming"?

I can only speak for myself. I fight because I believe it is right to do so. I will continue to fight even if the backlash makes it harder.

Loved the Reagan quote. And, FYI, in addition to Weintraub, Mike Kinsley also backed the "privatization" of marriage.

I agree with John; what happens next is going to be pivotal. It made me recall this quote from the article:

Republicans still have to be careful about appearing, or being, intolerant and leaving themselves open to charges of hypocrisy.

David Boaz of the Cato Institute once wrote a powerful piece in the New York Times chiding family-values conservatives for criticizing gays while most social problems--abortion, divorce, latchkey kids, out-of-wedlock births--result from misbehaving heterosexuals. He noted that articles on homosexuality in conservative publications far outnumber those on, say divorce.

"Scapegoating gay men and lesbians may get conservatives some votes, but it is not going to solve any of American families' real problems," he says.

I was ambivalent on this issue as recently as a few weeks ago; but after engaging in a brisk back-and-forth here and on my blog, E Pluribus Unum, I've decided this world does not suffer from a surplus of love and commitment. If two same-sex partners are devoted to each other and want to build a home and a family and raise kids, who is to stop them?

And if they are stopped, have we not lost more than we gained?

All the rest is politics which I reluctantly will leave to the politicians to sort out. Especially the ones who are running for re-election.

P.S. The polls run strongly against SSM and civil unions; so what? That's why we have a Constitution -- to protect the inalienable rights of the minority.

Anyone that tells me, or hints to me that our country is not terribly divided gets the virtual pie in the face. Issues like same-sex marriages, race, and even outsourcing shows what America is. For all the good that we do and have done, we are awash in Divided States of America syndrome. You cannot maintain a level of division forever. No country or nation has been able to do so without a revolution occuring.

Now I'm no fool, there will always be division in a country. People are people and think different ways. But we have very polarizing divisions that at any time can gain sickening speed. Look at Haiti. We aren't near the level of poverty of that country but their president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, is no dictator. People don't like his "policies of inaction" and look how it has snowballed into violence.

When I saw those anti-same-sex marriage protestors pushing their bibles into the faces of gays and lesbians, I could see it in some of their eyes:

Man get that bible out of my face or...

Oh push back all ya like. You think gays and lesbians are just going to sit back and eat it? They can push back also. How are we going to deal with this? Be hardcore (in a country of soft asses) or softcore (in a country of would-be hard asses)? Imposing your will on others is so unpalatable for many of us. But someone is going to be imposed.

S-Train:

This is why we have a Constitution.

So, since we're on that topic, let me ask you what will happen first? A Supreme Court ruling on California anti-SSM law or a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage?

Hmmm... I think a Supreme Court ruling would be first but I would like to see a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage. Oh I know that rubs many folks the wrong way but this situation has to be taken control of. Leaving it vague and up in the air is dangerous. We're used to "laying down the law" in foreign affairs but when it comes to domestic social affairs, many of us squirm.

I think that the extreme difficulties in the law addressing social policy might justify the government (and the people) reevaluating just how appropriate it is for the law to meddle in such affairs, at least in the way it's doing right now.

Marriage never had to be defined, because it was a "common sense" issue. Everyone knew that it meant. The rise of divorce rates changed that. Interracial marriages changed that (against wide opposition, no less). And now same-sex couples are changing that.

Here's the question: Who gets to define the legal aspects of the family -- legislatures, courts, municipalities, "society", or individuals? It's my belief that individuals should get the lion's share of discretion in these matters, with society and government only stepping in where life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness are endangered. Much in the same way that marriage has existed independently of governments throughout history, same-sex relationships have existed as well. They're more visible today in some ways (due mostly to the expansion of media), but they aren't new. Is there room for them in society? I think there always has been.

Oh, we've always been a divided country, and a deeply divided one. The reasons we don't all kill each other is we're too busy getting rich and laid. Is this a great country, or what?

LOL!

But wait!

The reasons we don't all kill each other is we're too busy getting rich and laid.

How does that explain Janet Jackson's byoob?

She's not getting enough, I guess :)

One of the things I deeply admire about Americans, more than any other society on the face of the world, is that they occasionally, stubbornly, and courageously do the right thing, without fear, without worrying if they'll be considered upitty, and without caring about the consequences.

This has resulted in your society experiencing some truly herioc moments that I, as an outsider, greatly envy.

You're living through one of these moments now, and it'll be looked on as such in years to come.

Stu,

Heroic moment? Hardly - heroism requires doing somethig which requires personal risk; there is no personal risk involved here.

Stu, nice thought, but the data doesn't support that generalization.

We have meddled and invested considerable time and effort in quite a number of social re-engineering experiments that have been A DISASTER.

Look at this comment thread for example--huge misunderstandings about history--generalizations about "interracial marriages" when much of the prohibitions were short term and regional (most states and locales had no such prohibitions). Broad and sweeping (inaccurate) generalizations about "what America used to do, but no longer does."

-We changed the divorce laws and divorce increased.
-We changed the reward structure in welfare and increased the roles.
-We changed the attitude about children born out of wedlock (to prevent "stigmatizing the child" or passing judgment on the parents) and we got HUGE increases in out of wedlock births.
-We changed our attitude about couples cohabitating (same reasons, not wanting to pass judgment) and our crime rates increased, our juvenile delinquency increased, domestic violence, and all the other assorted downsides (higher rates of childhood depression, teen pregnancy, drug use, etc.).
-We created a special class of "previously downtrodden" to address claims of racism and poverty amongst minority groups and the results were to INCREASE unemployment. By encouraging and discouraging voluntary segregation we created a sub-class of hopeless ghetto children with no role models and no feelings of neighborhood pride or ownership.

To sum up. We've done ENORMOUS damage to society as a whole.

We get to claim "aren't we superior because we're TOLERANT" but it is bullshit. It hasn't made society any better, it's just made it possible for us to CLAIM we tried to make it better.

We should be measuring OUTCOME not our FEELINGS about how it should be.

You want to pat us on the back because we talk-the-talk. I feel ashamed. We talk-the-talk so well, but just about everything we've done in the social re-engineering arena has made it WORSE for the people we intended to benefit.

Oh goodie. We don't pass judgment on behaviors we know to be risky or dangerous, or impose our values anymore. If THAT is the goal and the measurement, we can be happy with ourselves. That should NOT be the goal.

Dean,

Well, the United States has changed - we are no longer a society in which a tiny elite determines what happens, and then the courts and the media put their seal of approval on it. There are too many outlets for information, too many voices people can hear. Were this 1975, then this would be a done deal - but, also, back then there was no effective way for the forces opposed to this sort of thing to get their message out.

For those who support gay marriage, please understand this: Its not wanted. Not now. Maybe someday, but not now. Drop it like a bad habit and work on the passage of domestic partnership legislation (and you'd better start ensuring that unmarried straight couples get covered by this sort of thing because in those areas where only gay couples are covered, its causing a lot of grief). And wait about a year or two before you really pick up the fight for domestic partnership legislation...the pot is too stirred right now.

Learn the lesson; a widely held opinion, whether well or ill founded, cannot be lightly cast aside. You don't have to like it, but you have to accept it and work within the framework.

I will leave the commenting to Victor Hugo:

There is no force greater than an idea whose time has come.

The time for human equality has come. Dare you accept it?

Mark, if you think there is no personal risk in what these people are doing, I have to assume that you don't know many gay people.

John Kusch,

Well, John, in the past 2-3 weeks, in more than one discussions on Dean's World, I warned precisely about this kind of backlash. I noted that the Democrats would begin dumping homosexual causes like hot bricks, and that your main Democrat party allies, the blacks and latinos, would both run away from you over such a powerful pot-stirrer as same-sex marriage.

Now, not only will you get the probable re-election of George W Bush to the White House, but a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages as well.

In Rosemary's extensive discussion about SSM, now way down in the pages of Dean's World after just a few days, I think I came to understand your position and that of your community a little better than I did before. But even so, I cannot understand the political strategy of the American homosexual community in regard to all of the above. It seriously threatens to set your group back. Way, way back. Because the symbolism of marriage being threatened by homosexuals has uncovered a bundle of raw nerves deep in the psyche of the American body politic.

Don't you think the homosexual community could have been satisfied with domestic partnership legislation such as California's, and not tried to get aboard the boat with full-scale marriage ceremonies? As Dean and his quoted article suggests, you folks don't practice very smart politics. Or at least, not the activists among you.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

There is no force greater than an idea whose time has come.

That would depend on the idea and what you value.

I happen to believe that a restoration and allowance for an expression of a reasonable standard of values and morals is the idea whose time as come.

I also happen to think another idea, whose time has come, is to address and remedy the issue of judicial activism and return the rule of law to the legislatures and The People.

That's the interesting thing about Force. You can seldom count on the force moving in the direction you expect or want. That's why you don't gamble or play reindeer games like this. It can just as easily knock you off your feet.

Mrs. du Toit is hovering just above apprehension of the truth. (pardon me, that's the mental picture I had)

Divorce, welfare, born out of wedlock, cohabitating couples. What do (did) all of these things share? Stigma. A mark of shame or discredit.

Ok, so there are more divorces, more on welfare roles, more born out of wedlock, more cohabitating couples.

This is enormous damage to society as a whole?

Your comments were in the form of "this is what we did and this is what we got". It sounds like you're thinking what we got was because of what we did. Maybe so. Not necessarily.

Seems to me we removed the stigma. Seems to me people made the choice to divorce, get on welfare, cohabitate and have kids out of wedlock.

I hope you understand. I firmly believe in highlighting a problem to raise the awareness of it. Toward assigning it a high priority in terms of resolution ('cause the squeaky wheel get the grease...). Finally in resolving it.

Divorce, welfare, kids, cohabitation...am I off base in claiming that annother thing shared by these things is; access to money?

Divorced? Someone's likely paying. Welfare? Oh yeah, it pays. Kids? Yep, they mean money too. Cohabitation? Definitely saves money.

Don't get me wrong, maybe no one's getting rich, but free money...gee, I want some free money.

But I don't. Why? I grew up with stigma. I can't hold my head up and tell someone that I am on welfare, or my ex-wife pays my bills, or that I didn't think my kids needed married parents, or that I have the comforts of a wife without the wedding.

See, I can't do that. Lots of people can. Why can they but not I? I grew up with stigma. Stigma. Fear. Shame.

So, do I want to ensure that others have this stigma, this shame, guiding their actions? Enabling them, forcing them?, to make decisions that are an anathema to what lies in their heart? So that they will not suffer from the stigma?

No. No I do not. I think that IF divorce, welfare, kids and cohabitating are so important to society as a whole (and I don't think they are) then there should be strict laws. Not values. Not stigma.

IF. Big if.

We're on the right track. Change all the laws regarding all of the 'values' that are 'protecting society'. It'll work itself out.

Crap, I just realized I could have saved lots of time and just written "yes, THAT should be the goal".....

John,

I responded to your post without reading your last paragraph.

About that stuff about letting homosexuals "have what's coming to them": I've thought about this, and I am beyond retribution, even though I do not agree with the idea of SSM. I think the country will get over it too. (We all get over just about everything else, because Americans typically are too busy and to diverse to take up permanent grudges.)

But learn from what is occurring here. If a constitutional amendment comes to pass, and most people now think it will because most people want it so, then learn to keep a slightly lower profile about homosexual matters. This does not mean going back into the closet, as I once expressed it, or even worse, become priests of that vulgar institution, the Roman Catholic church, as so many homosexuals apparently have done over an extended period.

Just try to normalize your lives and your relationships, both to your significant others and to the heterosexual world.

And don't worry, John. Nobody's going to burn you at the stake. Especially not in Madison WI.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

In Canada, we were lucky to have a judiciary that made the right decision for us, and lucky that the majority of the population is tolerant enought to say "Ehhh, sure, why not, no skin off my nose."

On the other hand, you're lucky to have people brave enough to flout the law to do what's right. Bravo to the civil servants who are risking their jobs to do this, bravo to those standing in line all day with their loved ones in the rain to do this, and bravo to those who might feel uncomfortable with the notion of gay marriage, but recognize what's right and what isn't.

The time as come, and you can't go back. Cudos, America.

Has there ever been an issue in which the opposition has so patiently repeated exactly what it will take to convince them (opponents of SSM saying, "give it more time, don't push us")? And has there ever been an advocacy group who so completely ignored such advice?

The harder the pro-SSM advocates push, the more I feel my vague worries coalesce into a conviction that the movement is not entirely above-board with their intents and plans.

Telling me it doesn't affect me really doesn't wash, because I'm worried about how it might affect my children and my grandchildren. Telling me it's none of my business doesn't wash because the whole point of SSM is to get a stamp of societal approval. Telling me to just relax and enjoy it because it's going to happen whether I like it or not just reminds me of the advice once given to women about rape, and I have pretty much the same emotional reaction.

You may hate my response. You may hate me for saying it. This is what I feel, these are the issues I would need addressed before I would ever give any support to SSM, and the more you trample over my concerns in your stampede to wrest more-than-equal rights, the more willing I am to campaign for a Constitutional Amendment banning SSM.

There are others like me. It's not a threat, it's merely an explanation of the choices you face. If it all blows up in your face, don't blame the "ghastly heteros" (wasn't it Greta Garbo who said something like that?).

We disagree, Brett. I happen to think that it is perfectly acceptable to criticize lousy behavior when I see it.

I don't buy into the "self esteem is more important than actual achievement" bullshit. It creates a host of distorted mental conditions as well as creating false expectations for people.

That's what happens when you remove stigma from poor performance and bad behavior. Stigma is simply formalized peer pressure to make clear the expectations we place on each other.

You say "IF" and I disagree.

These are proven and (provable) facts. That which you support/laud/reward you get more of. That which you make more difficult/punish/deny you get less of. Laws of physics and all that.

Most of this meddling was based on the "...the life of ONE child" meme. No, we need to stop thinking about ONE child. We need to start thinking about 10 MILLION children. You're happy with the elimination of the stigma of an out-of-wedlock-birth because it removes the burden of the stigma from ONE child. And because of that we encouraged, supported, and rewarded MORE of it and those MILLIONS of children suffer in incredible ways because of it--we all suffer, in very tangible ways.

Individuals can do whatever they want as long as they bear the burden of the consequences on their own, but when their actions begin to impact other lives, we have a right to call them on it, eg., your right to swing your fist stops at my nose.

You don't make public policy decisions based on a single individual or anecdotal evidence. You make public policy on issues that affect the PUBLIC at large (that's why we call it PUBLIC policy).

We know, FOR A FACT, that children raised in single-parent households have higher rates of juvenile deliquency, depression, suicide, teen pregnancy, drug use, etc. I'm sure you could dig through your Rolodex and find a few anecdotal cases where the child was not harmed, but that would be ONLY anecdotal.

We know, FOR A FACT, that the divorce rate has peripheral impacts on society at large as well as a negative impact on the children of divorce.

We know, FOR A FACT, that the divorce rate climbed exponentially when divorces were easier to obtain. We know that people take the commitment less seriously when it is easy to get a divorce. No-fault divorce is CAUSAL on both sides of the equasion--the decision to get married to someone you don't know well enough to marry and the "bail" when things get tough.

There are three components here:
1. Causal Links
2. Unintended consequences (slippery slope arguments)
3. Individual rights

They ALL must be considered in public policy decisions. So far, this debate has focused only on individual rights and that is not only wrong, it is irresponsible.

Why is it that some right-wingers de-emphasize individual rights on sexual isses, and promote state control to save society, but don't do the same when it comes to gun control or healthcare?

I assume because you posted after me, Stu, and brought up the issues I addressed, you're addressing that post at me? In any event...

I'm not a "right-winger" by any stretch of the imagination.

Homosexual partnership agreements are not a "sexual issue." It's about civil law (note it isn't CRIMINAL law--it's a CIVIL matter). Some, who support SSM, may view it as a sexual issue (because they're trying to control the language of the debate) but that is not what the other side is addressing.

Gun control IS a public policy issue and gun control/registration does more HARM to the public than less strict controls.

Everyone in America has access to healthcare. No one is bleeding in the streets. Every hospital is REQUIRED (by law) to treat people who need emergency treatment. There are thousands of free clnics to treat people who cannot afford out-patient care.

What's your point again?

Well, if you want to get into that big ball of mud...

Your murder rate is through the roof, in spite of having a significant percentage of your population behind bars, precisely because of your laissez-faire approach to availability of weapons.

Yeah, healthcare is supplied to everyone. Tell that to this poor guy who is facing a $22,000 bill because he was refused coverage and needed emergency surgery.

And let's see, rights that are guaranteed to those practicing one sex act are refused to those practicing a different set. And this ISN'T about sex?

Could you please explain why you think you're not a right-winger?

Excellent writing, Mrs. du Toit. Yes, we disagree. Maybe not about everything. I happen to think that it is perfectly acceptable to criticize lousy behavior when I see it, too. That, however, does not mean the behaviour IS lousy.

No, no rolodex, or any other tool with which to find and insert an anecdotal case. Thank you for having faith in my inability to debate! I have no need to dispute your facts. I am not going to change your mind on this issue.

I pounced on your post because of how close it was to the truth.

Let's see if I can put this in a nutshell. People will take what they can get.

It is attempting to find virtue and hold onto a sense of capable humanity while under the constant barrage of STIGMA that leads to mental conditions, suffering, juvenile deliquency, depression, suicide, teen pregnancy, drug use, etc.

By propping up and putting on a pedestal an un-sustainable standard of living, we invite all of the things that you attribute to not adhering to that standard of living.

It is not because of what 'they' didn't do and it's not because of what everyone else did.

It's the disparity between the two.

Your original post was very nearly pointing that out. "we opened doors and a bunch of poeple went through 'em" Well, yes we did. It's all good.

Your murder rate is through the roof, in spite of having a significant percentage of your population behind bars, precisely because of your laissez-faire approach to availability of weapons.

There is no causal link--just the reverse is true. Despite what you read in the lefty-press, it is very difficult for law-abiding citizens to buy a gun. Guns used in crime are obtained ILLEGALLY--as England is discovering, by making it difficult to get guns, you only prevent law-abiding people from getting them. Criminals never have difficulty getting guns (they are criminals, they don't obey gun law restrictions, DUH!) and they're the problem. In addition, where law abiding citizens are encouraged to have guns to protect themselves, there is a tangible reduction in crime. Roughly 3-5 million crimes are PREVENTED each year by law-abiding citizens with guns--without a shot being fired.

We have a significant population behind bars because a criminal committing 30-100 crimes and still walking around is not something Americans tolerate. Unlike, for example, the thugs who broke into Tony Martin's home who had over 300 criminal arrests/convictions between them. It's not that our crime rates are significantly different, it is that our crime rate is counted differently (we actually count all our crimes, not just the ones that result in conviction or we think we might be able to solve--like England does). It is also not that we have MORE criminals than other countries (per Capita) but we have more of our criminals in prison.

Yeah, healthcare is supplied to everyone. Tell that to this poor guy who is facing a $22,000 bill because he was refused coverage and needed emergency surgery.

Or, we could talk to a Canadian who died because he had to wait 3 years for the routine procedure that the guy in the U.S. has to pay $22K to recieve. Debt or death? I choose debt, thanks. Better yet, let's talk to the family who cannot afford to buy a home because their tax rate is so high, or the dependancy on American investment in new drug treatments and technologies that Canada (and the rest of the socialist countries) rely on to subsidize the better treatment options we make available.

And let's see, rights that are guaranteed to those practicing one sex act are refused to those practicing a different set. And this ISN'T about sex?

Lemme see:
-You can live with whomever you want.
-As an adult, you can engage in sexual activities with anyone of your choosing.
-You can go to a place of worship and commit/take an oath/or make a promise to anyone (or more) of your choosing.

All of those rights are available to you, regardless of sexual orientation or sexual preference.

If you are operating under the illusion that state recognition of marriage is a right, then you are mistaken. A person with certain genetic conditions cannot marry. A person cannot marry their first cousin. There are a host of restrictions placed on people who wish to have their marriage formally recognized and supported by the state (and The People get to establish the litmus test for state licensing of marriage because it is a priviledge, NOT a right, that's why there is a "license"--if it was a right, the state couldn't issue you a license for it, nor would you need to have the person "you have a right to marry" give his/her consent), yet any couple or group of people can establish contracts to protect their relationship in any way they choose.

What "right" is being denied?

Could you please explain why you think you're not a right-winger?

Because I do not wish to use the state as my personal body guard, debt collector, or thug. The "Right Wing" as it is stereotypically thought of in terms of fascism-lite wishes to embolden the power of the state to encroach on people's lives (like forcing them to support the relationships of others even if the relationship hurts or provides no financial benefit or reward, forcing them to pay for other people's healthcare, or denying them the right to self-defense against criminals and the potential of abuses of government)--sort of like you.

I'll ask you the same question. You think you're not a right winger, why? Because you only want to use the state to steal other people's money instead of using the state to do what, exactly?

Brett,
Hey, good point. Because it is only the stigma of homosexuality and intravenous drug use that causes people to contract HIV and die of AIDS. And it was only the stigma of smoking that caused people to die of lung cancer and other such diseases. And it is only the social stigma of being overweight that causes obese people to die of of diabetes and heart disease.
And, you know, the difficulties of raising a child, graduating high school and college and getting a job when you get pregnant at age 14 is nothing compared to the social stigma that could have been added on.
Hey, I know, let's just re-orient our entire education system to raise self-esteem rather than actually teaching! That should work right in line with removing those horrible stigmas.

Oh. Wait. That's already been tried and didn't work at all.

Hmmm...then maybe, just maybe, stigmas arise as a way of society discouraging behaviors that are demonstrably and/or predominantly harmful to society.

Heck, you can try to make a case that modern medicine or technology might make traditional social stigmas outdated and worth reviewing, but don't just dismiss social stigma as the cause of people's problems.

...unless I misunderstood what you meant, in which I retract/apologize.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm _not_ a Democrat and I'm _not_ a Republican, I'm completely Independent. I'm not the least bit interested in advancing either political party. I'm only interested in defending my rights and the rights of the people I care about. I'm totally selfish. Both parties (and the Libertarian party, too) can go hang for all I care.

I'm mad as Hell.

I have had it with Jesse Jackson. He just threw away the last shred of whatever ever-diminishing respect I ever had for him. He's asking for a fisking and I'm going to give it to him right here and right now.

"He warned the issue was treacherous territory for Democrats in 2004 because it was part of a "Republican tactical strategy to distract from such issues as foreign policy and education.""

Foreign policy: Any foreign policy Jesse Jackson would support is one I'm against. He's anti-Israel and never met an anti-American dictator (Arafat, Castro, Saddam, etc.) he didn't like.

Education: Education belongs to the states and local communities, not to the federal government. Get the federal government out. Education is not a political football.

And, for Jackson, it's just all about Democrats, Democrats, Democrats vs. those evil Republicans (_any_ Republicans).

"Jesse Jackson told a Harvard Law School audience last week that he supports "equal protection under the law" for gays,"

But only _after_ getting all the usual Democratic socialistic/welfare-state agenda: federal control of education, government-provided (and controlled) free health care, a free lunch for everybody, all to be paid for either by more deficits or by more taxes on "the rich" (i.e., those evil job-creating capitalists) -- and, of course, gun confiscation.

And, then, only _after_ Jackson's welfare-statist agenda is enacted by Democrats, _then_, maybe, homosexuals can get equal protection under the law. Sort of. Or not. Because...

"but he did not endorse full marriage rights"

No, of course not. But, then, just about every politician is taking _that_ line so I don't expect anything better from him. No, _that's_ not what makes me despise Jesse Jackson like I've never despised him before. What makes me despise him like I've never despised him before is this:

"and questioned the analogy between gay rights and civil rights:"

This is the Big Lie being spewed by nearly every homo-hating organization and demagogue today, from Rev. Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps to the so-called Alliance For Marriage (which is behind that despicable Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment). So, now Jesse Jackson reveals his true colors. He not only hates Jews but homosexual men and women, too. He has thus shown himself to be merely a Pat Buchanan of the Left.

"Gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution"

Here he shows his utter, abysmal ignorance of American history. Two points, which ought to be elementary to anyone:

1) Do you know WHY blacks were counted as 3/5ths of a person in the constitution? FOR PURPOSES OF REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS! The slave states of the South wanted full representation of their slaves, while the free states of the North wanted no representation for slaves. The Framers worked out a compromise, a necessary compromise at the time in order to get the Constitution ratified by all the atates. By giving slaves only 3/5 representation, the Framers of our Constitution thereby _diminished_ to that extent the political power of the slave states, and thereby _increased_ the power of the free states from which the Abolition movement eventually came.

2) At the time the Constitution was ratified, Gay men were represented _on the gallows_. They had _no_ rights, (male) homosexuality, a.k.a., "sodomy" or "the foul, detestable, and abominable crime against nature", was punishable by DEATH. Blacks were sold like cattle and homosexual men were _hanged_.

After black men and women were finally freed from slavery (after a bloody Civil War for which perhaps Jesse Jackson ought to pay reparations), "sodomy" was _still_ illegal in every state, punishable by long imprisonment.

Throughout the 20th century, even as blacks were integrated into the military, schools, the workplace, and, eventually, marriage (Loving vs. Virginia, 1967), homosexuals, both men and women, were stigmatized, branded as criminals, imprisoned, committed to insane asylums, sterilized, castrated, lobotomized. Only _very_ recently (June 26, 2003) have they gained even the right to privacy in their own homes.

State-by-state history of "sodomy" laws in the U.S.:
http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm

"and did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote."

Of course not! The only reason blacks were disenfranchized in the first place is because there are so many in this country, about 12% of the population, larger than any other minority in our history. In many districts, especially in the South, they constitute a majority. With the Voting Rights Act, they could vote out any racists, and they do so all the time. No (overt) racist has a chance in American politics any more. Theodore Bilbo is dead and forgotten by most. David Duke is a joke. Trent Lott was demoted.

Homosexual men and women, by contrast, are not and never will be more than about 1%-3% of the population. They will _never_ be a majority or anything close to a majority anywhere. Why bother taking away their vote when they can easily be outvoted at any time on any issue anywhere they go? They never needed a Voting Rights Act because no such act would ever do them a damn bit of good!

And look at the results: After Trent Lott was roundly and justly slapped down, including by President Bush, for his oblique praise for Strom Thurmond's 1948 segregationist platform, Santorum was, by contrast, practically canonized everywhere, including by President Bush, after explicitly advocating that homosexuality should be criminalized in every state and that the very concept of privacy be abolished.

And, therefore, the Republican party and President Bush are being increasingly dominated by a movement of hate-filled, lying, totalitarian scum who have made a career out of smearing homosexuals in every way imaginable and denying them every right they can get away with.

And the Democratic party sees homosexuals and their rights as merely one more "interest" out of so many, to be given token crumbs when convenient but otherwise discarded if they get in the way of the "more important" agenda of subsidizing every other interest or pressure group today's Democratic party feeds upon.

I have had it. I'm mad as Hell.

Wow. That was quite an effusion of paranoid, raving verbiage, Steve. I hope you feel better now.

Suggestion: Breathe. Slowly. Calmly. Get up from the monitor. Run a warm bath. Put on some soothing music. Turn out the lights and light some candles. Get in the bath. Notice the failure of the GOP police to knock down your door. Notice the failure of anyone to disturb you at all. Notice all the good things in the world. Enhance your calm ...

Hey, Steven Malcolm et al,

Talk about Jesse Jackson all you want.

But don't forget Mel Gibson, who not only is said to hate homosexuals but apparently hates Jews as well, because his father Hutton Gibson hates Jews and Mel learned everything he knows and respects from his father, who thinks the Nazis didn't murder all those Jews, because they all escaped from the death camps to come here and live in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, New York and in Hutton Gibson's back yard, from which they want to take over the world and Pennsylvania too.

(I suppose Mel like blacks, though. Otherwise he couldn't have buddied up so well wit Danny Glover, the black guy who played his partner in all those rough/tough cop/robber movies. So I wonder what Hutton Gibson thinks about blacks?)

You know, I think folks are defined more by what they hate than by what they love. I suppose Freud could have earned a couple of extra PhDs out of all this.

(I wonder what Hutton and Mel Gibson think about Freud, and if it would have been different if Freud had been a Catholic like most of the other Austrians, and not Jewish, as he was?)

I also wonder if these folks get pissed every time they think about Jesus actually being a Jew? And not just a Jew, but a sort of little, dark, middle-eastern Arab-looking kind of Jew; sort of a godly-looking Yasser Arafat but with a better beard, and speaking Aramaic, yet.

You gotta ask yourself: Would god the all powerful, all knowing, etc, etc, if he/she/it is up there somewhere, come down out of heaven and do the job on some woman, and cause her to give birth to someone who looked like Yasser Arafat and acted like Leon Trotsky?

Don't you think sometimes that the universe is just a big, cosmic-size joke that someone or something is playing on all of us?

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Arnold Harris:

That is excellent what you wrote.

Are you trying to insult me, or something, Steven Malcolm et al?

I don't write excellent. I write mean. I write nasty. I write hateful, bigoted, crochety, etc etc.

Don't you go spoiling my good name.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Arnold Harris:

That was mean, nasty, hateful, bigoted, crochety, etc., etc., what you wrote.

Stu:
"Yeah, healthcare is supplied to everyone. Tell that to this poor guy who is facing a $22,000 bill because he was refused coverage and needed emergency surgery."

This was already taken up from another angle, but I'd like to point out: Americans also think of health care differently from other people. It's part of our acculturation. I live in a country with a national health system (not single-payer, but essentially compulsory). Social insurance in Japan has exactly one goal: to prevent you from being dead until you're 80, thus maintaining Japan's status as one of the world's most advanced countries. So everyone accepts the trade-off between fantastic care for cancer patients and diabetics (diseases of a rich and aging society) and lives with the horrible dental care (Japanese people have the worst teeth, hands down, in the first world--and I've lived in England, so I'm not lacking for bases of comparison) and the outdated treatments for discomforts that aren't life threatening. In America, we wouldn't stand for that for a second. The people I grew up around were of very straitened means, and even they wanted to be able to prioritize which problems they took care of and which they didn't worry about.

In my loopy mental universe, this actually does relate to the gay marriage debate. Life is about trade-offs. In most cultures, the collective informs you what trade-offs will make you happy (the Japanese have this down to a science). Americans value freedom, and we want to decide what's most important to us and what we're willing to give up for it. The problem since the '60's--which was the culmination of a lot of social shifts that had been happening for decades--has been that a lot of people somehow believe that you can optimize all values at once. A charming but stupid idea, which we're getting over in fits and starts. But when those who push for gay marriage act as if anyone who point out problems it might cause is a big meany, they aren't helping.

BTW, Arnold Harris crochets?

"Wow. That was quite an effusion of paranoid, raving verbiage, Steve. I hope you feel better now.

Suggestion: Breathe. Slowly. Calmly. Get up from the monitor. Run a warm bath. Put on some soothing music. Turn out the lights and light some candles. Get in the bath. Notice the failure of the GOP police to knock down your door. Notice the failure of anyone to disturb you at all. Notice all the good things in the world. Enhance your calm ..."

Steven Malcolm Anderson:

That was mean, nasty, hateful, bigoted, crotchety, effusive, paranoid, raving, verbose, vtriolic, vituperative, splenetic, etc., etc., what you wrote. And more to come....

John Kusch asked:
"Will the people who warned us of this backlash do the same, or will they sit back and let gay activists get "what they had coming"?"

And Rosemary the Q.O.A.E. answered:
"I can only speak for myself. I fight because I believe it is right to do so. I will continue to fight even if the backlash makes it harder."

Thank you for that! HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL EVIL!!!! HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL GOOD!!!! HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL!!!! AND HAIL TO THE KING!!!!

I definitely think now that it is a bad strategy to push so hard for same-sex marriage right now. You don't take a cake out of the oven 5 minutes before the buzzer goes off.

That said, the fact is that you can't unring the bell.

The only question on the table should be: "Is same-sex marriage such a grave threat to the United States that it is essential that a constitutional amendment be passed to prevent it?"

That is a different question from: "Do you favor same-sex marriage?" of course. There are a lot of things I disapprove of that I don't want to be put in the Constitution.

Stu,

What personal risk? What are these men and women putting on the line by showing up in front of a piss-ant little government clerk and signing their name? Dammit, I am sick to death of people saying that something humdrum is heroic...heroic is a 19 year old US Marine out on patrol in Baghdad, not some 40-something yuppie tying the knot with his partner....get over yourself.

I'm amazed by the arrogance of those of you sitting in the majority.

Nathan: "Has there ever been an issue in which the opposition has so patiently repeated exactly what it will take to convince them (opponents of SSM saying, "give it more time, don't push us")?"

How do we make progress if we don't continue to work for what we believe in? The image I have in my head is of you standing there holding a toy just out of my reach, telling me, "If you be good, I'll give it to you later." And then if I go back to playing quietly and stop reminding you or seemingly forget that I wanted the toy, then you don't have to give it to me anymore!

Nathan, I think it's pretty clear that you won't change your mind on the issue of SSM. Do you see this changing 10 years down the line?

Mrs. du Toit: "Some, who support SSM, may view it as a sexual issue (because they're trying to control the language of the debate) but that is not what the other side is addressing."

Interestingly, it's been my observation that the opposite is true. That SSM advocates maintain that it's a civil liberties issue and that opponents are more concerned about the "rightness/wrongness/goodness/badness" of homosexual relationships.

The fact remains that we don't really know what kind of effect allowing SSM is going to have on society. Some people think that's okay and that's no reason not to proceed, and others think that's not okay and we shouldn't proceed until we do know.

Remembering how civil unions were in place for at least a decade before civil marriage was legalized in Holland, it makes sense to me that civil unions will be enacted here before we go the full marriage route.

But if we only ask for a little, all we'll get is a little. Why can't we ask for what we really want, be offered a compromise, negotiate, and hopefully approve something? Like overestimating your budget so you can be sure you'll come in under the numbers. Can it theoretically work this way? Will it practically work this way?

A point of constitutional law as regards the banning of same sex marriages
-can a constitutional ammendment be unconstitutional? I mean what if it clearly contradicts something in the main boby of the constitution or another ammendment.

Mrs. du Toit writes:

"Oh goodie. We don't pass judgment on behaviors we know to be risky or dangerous, or impose our values anymore. If THAT is the goal and the measurement, we can be happy with ourselves. That should NOT be the goal."

Hey Connie:

I simply don't know what "behavior" you'd be referring to that takes place in my long-term relationship that we know to be risky or dangerous. I also don't know how some sort of legal status for this relationship would constitute the imposition of values on other people. The way I see it, societal values are currently being imposed on me. Is it any better just because it's the majority and not a minority doing it?

I think that divorce, welfare, unmarried cohabitation and some of the other social "problems" (only some of them are, and only some of the time) you're mentioning here really constitute comparing apples to hyenas. I couldn't agree with you more that there are social ills, but I think that the problem is more complex than what you propose, and that same-sex relationships aren't part of any problem whatsoever.

Mark Noonan writes:

"For those who support gay marriage, please understand this: Its not wanted. Not now. Maybe someday, but not now."

Actually, it is, which is why we're discussing this issue now. Don't think for a moment that gay marriage advocates don't know we're lose some important short-term battles here. The point isn't to force gay marriage from coast-to-coast. The point is to demonstrate how very important it is for us, majority opinion notwithstanding.

Arnold Harris writes:

"Well, John, in the past 2-3 weeks, in more than one discussions on Dean's World, I warned precisely about this kind of backlash. I noted that the Democrats would begin dumping homosexual causes like hot bricks, and that your main Democrat party allies, the blacks and latinos, would both run away from you over such a powerful pot-stirrer as same-sex marriage."

I don't think most gay Americans have any illusions about how far the Democrats will go to support us. Ever since Clinton overplayed his hand and betrayed us in the process, we've been very realistic about to what extent we're on our own.

I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of my position. Honestly.

I do want to comment that the black and latino communities, in the overwhelming majority, have never been supporters of gay and lesbian rights. They have never been our allies. The gay and lesbian people within their ranks have been a marginalized minority within a minority. We find no aid or comfort there.

Mrs. du Toit writes:

"I happen to believe that a restoration and allowance for an expression of a reasonable standard of values and morals is the idea whose time as come."

How would you propose that such standards be codified into law. If you're suggesting legislative solutions to the problem, I'd be interested in seeing exactly what kind of laws you'd propose. Your language seems very vague and rhetorical, and I'd like to see how your moral vision of American would play out legislatively.

Arnold Harris writes:

"Just try to normalize your lives and your relationships, both to your significant others and to the heterosexual world."

Believe me, Arnold, nothing would please me more. I try to make it very plain to the heterosexuals in my life that my relationship with my partner, while romantic and loving, is generally more about the day-to-day minutiae that all committed couples share: Taking out the garbage, making dinner, paying bills, visiting family (when we have to :), and picking up dirty unmentionables from the bathroom floor. We live a rather mundane life. Our world-views are radical, but we're just Midwestern meat-and-potato guys. We even watch football. Can you believe it?

nathan writes:

"Telling me it's none of my business doesn't wash because the whole point of SSM is to get a stamp of societal approval. Telling me to just relax and enjoy it because it's going to happen whether I like it or not just reminds me of the advice once given to women about rape, and I have pretty much the same emotional reaction."

Wow -- I'm sorry you feel that way! I don't think that any gay or lesbian couple wants to force anyone to be gay or lesbian. In fact, we know that it's impossible: We believe that gay people are born, not taught. And we acknowledge that you don't necessarily approve of our relationships (at least it sounds like you have reservations). The "societal approval" thing is less about *giving* us societal approval where it hasn't existed before and more about *acknowledging* the fact that we have quite a bit of societal approval already. There is room for us in the tapestry of America, just like there's room for people with reservations about us.

John Kusch,

Frankly, I totally ignore football. (So there you go, assuming the wrong thing about me again.)

I was raised within relatively short elevated train rides of both Wrigley Field and Comiskey Park in Chicago, where I got to watch the Cubs and White Sox all but strangle themselves in baseball ineptitude throughout the 1940s. (Kids got in with cheaper tickets).

None of us watched football in those years, and the Chicago Bears, Green Bay Packers, Minnesota Golden Gophers, etc, etc, were as distant from us culturally as a bunch of Englishmen playing their variant of baseball with a funny-shaped bat.

Fact is, the first and only live football game I ever witnessed was when I was a UPI bureau reporter in Des Moines IA in 1962. The bureau chief sent me along to watch a nearby college football game in order to learn something about the sport and therefore be of better use. All I could see was bunches of bodies regularly piled up out on the field, game officials in wierd uniforms making unscrutable motions with their hands, fans acting like crazed morons, and all the rest.

That was sort of it for me, regarding spectator sports. Now the only sports in which I have interest are participatory, especially gun matches, in which I have spent a lot of time, and physical workouts, which I do on a daily basis.

But, hey, I won't think the worse of you if watching football is how you and your significant other get your jollies.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

" I am sick to death of people saying that something humdrum is heroic...heroic is a 19 year old US Marine out on patrol in Baghdad, not some 40-something yuppie tying the knot with his partner....get over yourself."

Look, Sgt. Fury, first of all, I suspect they're not all yuppies. Why, there may even be a few marines in line.

Secondly, ANYONE exposing themselves as gay in this society faces risk. I have gay friends who have been spit upon, insulted, kicked in the face, or hospitalized by thugs who have equated homosexuals with someone that it's okay to abuse. Not to mention that most people who have had to admit to themselves, their friends, and their families that they're gay have had to do so despite the risk of tearing their lives apart, losing fiends, or their jobs. As a result, most gay people I know ARE heros. They've had to live for years in a society that despises them and treats them as perverts or worse, which may be a harder cross to bear than many realise.

So get over your own rude self, Mark.

From here it like the rude one is Stu, not Mark.

That is, from here it looks like the rude one is Stu, not Mark.

How so? You don't think that telling someone to get over themselves is rude?

Oh, unless Mark wasn't addressing that to me in particular, in which case, sorry Mark, misinterpreted what you said.

Erica, John, et al,
I am far less racist than my parents, to the point that I am in a mixed-race marriage. My parents were less racist than their parents, in that they did their best to teach me to see people as people, that we all want the same things: love and security, regardless of the color of our skin. I have no doubt that I have some racist thoughts, although I try to eliminate them when I recognize them...but I have no doubt my children will be less racist than me.

So why not the same with attitudes toward homosexuality?
Some attitudes do get ingrained, after all. There are probably lines that I will not cross, attitudes that will not change. First of all, when you read the Bible, it is pretty much totally accurate in telling you to avoid behaviors that are damaging to yourself and others. In no special order:
Lying, cheating, stealing, betrayal, contempt, coveting, seeking wealth/pleasure above all else, disobedience of just authority, making promises you can't keep, self-absorption, unrestrained anger, murder, homosexuality, infidelity, judging others by appearances, boasting. There's more, that was just what I could think of off-hand.
You may dispute and exempt homosexuality, fine.
Maybe we don't have enough evidence for the damaging effects of homosexuality. Maybe it was just bigotry on the part of an ancient culture.

But I don't think so. And the fact that the majority of the proscriptions are so comprehensive and detailed and so clearly harmful to individuals as well as society makes me more than willing to take the 2-3 others on faith in anticipation of more information.

So you and John, et al, say there is nothing damaging in your behaviors. So what? I've heard drug users say the same thing. I've heard racists say the same thing. One thing common to all humans: we are excellent at finding justifications for our behaviors. Why should I merely take your word for it?

Nothing definitive has been proven either way, John's insistence to the contrary, because all the studies I've seen purporting to demonstrate genetic destiny are all flawed, and I've seen enough to convince me at least a significant number of homosexuals are not biologically destined (environmentally destined is a different matter...but that includes recruitment...)

So right now I don't think my mind will be changed, no. But it's because of the attitude and rhetoric demonstrated by SSM advocates that I feel this way. The message I see constantly is an assumption that SSM a fundamental right and anyone who resists the change to society is a bigoted homophobe, and probably a "poopiehead" to boot.

You feel that way. Fine. I feel the way I do. It doesn't matter much anymore, because there is absolutely zero common ground anymore. What was there is now a morass of oozing filth.

Or, you could wait, participate in studies and help shore up the weaknesses in the experiments/data to definitively prove that homosexuals have absolutely no choice, wait for my kids to be more tolerant than me, wait for my grandkids to be more tolerant than my kids, and have the absolute right to marry someday down the line, once there is no doubt about the wholesomeness of homosexuality and everyone laughs about how bigoted so many people were back in 2004.
In other words, the breadth and nature of the resistance should be a clue that perhaps now is not the right time.
Unless you somehow fear that time/science is not on your side, that another generation of study and knowledge and understanding will undermine the gains you've made in the last 20 years?
Or is it just that you don't give a flying rat's butt about future generations, you just want what you want right now and you don't care what it takes to get it?

That's the impression I'm left with. As someone else said earlier, if I'm labelled a bigoted homophobe for not immediately rushing out to show my 100% absolute support, then "in for a penny, in for a pound", I might as well protect my vision of society as selfishly as you fight for yours.

So maybe you don't care about convincing me because you assume I'm a lost cause. Well, I used to oppose homosexuals serving openly in the military, but I support it now. My observation of homosexuals has led me to believe that full integration in the military would be good for everyone, and that "don't ask, don't tell" has done more harm than good. That doesn't sound like a mindless homophobe, does it?
So maybe I have some decent reasons for my worries. Or maybe I don't, but I haven't seen anyone who wants to take the time for me to get used to the idea.
So maybe I am a lost cause. If so, it's because the techniques and arguments have burnt bridges that could have been used to lead to greater understanding.

I'm only one person, so maybe it doesn't matter. You can ignore me with impunity, and probably will. But I think the nature of humanity is that there are thousands of other people holding the exact same opinion. If it comes to it, we'll be writing our Congressmen to support a Constitutional Amendment stating clearly that a marriage is between one man and woman. At some point, you'll have to deal with us. And a good number of us have attitudes cemented by your actions and techniques.

Because one thing I point out:
Racial Discrimination is treating someone differently because, regardless of behavior, the appearance is different.
What homosexuals are experiencing is discrimination because, regardless of appearance, the actual behavior is different.
The point being: you really should take a step back and investigate your identity. We all use "homosexual" as shorthand, but the truth is, what I object to/resist/disapprove of is your behavior, not you. You may see your behavior as so intrinsic to your identity as to be inseparable. Most of us don't.
Remember, the great crime against black people is that no matter how much they tried to play by the rules, they were disqualified by the color of their skin and by the shapes of a few facial features. What you are trying to do is get society to accept a behavior as being okay. That's why many people see the attempt to connect homosexual rights to the civil rights struggle of the blacks as an absolute insult. You can integrate completely into society simply by hiding your homosexuality. There was nothing a black person could hide to gain acceptance. Before he opened his mouth, he had failed the job interview, he had been denied the right to vote, he had someone decide to kill him. For a homosexual to experience anything of that sort of discrimination, you have to shove your behavior in the face of someone. Not quite the same.
So you don't want to be in the closet anymore to gain the benefits of society. I can understand that.
But it's not the same thing as not even having a closet you can find solace/camouflage in, like blacks.
Remember, you are lobbying for a new behavior (SSM) to be accepted, one that to the best of my knowledge has not existed in society at all until very, very recently. I understand you want it for yourself or your friends, and you want to focus on the positive and minimize the negative.
But as Mrs. du Toit pointed out, there were many social adjustments that were initiated with the best of intentions that may have made life easier/happier for a handful of people at the expense of the majority. That's bulk of the reason for the resistence you encounter.

I hope that helps.

John, you are responding to my comment: "I happen to believe that a restoration and allowance for an expression of a reasonable standard of values and morals is the idea whose time as come."

I was really, really careful about how I phrased the comment, for exactly the reasons you give in your response.

You responded, "How would you propose that such standards be codified into law."

I do not want them codified into law. That's my argument, premise, and goal. I do not want the state involved in it AT all--and I want the state out of the picture completely. Peer pressure, social pressure, allowing private individuals to respond to behavior they find abhorrent is how I want it resolved. If I have an employee who cheats on their spouse, I want to be able to fire them for it--and say that's why I fired them. There are CONSEQUENCES for behavior. People are already doing this, but they're worried about lawsuits for such an expression. Society's hands have been tied by the courts--by having these things "codified into law."

If a business doesn't want to hire gay people, that's THEIR right. If they do not want to have to provide health insurance to a gay couple, that is THEIR right--they have a right to believe it is immoral and wrong--and adjust their hiring policies and benefit programs based on THEIR opinions.

But if gay people get to call themselves married then they won't be able to do that anymore.

I am not suggesting that these are good things. Far from it. I would love to have magic faerie dust appear from the heavens to make everyone love and respect everyone--judge people on the contents of their character, etc. But that is not going to happen. Bigots have just as much right to be bigots as non-bigots have to be accepting of everyone.

You don't change hearts and minds by force--all you do is make people's cold hearts go underground.

Why do you think job descriptions are now written in such minute detail? Employers never find anyone who completely matches their requirements. They do that so they can find a reason to disqualify a candidate--a legally legitimate reason. When we all know that it is just a ruse to eliminate someone who may not be the religion, sexual persuasion, or political ideology--or they're not pretty enough, or have big enough boobs.

As a private individual or busines owner, I should be able to refuse to do business with people who do not pass my personal standards. You get to decide for your life and business what standards are important to you.

The problem has been that these social or individual decisions have been "codified into law" and I'm no longer allowed to do that legally. I cannot refuse to hire a bigot. I cannot refuse to hire someone who belongs to a communist organization. That, I believe, is why there is a huge problem.

That is why progress on homosexual rights is viewed with such suspicion.

Only the government may not discrimate. Only the government has to treat people equally. Individual citizens DO NOT. But policy policy is now demanding that people, as private citizens, accept people into their lives and businesses when they do not want them around. That just makes the problem worse--they dig in.

Since the abuses are far and wide on this issue, people are fucking terrified of what this will mean to them personally.

Take the PGA golf thing a while back. The PGA risked being sued for having a male only tournament. This really pissed people off. The Boy Scouts is another one. It's a PRIVATE group. They get to decide if they want to allow gays, lesbians, males, females, etc. But people are "codifying into law" intrusions on public groups--or looking at ways to punish groups or people who won't conform to their agenda, by denying them access if they don't conform.

Title X. Affirmative Action. Hiring quotas.

All of these things are influencing how people are viewing the gay marriage issue.

Until we roll back the intrusions on what private individuals may do WITH PROTECTION--ACROSS THE BOARD--it is riduclous to expect that people are going to be willing to extend MORE "codification into law" for another special segment of the population.

nathan wrote: I might as well protect my vision of society as selfishly as you fight for yours.

Yes, nathan, you might as well. You're not a lost cause. Lost, maybe.

We only cultivate the desire to find our own way once we leave the path and become lost.

nathan wrote: I think the nature of humanity is that there are thousands of other people holding the exact same opinion.

I *know* the nature of humanity is rooted in plurality.

...unless I misunderstood what you meant, in which I retract/apologize.

It never stops there, Mrs du Toit. Once again you have hit upon the truth. It really bites that you are on the other side of this issue.

What you have described never stops there. Sure, don't hire 'those' people. Maybe businesses can group together to exclude 'those' people. In fact, why don't those people live somewhere else? No. Let's kill 'em!

Slippery slope, anyone?

That's what it comes to without release valves, Brett. It's exactly the slippery slope of the mob that I'm trying to avoid.

That is the fear that I (and I think Dean) have been trying to articulate.

We're all reasonably polite and careful not to offend too greatly on this site. But we are not everyone--there are some REALLY pissed off folks out there--who believe that gay people are the scourge of the earth. They're looking for a chance to lock them up--send them to siberia.

And history has shown that it doesn't take much to push the mob into "Kill the Beast!" mode.

Crowds are dangerous. Angry crowds are MORE dangerous.

When you gag someone, when you stifle their expression, when you refuse to allow their dissent, things will release--somewhere, somehow.

Forcing another view, with the power of the state, is wrong. It doesn't matter if it is done for all the right reasons, or with the broader good in mind. It's wrong and it's dangerous.

Mrs. du Toit, that was unexpectedly clear and straightforward. I hear what you're saying. I'm going to think about what you said.

Thank you.

Mrs. du Toit is right. Get government out of the picture entirely here. We each have the right to associatiate with or not with whomever we damn please, most definitely including in our own homes. If an employer doesn't want to hire homosexuals, or women, or Jews, or Negroes, or white men, he shouldn't have to. And, in turn, no one should ever be forced to deal with such an employer. Boycott him. Let him go out of business.

If I were an employer, I would refuse to hire anyone who was a member of any subversive organization, i.e., any Communist, Nazi, or pro-terrorist organization, or any organization that ever supported or advocated "sodomy" laws and/or that advocates this despicable Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment. If a person was but is no longer a member of any such organization, it would be up to him to show that he had made a clean break with its ideology, down to basic premises. I will never allow any such subversive rat into my home, that is for damn sure. I have a right and a duty to refuse to associate with subversive scum or to give my moral sanction to my enemies. Let them perish with and in their own void.

That is where I stand.

The Libertarian argument only works if you have no rights provided by civil law. As it stands, marriage provides a great number of civil rights that are being denied to gay couples because they cannot marry. Some 1,049 rights, according to Atrios (the posting provides a shorter list of more important marriage-based civil rights, including Tax, Estate Planning, and Government Benefits).

Brett,
Hey, thanks for the sarcasm! I was running a little low, and you made sure I got my quota for the week!

Check out Dave's post on the FMA. Here's a new purely economic argument from Ron in the comments:

I have an argument. It's not overwhelming, and it may not even be convincing (it hasn't convinced me) but I'll outline it. However, first I'll point out again that I care very little for or against gay marriage. I think the net impact on society will justify my indifference. On to the show.

1) Society recognizes that man-woman marriage is a benefit to society, because it results in the continuation of society. The gov't and business both 'subsidize' man-woman marriage to encourage it.

2) The arguments in favor of extending the subsidation to gay couples will also extend the subsidation to single people. The end result is that all marriage states are equally subsidized, or restating: that none of them are subsidized.

3) The end result is that society is no longer subsidizing that which results in the continuation of society.

After arguing this over at Kevin's, nobody was able to come up with another reason to subsidize man-woman marriages except for the continuation of society argument. No one was able to prevent the extension of marriage benefits to singles once they are allowed to gays. The only thing that was brought up that I found hard to refute was that we are nearly overpopulated and that it is not currently in society's interest to enlarge itself.

Don't you love it when someone constructs an argument about marriage that ignores human feeling?

Yours,
Wince

To Nathan:

I don't believe that studies (whether scientific or not) will answer the ultimate question of whether or not homosexuality qua homosexuality is an inherently destructive thing. There is too much subjectivity inherent in the discussion of sexual and romantic matters (and I stress that homosexuality is a *romantic* and *emotional* orientation as much as a sexual one) to facilitate meaningful research, given the tools we have at our disposal today.

That might be the reason you detect impatience on the part of today's gay and lesbian people. We do not know when we can be scientifically vetted. We are generally more interested in social change through education and visibility.

I believe that making connections with individual gay and lesbian people is the only way to demostrate the fact that our romantic and sexual choices are not inherently evil, inherently destructive, or particularly dangerous to anyone. You have to see it to believe it, you might say.

Promiscuity can be harmful. It can cause STDs and emotional distress. Divorce can be harmful. Bad for the individuals divorcing and bad for their children. Drug use can be harmful, when it's irresponsible.

But none of these issues has anything to do with homosexuality. Our drug use has nothing to do with the state of being gay. Our promiscuity has nothing to do with our sexual orientation. The length and quality of our relationships is not tied to our desires.

Of course, I can't prove this to you. I can only *demonstrate* it to you. We have all the same failings and challenges as straight people. It seems, at least from my perspective, that straight people get more of a benefit of the doubt than we do. I can only gather that it's because we are less visible than straight people, more unknown, more mysterious and thus frightening. I would like to change that.

In the end, I doubt that science will answer your questions. This is why all the information I offer is anecdotal. It's part of my day-to-day reality, and as such can't be denied. It's all I can give you, really, and I'm sorry if I seem impatient because I won't wait for the right study to validate my existence. My existence has already been sufficiently validated for me. Whether that meets your standards is important, but secondary.

And regarding racism versus anti-gay sentiment and why the former decreases generationally while the latter does not, I have a simple answer: Intermixing of races creates visibly interracial children, while homosexuals are born independent of race and are not apparent until well into puberty, if at all. Each generation of homosexuals is born isolated and largely invisible to the general population. Through mixing of the races over time, racial attitudes change. Because we are a sort of reproductive anomaly, each gay or lesbian person must discover others of their kind on their own, often with daunting effort.

It stands to reason that an interracial child would be less racist than his mixed-race parents, who would in turn be less racist than their racially "pure" parents. Homosexuality is in a separate category from race: We seem to occur at a relatively steady rate, and there is no known method of breeding us out.

To Mrs. du Toit:

It's amazing, but I totally agree with you that private institutions should be allowed to discriminate in employment -- and even in service -- on whatever grounds they choose. This would include "whites only" lunch counters, "men only" clubs, and "blondes only" strip clubs. I even think it's fine for private institutions to discriminate against gay and lesbian people -- and to experience the loudest and most unflattering publicity for doing so.

In the end, however, it hasn't been government interference that's ended many forms of discrimination: Diversity has been found to benefit the bottom line. Talent knows no racial, sexual or gender-related bounds; and the essnential pragmatism of businessespeople means that they'll use the best talent they can find.

Now, when we get to government, that's a different story: Government must treat all people (adults, at least) as identical citizens. No citizen is more or less important than any other. One man, one vote. It seems you agree with this in principle as well.

Here's where we diverge: I think that if the state allows same-sex marriage (or civil unions, or what have you, as the word "marriage" is not the sticking point for me), this does not constitute forcing values upon anyone. It is merely the government's legal recognition of certain relationships. It doesn't validate anything -- it merely creates a legal framework. I believe that people have every right to object to homosexuals and to our relationships, and to behave accordingly in the private sphere. In the public sphere, however, I believe that there should be no legal distinction between a straight relationship and a gay one -- because the participants in both relationships are equal citizens.

I know you've written extensively that marriage is, by definition, an exclusive arrangement. From a societal standpoint, I can't argue with you: Churches and communities can choose to recognize or ignore relationships as they see fit. But I think it misses the mark to view marriage as something the government makes possible. Marriage would exist independently of any government. Government might create certain economic incentives for marriage (which I believe are inappropriate), but it really can't swerve the tide of humanity. Legal marriage is an expression of humanity. It comes *from* humanity. It isn't imposed upon humanity.

And if same-sex marriage were legalized, no one would have to enter into a same-sex marriage, just like no one has to enter into a traditional marriage. It's a construct put there by the government to honor certain relationships.

Maybe there just isn't enough support yet to get that governmental recognition. Okay. That's fine. But am I just going to capitulate and say, "You're right, my relationship isn't really worthy of legal recognition, I'll just go home now"? No.

It seems contradictory that you would grant the private sector the right to discriminate while forbidding the public sector from discriminating, except in the case of same-sex relationships. It seems that the societal construct of marriage is inseparable from the legal construct in your mind. This is understandable, but there is a significant chunk of society who *do* see the two things separately.

There is a disconnect. I am not legally married in the sense that you describe--maybe it will help if I apply it to myself.

Kim and I were together for a number of years before we sought the government status of "married." We were not looking for a legal status to validate our relationship. We do not give (or surrender) that kind of power to the state, nor does the state HAVE that much power.

The state does not decide that PERIOD.

Kim and I decided we were a couple (the same as gay and lesbian folks do) without getting any other people involved in the decision.

It gets complicated because we all have used the term "legally married." But that is wrong/confusing. You can be married by a priest, a friend, or any other person you choose. You do not have to get a marriage license nor do you have to tell anyone, or send out announcements about it.

People have been doing that for millenia without any other people involved.

When we say "legally married" what we are really saying is a synonym (from a purely business sense) for being "incorporated." The man's house and the woman's house has been legally joined--we are no longer to be thought of us two seperate individuals, but are to be treated by government and other businesses as a "single entity." It is in every sense of the word a legal title to a business (civil) agreement. By getting a license from the state, it gives us the ability to have our civil arrangement recorded--no different from a land or title claim.

Again, using a business analogy, I can go to the state and get a business license, but that does not mean I have to open a business--it only gives me the legal right to do so. By doing that, it places a different set of local government services at my disposal, as well as declaring a tax status. If I didn't get the business license, I would have no legal right to claim the tax status.

Unlike legal marriage however, I cannot operate a business without a license. The People have agreed to that and can fine an individual who does not comply. In addition, the state can demand that I have a social security number, a physical address, and a host of other requirements based on the particular locales laws and regulations.

If I wish to incorporate, another set of restrictions and hurdles apply--but I also get to check a different box on tax status, have more services at my disposal, and have differentiated the assets of the company from my personal assets (the reason people incorporate).

In both of these cases--operating a business or incorporating a business, The People have agreed upon the laws (via their legislature), have established a standard, and determined who may participate.

You could just as easily argue that someone has "a right" to sell hotdogs from their living room as they would to get "legally married." But The People disagree with you. It would seem that being able to sell a product you've made yourself would be as fundamental a right as breathing.

"Legally married" doesn't have any meaning outside of the government or the business/property realm. I could never have gotten married and my relationship would still be valid. Had there been a Domestic Partnership Agreement available to us, we might have chosen that. There were several reasons why we chose the marriage route (mainly because we have children), but had it not been available to us, or we had chosen differently, it would not have altered our relationship in any significant way.

We are in agreement that there needs to be an easy way for people who do not want the stigma or responsibilities of marriage (or who offer society no benefit to elevate the laws or entitlements to that level), but The People have to fund that--whatver it is called or however it is decided--so they have a right to have a say in the matter.

I understand that some of society does view "legal marriage" as a validation and permission from the state to breed or have sex. They can see it that way if they choose--but it's wrong.

That's really well-put. Now, being a pretty lassaiez-faire kind of guy, I don't particularly like many of the restrictions that the government puts on businesses, but the fact is that incorporations -- whether commercial or familial -- are regulated by the state. By your argument, if Matt and I chose to go through a wedding ceremony (there being many churches and many individuals in our families and community who would happily participate), we could easily become married in a context that would be meaningful to us and to the people in our lives. Now, I fully realize that for many people, our marriage wouldn't be a marriage, but that would be perfectly alright. Our relationship would be validated in our eyes and in the eyes of our community and those closest to us, and that would be more than enough.

So clearly, the main conflict arises when we discuss using marriage as a legal term to describe same-sex relationships. Just as clearly, The People are more likely to approve of legally-incorporated same-sex relationships if they aren't called marriages: "civil union" or "domestic partnership" is a more applicable label. And just as unmarried persons like myself subsidize legal marriages, legally married persons like yourself would subsidize -- whether directly or indirectly -- any legally-recognized same-sex relationship.

I'm glad we understand each others' terms better, and it is encouraging that you had a marriage that was meaningful to you long before you petitioned for a legal arrangement to complement what you already had.

I have to go vacuum now.

nathan:
"environmentally destined is a different matter...but that includes recruitment..."

nathan, I have to say that I just do not understand this "recruitment" fixation you have. I suspect I speak for a lot of gay people when I say...how would it even work? Look at Steven Malcolm Anderson, who may be more into homosexuality as a concept than I am, but who's obviously incurably (as it were) straight. I realize that a lot of pop culture makes gay life look like a never-ending good, if neurotic, time. But real people know better. Maybe it's different for people like John and my first boyfriend, who figure themselves out in their early teens, but everyone I know who's in gay life long-term started out resisting his impulses big time, went through at least six months of slow-boil nervous breakdown, and only committed to being gay when he was sure he knew what he was doing. The reaction to anyone who tries to recruit you is, "Look, you don't understand, I just can't do it, okay? I'm glad you're happy, but please just leave me the hell alone."

Those who are susceptible to "recruiters" tend to spend a few months experimenting with scrupulously hygienic making out, taking malicious delight in giving their parents a heart attack by telling them about it, going on and on and on about how happy they are to be free of the fetters of bourgeois society until the real fags around them are ready to haul them into the bar pisser for a goddamned swirlie, and then getting bored with the whole thing and finding themselves a nice girl, to the extravagant relief of everyone.

And I can assure you that I've encountered just as many guys who think it's amusing to make young, confused gay boys fall in love with them, fool around with them a few times, then decide they're straight after all and exit.

Sean Kinsell wrote:
"Look at Steven Malcolm Anderson, who may be more into homosexuality as a concept than I am, but who's obviously incurably (as it were) straight."

Thank you for the kind mention. However...

I'm not straight, I'm drawn to curves.

But, you're right. My attraction to curvaceousness, to the encircling Eternal Feminine, _is_ incurable. I doubt in any amount of psychoanalysis or "reparative therapy"* could ever make me straight, i.e., a man's man. I don't remember ever consciously choosing to go from "girls are icky" to "girls are the most desirable beings in the Universe". It just happened. Divine destiny, I think, as I believe your or John's attraction to and love for a man is Divine destiny, as is a woman's attraction to and love for a woman.

*By the way, that's just more hypocrisy from the anti-homosexual crowd. If so-called "reparative therapy" and the "ex-gay" movement isn't certain heterosexuals trying to "recruit" and brainwash homosexuals, then I wonder what the Hell it is. I'm against it.