Note to Andrew Sullivan: Don’t Blame Breitbart For My Thought Crimes
by Charles WinecoffDear Andrew Sullivan,
Thank you for your Halloween Daily Dish in response to my Big Hollywood blog about the latest LGBT assault on Mormons. We actually met once, briefly, at DC Pride, circa 1990. I had never heard of you or The New Republic. I do remember liking your accent.
More recently, about five years ago, I shot you an email to say thanks for a column you’d written about the threat of Islam to gays. You sent a nice thank you back. I’ve also admired your calling the hate crimes bill “boutique legislation” and urging your readers to stop sending checks to the Human Rights Campaign.
I appreciate the restraint of your posting, “A Gay Voice Against Marriage Equality,” though the title concerns me a little, as the last thing I want is for LGBTers to assume I am some kind of Anita Bryant (she was very active when I was coming out, and we don’t need a repeat of that). Few things are as terrifying as the thought of becoming the object of gay fury (which I understand you’ve had some experience with). It’s a sorry state of affairs when people within the gay community no longer feel they can speak freely without risking ostracism or threats. I sometimes wonder if there should be a hate crimes bill to protect gay people from other gay people.
That said, there are a couple of points in your piece I’d like to address.
First, one does not have to ”search high and low” to find lesbians and gays who are suspicious of the cause formerly known as same-sex marriage. Contrary to popular mythology, not all of us feel a pressing need for “marriage equality,” nor do we derive our self-worth from the state. I know gay Californians who voted for Prop 8 last year because they sincerely believe it is in the best interest of children (some of whom will grow up to be gay), and of society as a whole (which includes gay people), to uphold the ideal of the man-woman nuclear family.
And by the way, the gestapo tactics used by the gay community against Prop 8 supporters didn’t win any hearts and minds - they simply spread fear.
Second, the current term for gay marriage, “marriage equality,” is deliberately misleading. On the surface, it sounds harmless, even benign, but its bullet-proof banality is a con to nip dissent in the bud. After all, who could possibly be against something as fair-sounding as “marriage equality?”
“Marriage equality” is like “social justice” – a catch-all phrase that means everything, and nothing. But ordinary words are a powerful tool in the ongoing, subliminal campaign to disguise social revolution (the tearing down of mainstream institutions) as reasonable legal reform. It’s the oldest trick in the book.
Meanwhile, gays often seem to mistake legal rights with moral approval. Unfortunately, being able to say you are “married” will not buy daddy’s love – or that of anyone else who is already unwilling to give it. And there are other consequences. As Roseanne Barr put it: ”I am totally against gay marriage. Haven’t gay people suffered enough?” As we’ve seen over the past 40 years, approval and acceptance can be achieved incrementally – with time – not whole hog ASAP.
“But seeking equality surely is a way for the two belief systems to coexist,” you write. “Not a whit of heterosexuals’ rights and privileges and families is affected, after all, and most of us who support marriage equality do so because we admire the stability that marriage gives straights.” Again, sounds good, but you’ve got the motivation wrong.
Based on a lifetime of experience in the gay world – which has included caring for an ex- as he was slowly wasting away from AIDS - I’m sad to say I don’t believe that most gays “admire the stability that marriage gives straights.” I wish I did.
On the contrary, many gays seem to resent the promise of stability that marriage gives straights. Far too often have I heard upstanding lesbian and gay couples mock the alleged sanctity of heterosexual marriage – in their defense of same-sex marriage – with snide remarks about the sky-high divorce rate, Britney Spears, and other mainstream marital failures. So spite has just as much to do with the grab as admiration.
The gay community is trying to usurp the word “marriage” without considering less antagonistic ways to attain the same goal (full legal rights). What the advantages might be - for them - in keeping the ideal of traditional marriage intact (most gay people are themselves products of heterosexual nuclear families) never even registers on their gaydar.
As “male” and “female” are increasingly viewed as archaic social constructs – or elective surgical options (thank you, “Chaz” Bono) - marriage is rapidly becoming just another disposable lifestyle choice, with children fashionable accessories (largely to make their parents feel like “good” people). This, of course, is not the fault of gays and lesbians; the deterioration started with irresponsible, sybaritic straight people. But to further dilute the original intent of marriage (to raise children and keep us all going) isn’t going to help anyone.
If the LGBT community wants to do something really radical – and be truly honest about it - they should consider Alan Dershowitz’s suggestion to “unlink” the religious institution of marriage from any state control, and make civil unions the secular norm.
That would give religious couples, for whom the “m” word is sacred, the freedom to marry in a church, synagogue, mosque, or whatever – letting religious establishments choose which marriages to honor (including gay marriages, if they wish) – and non-religious couples the autonomy to register for civil union, fully recognized by the state, with the same rights and responsibilities.
This way, gay and straight couples would be equal under the law. And gay couples would still be free to propose “marriage equality” to individual churches, without it being any concern of the state. Dershowitz contends that a division of this magnitude would be good for gay people and the religious opponents of gay marriage, and that it would fortify the separation between church and state.
Not only would such a distinction shake things up (to satisfy the gays’ radical itch), it would also clear up a lot of the confusion and baggage that comes with “m” word. Wouldn’t that be a relief.
Best of all, everybody would be happy!
Yeah, yeah – I know: “But marriage in the United States is a civil union – while a civil union is not a marriage!” So change it. Dershowitz’s plan can’t be any harder than what the gay community’s already trying to do (and failing). Imagine a marriage reform that gays, Christians, Jews, Muslims – and Mormons – could all agree on. Kumbaya, baby!
Lastly, you write that my position on “marriage equality” is nothing more than “Breitbartism… not principled conservatism; it is cultural anti-liberalism so deep it forces people to take positions they otherwise wouldn’t.” I’m touched by the ginger way you avoid placing the blame for what I wrote directly on me. Seriously, it’s very sweet. But there’s really no need to sidestep the issue.
If by “not principled conservatism” you mean that my appraisal of the situation isn’t by-the-book, you are right. Unlike the liberalism I blindly believed in for most of my life – thanks to 24/7 media indoctrination - my conservatism springs from actual life experience and a hard-won trust in my own gut. It’s organic. And like being gay (but unlike “marriage equality”), it’s not a choice.
As for ”Breitbartism,” I’ll take that as a compliment, since the right-wing, alleged Svengali happens to be one of the most kind and open-minded straight men I’ve ever had the good fortune to meet. What I’ve actually been the butt of is ”Sullivanism”: the subtle diminishment of an apostate who follows his or her conscience off the gay plantation.
You write, “No one should take a position on civil rights because a movie trailer made them retch.” I couldn’t agree with you more. But do you really think the full-length 8: The Mormon Proposition will be less overwrought than its teaser?
My one regret is that the preview didn’t come out sooner. They could have put it to good use down in Guantanamo Bay.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
183 Comments
Why is it that every liberal defends a member of a minority group as being misled by the conservative? I think it has a lot to do with projection. They don't think, they are lead to think. So you couldn't have thought something different if you're in that minority classification, so you must have been lead to think, probably by some evil, overbearing mastermind who happens to be a white straight Christian male aged 35-60. Their response is even more hilarious when none of that is true.
But I do agree that the best solution is to take away marriage rights from the state, create civil unions for every couple and then let the churches decide who they marry. I have a feeling that will never be allowed because the left will argue that you are giving the churches free reign to discriminate, so we're right back at the impasse that started it all.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Big Hollywood, Tamela Scott. Tamela Scott said: Note to Andrew Sullivan: Don’t Blame Breitbart For My Thought Crimes http://is.gd/4NPU2 [...]
I'm really sorry for being so ignorant, but I guess I don't really understand the terms. What is marriage, legally speaking? What is a civil union, legally speaking. And why is the state involved in marriage (or unions between couples) at all? From my point of view, marriage is simply a way for the state to justify higher taxes.
I also think taking marriage out of the hands of the state is the best thing to do. There should only be "civil unions" and marriage should be left to the church. Get the government out of marriage completely, as it is essentially a religious construct. I don't see why anyone could have a problem with this solution. It makes everyone equal under the law, and those churches/religions that cannot support marriage of LGBT do not have to marry them.
Mexico has had "civil unions" as the norm for generations. You could have a civil union and get married many months later. tThis can also act as a protection for the all-too-familiar oops! of a pregnant fiancee. The woman and child are in a civil union with the father long before the money and expense of a church event, and it's harder for the father to skip out, legally. It's actually very pro-family. Maybe that's why gays don't like the idea.
The way they carry on about it here, you'd think they expect the State to dictate which church can baptize them, or bury them. Marriage was not the creation of the State, but a Sacrament of the Church.
Sir Elton John wrote an opinion piece in USA Today in which he said, ""I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership…You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
Sullivan must not be looking very hard if he can't find one of the world's most prominent gay celebrities voicing his opinion in one of America's biggest papers.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-el...
Kudos, Mr Winecoff! As an evangelical Christian, I can totally get behind this idea.
I like the idea of getting government as far from the institution of marriage as possible (I'm not sure how it got involved in the first place) and the proposal of contractually-based relationships for whoever wants them makes sense to me. It would make more sense that our current divorce system.
In addition, if you want to take a lot of the angst out of the issue, also lobby for sex education to be removed from the school systems. A lot of the hostility to gay unions is rooted in the reality that, if recognized by the government, homosexuality would be taught in all schools and anyone (parent or child) who objects would be a criminal. This also breaches the church-state boundary and will paralyze any group that disagrees with the agenda.
Bravo, on your solution to the problem. That is the only solution I can think of that clears up everything. If the LGBT community got their way with "marriage equality" things would only get worse. With marriage equality a church could be sued or come in violation of laws by rejecting a same sex marriage if they stay to their religious beliefs. This would cause much resentment between both sides even more so than is currently the norm.
As someone who has been told politely he was going to hell, what happened to the mind set of sticks and stones. A legal joining exists, yes it is not called marriage, but marriage is a word, will this word make your partner love you more? The tactics of the activists showing words could be countered by freaking out by those who are targeted with one video of a pride parade, and not an emotional evokeing splice-fest. Can't we all just not get along, and not throw garbage over the fence, neighbor.
" The smallest minority is the individual"…. Ayn Rand
Try telling that to a liberal… LOL
This is a workable idea…
Even make "marriages" performed by a judge strictly a "civil union" contract, and hand Marriage over to churches as a sacrament. (Don't imply "Big M" as significantly more important than "little m", that's just a way to differentiate the two, you trolls. I have a religious bent, and most sacraments in church are capitalized, so take off…)
I have never understood why one group would want to co-opt something from the other "persecuting" group in the first place. Elton John had it right from the beginning…
Charles – one more reason why you I think you rock. Well reasoned and extremely well written. I would have been harsher and nastier but you somehow found a way to reply to Andrew Sullivan in a way that is, well, sweet. But no less forthright.
GTMO hasn't closed yet! There's still time to host a premire of "8" down there in Camp Delta. If KSM knew that was coming, he'd probably volunteer to be waterboarded instead.
[...] bighollywood.breitbart.com/cwinecoff/2009/11/05/note-to-andrew-sullivan-dont-blame-breitbart-for-my-… [...]
“Marriage equality” is like “social justice” – a catch-all phrase that means everything, and nothing."
Could not agree more. Much like 'open-minded' and 'tolerant' now mean 'agrees with me'. If we could just ditch the twisted terminology, maybe we'd get issues like gay marriage/civil unions sorted one way or the other without all the nasty abuse, propaganda, and dishonestly- and actually discuss things like adults.
Charles — Gays', minorities', feminists' and greens' are just tools being used by Marxists/Socialists etc to inflict their political ideology on the USA. Socialism/Marxism is the FIRST agenda, not gay, women's or minorities' rights. That's why if one of these groups steps out of line (as you obviously did), you are quickly attacked and either driven back into the herd or ostracized. Ask Clarence Thomas, Condy Rice, Tammy Bruce, the late Michael Crichton (who questioned global warming and had footnotes).
The separation of church and state is the main concern I have for gay marriage being deemed a "right." Many religions–full disclosure, I'm a Mormon–consider their chapels, synagogues, and temples as being holy/sacred. If gay marriage was a "right" then the government would be forced to uphold that right and force religions to open their privately held properties to the marriage of gay couples. I'm all for Mr.Dershowitz's plan, gay couples are being shafted when it comes to state and federal benefits, and should have a legal recognition of their union. LGBT community demands "tolerance" but what they don't understand is that tolerance and "condone" are not synonyms, one can tolerate another's beliefs/actions without condoning them.
Dear Uncle Tom. Would you prefer the terminology 'spousal rights' or better yet, a gay religion?
Since no one has mentioned this yet, I will. The IRS would never allow such a separation of civil union and church marriage. If this would happen and a couple marries in a church but does not enter a civil union, their tax situation would be that of individuals, since the state would only recognize civil unions.
I remember years ago that some couples would divorce every year, file separately, and then use their tax savings to fly to a romantic destination and get married all over again. There's also the sad situation of elderly people who fall in love but can't get married because their social security and pensions would be affected. The IRS is very interested in making sure we pay as high a tax burden as possible, and the IRS is the federal government, and so… this ain't gonna happen.
Here's to civil unions and religious marriage. As a Christian, conservative, and a man married to a woman, I'm all for 'gay marriage'. The more I read and the more I listen, the more I think that the solution you proferred will be where we end up. Might be projection on my part since this is what I think would be the best outcome.
Good piece Charles.
Right on Charles! Excellent article.
I wish the left would quit projecting THEIR views onto the right. We are not haters of all things different and everytime the left writes an article stating that we are you can almost ALWAYS find their own hate somewhere hidden in that same article.
Or barring the removal of sex ed, give parents vouchers so that they can select which schools their kids attend. If you don't want your kid being taught that homosexual marriage is a good thing, pick a school that doesn't include it in the curriculum.
The reason why gay marriage is preferable to civil unions is due to the fact that civil unions don't have as much benefits as marriage. It isn't about resenting heterosexual unions (??). How can gay marriage endanger the "sanctity" of marriage, with the number of divorces climbing year after year?
By the way, most gay couples don't adopt children for fashion accessories. You don't have to be gay, to be a bad parent. What baffles me is the inability for conservatives to see the other side. Gay people exist and as much as one would like to see the days of Ozzie and Harriet and the evil gays back, it's not going to happen. Society has moved on, and gay marriage will happen. Not now, but some day. It's only a matter of time.
I vaguely remember that Fox aired a poll about this subject a while ago. It seemed to me that if you called "gay marriage" a civil union and used that in your question, approval for it was at around 60% or a decent majority. When you used the term "gay marriage" approval dropped by 10-15% in the same population. To me this demonstrates that most people are comfortable with the idea that a committed couple can get recognized as such by the state and enjoy all the legal ramifications, but those same folks object the arbitrary redefinition of an institution that has lasted far longer than any of our major religions who are in turn far older than our own government.
And yes, I worry that the gay marriage question will inevitable lead to a First Amendment show-down where either gays or organized religion will lose and it will only make things worse for everyone.
As a straight person, I totally agree with your assessment… The only thing that gives me pause in your assessment though is:
"…letting religious establishments choose which marriages to honor (including gay marriages, if they wish)…"
And the reason that it gives me pause is that I have seen news articles about gay couples suing church groups for not allowing the couple to use their property for a ceremony… the one that sticks in my mind the most is in NJ, a church group owned a length of beach, a gay couple wanted to use it for their ceremony but the church turned them down because they do not approve of gay marriage… If I remember correctly the couple sued the group, but I'm not sure what came out of it.
Wait, I found it:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/judge_ru...
Now I realize that this wasn't an actual church… but it was a church group… and it should be at their discretion as far as who they allow to use their property.
Exactly how I feel.
Someone has said (I trust them to be accurate but I haven't checked) that in Europe, or at least the Netherlands?, people have a civil ceremony and then will have a second church wedding, sometimes on the same day with a procession of sorts between the court house and the chapel. Someone in this comment thread mentioned Mexico has something similar.
I think this is doable. And there *are* churches that will marry gay couples, so no real problem there, if a same-sex couple belong to a church. And the civil union can still regulate, for *everyone*, the basic expectations of a legal domestic partnership involving property or the custody of children (which are issues the courts take care of even if people are just living together) and legal authority if one's partner is incapacitated.
Something that I wish the "equality" people would understand, or even try to understand, is that even if it's true that same sex marriage is not a threat to marriage, marriage *is* threatened. People are responding to something *real* there. They want to figure out how to make marriage stronger. (And I'm convinced that a whole lot of *support* for same sex marriage if of this sort… "Hey, it's worthless anyhow, go ahead and have this worthless thing.") Figure out how to make the civil, government supervised, union *more* serious instead of less, harder to get out of instead of easier, and show that this isn't childish "Me too!" foot stomping but a true valuing of, and promotion of, stability rather than shacking-up with a party.
Yeah… all that divorce.
Here, have this worthless thing. Be equal.
See, aren't I an enlightened person? I'm for equality. I can give away worthless things.
Charles:
WOW! and also WOWf for the precursor to this article. Thank you.
I agree whole-heartedly with you and AD about making Civil Unions the norm in terms of legal status. It would separate Church and state even more in a way that is not harmful or insulting to Religion. It would make the religious cermony more meaningful to those who decide to confirm their already legal status and get married.
It would give everyone, even non-religious straight couples the legal status that they deserve and preserve the Religious faith by not dictating to believers what Marraige is against their own principles.
I think it would be a positive move.
this is a simple issue…
And it has little, if nothing to do with gays. They are simply the excuse- the latest one- to destroy the man-woman family alliance and replace it with total control of the state. THEY want- desperately- to raise your children. By destroying the meaning of marriage- incrementally- they get that much closer to their goal.
However, as Mr Winecoff points out, the LBGT community has been sold a bill of goods on this. It serves several purposes, one of which is the politics of division and the other is the false notion that gay marriage evens the playing field.
It doesn't. By reducing marriage to a casual social contract you take the human and spiritual bond and literally eliminate it. The state becomes that much more influential, and powerful as well.
These are complex issues that need to have the imprimatur of society's approval, not the executive fiat of unelected judges…
I agree, I've been saying the same thing for years, call it a civil union , with all the legal rights and obligations. Problem solved!
One question I have about the solution of having marriage be only a religious institution and civil unions be sanctioned by the state is what to do about children. Since children are best raised in a nuclear family will adoption agencies be able to choose the "best" situation for a child (that is in a family with a male and female role model as father and mother) or will they be forced to adopt to civil union couples as Catholic Charities was in Massachusetts? This is no small issue. Will churches be persecuted under hate crime legislation for preaching that sodomy and sex outside marriage is not the healthiest and holiest course?
Susan,
What about the radical idea of making it so that civil unions have much the same benefits as marriage instead of the mainstream idea that marriage should NOT be just between a man and a woman? I know I'm coming from left field, but if the actual goal is a more equal basis of bennies, logic would point in the direction of tweaking civil union arrangements instead of trying to overturn something that has been in place for, well, civilization.
clear and concise analysis….excellent article. Thank you sir.
Thank you Charles for another wonderful article. I don't know why they don't understand, but the militant nature of pro-Gay Liberalism is a huge turn off for people that would otherwise be on the bandwagon. If someone is attacking you, your choices are to back up, defend yourself, or strike back. It's incredibly self-defeating.
I have long been a believer in civil unions for all, with marriages to be performed by Churches for those who follow their religion. Personally, I don't care if Gay people get married as well, but I know the sentiment isn't there to allow it so instead we waste tens (hundreds) of millions endlessly fighting a stupid battle that just makes everyone angry.
Your columns are like an oasis from that nonsense. They make me yearn for the day when everyone stops fighting in the name of peace. I'm pretty sure the two aren't actually related.
Been saying this for years. The solution for "mariage equality" is to get the state out of mariage altogether. States can give out "civil unions" (simply a document allowing two people to reorganize their tax filings and perhaps receive some benifits from doing so. Religious institutions (or whoever the hell else wants to) can conduct mariage cerimonies. Problem solved.
I've never understood the push to leagalize something which isn't illegal in the first place. To the best of my knowledge, a gay couple who wants to have a wedding isn't going to have the ceremony busted up by the cops and everyone arrested. I always had thought that a marriage was a commitment between two people, and possibly their god if they share one. I suspect that the "gay mariage" crowd is really aiming for the churches in everntually forcing any chuch to perform a "gay wedding" whether they want to or not. It's still a long road to get to that point, but I see no other reason why activists would be so intent on leagalizing something which is not illegal.
You have nailed it right on the head Mr. Winecoff. I agree 1,000%.
Years ago I used to subscribe to a horrid little piece of rubbish called Time magazine. That is where I first came across the name Andrew Sullivan. He wrote an essay about his support for same sex marriage. And it basically boiled down to he was jealous that at family get togethers, he could not use the word marriage when referring to his partner.
As you so well stated, for far too many, its not about equality, its about self esteem. And you are correct, you aren't going to get that from government. You get it from yourself.
I fully support your call to get government out of the marriage business altogether, and call it civil unions for every one, then I can decide for myself whether to say I'm married or not.
Bravo!
I have, and continue to do just that at every opportunity! They don't listen, but I'm still doing it!
As I recall, with respect to western civilization, following the fall of the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church stepped in, and basically tried to civilize the Germanic tribes, to, you know, stop marauding, wait in line, eat with utensils.
They also took it upon themselves to help organize society with schools, health care facilities, births, deaths,and record keeping. Hence, official marriage started as a function of the Church. At some later date, with the rise of the state, they took over the authority with marriage licenses.
The Church still practices the record keeping portion of marriage. That was how I and my family were able to trace a good portion of genealogy by going through those records.
I like the idea of the government getting out of the "marriage" business, and simply registering interested couples as civil unions for government purposes, and leave the term "marriage" for We The People, and any religion we choose to participate in, or choose not too.
Oh, and I have to tell you, the nice, sweet, use of surgical sarcasm drives liberals up a wall far more efficiently than full frontal attacks. Those they just laugh off. But this one is going to sting.
That's the best you can come up with? "Uncle Tom"? I bet even liberals find your jokes boring.
I'm sure the IRS would be able to adapt and make sure all we rich, racists, pay our "fair share."
REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER
August 1, 2003
BILL MAHER: Okay, let me ask you this Congressman [Barney Frank (D-MA)], if gay people were allowed all the rights and privileges that anybody else could have, in other words, they could get the insurance and they could get everything else, but you couldn’t get the name “marriage,” would you go for that?
BARNEY FRANK: Oh, I would, yeah. If there were all the legal rights – remember, gay and lesbian people pay taxes and what we’re saying is, we should be eligible for all the benefits that are supported by the taxes we pay. If people want to create a situation which there is the full legal rights that go with being married, and the price of that was to call it something else, I’m not big on what you call things. And so that would not concern me at all.
What I’m looking for is the right, as I said, two people in love who want to join to their emotional commitment a legal and moral financial responsibility for each other, and if you wanted to call it something else, we can even have a contest.
http://www.safesearching.com/billmaher/print/t_hb... (expired link)
"On the contrary, many gays seem to resent the promise of stability that marriage gives straights."
Speak for yourself Miss Thing. My lover and I have been together for 38 years, and we're not an isolated example.
I'd like to take this opportunity to reccomend everyone at "Big Hollywood" see Tom Ford's surprsingly superb adaptaion of Christopher Isherwood's masterpiece "A Single Man' when it opens next month. The book was written in 1964 and the story it tells is set in and around that period. But it's just as relevant today as it was then as it deals with gay love. I daresay everyone here might well appreciate it.
Save for Mr. Winecoff, of course.
FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 297-297.5
297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?sec...
“The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met…”
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
FABULOUS!! Truly.
Good article.
Interesting report from Australia…….
"When actually asked, for instance, as they were during the Private Lives Report produced by La Trobe University in 2006, most of the gay partners surveyed indicated that they had no intention of ever "formalising' their relationships.
ndeed, there proved to be no evidence that the majority of same sex-attracted men in Australia were in any kind of relationship at all, let alone one that would conform to basic community ideas about the longevity, exclusivity and life-affirming nature of marriage.
So, if Australian gay men are in no rush to form stable, long-term relationships, and certainly don't form unions of the kind most Australians would recognise as having the marks of marriage, who is behind the push for gay marriage, and the idea that it is a key issue for gay Australians?"
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/gays-dont-wan...
Back when I was a brain-dead Liberal (thank you David Mamet for coining such an apt phrase) living inside the myopic and provincial black box known as the thEAtre I was completely unaware of the phenomenon known as Identity Politics.
Dividing human beings into groups collectively determined only by either their color of skin, their gender, their sexual proclivities is the opposite of Individualism.
The events on 9/11/2001 shook me out of my myopic provencialism however true enlightened came one day when I met a man who stated a ground-breaking concept.
He said to me "I'm not Gay, I am a homosexual who is over the rainbow and wants my life back"
At the time I had no idea about the menacing division Identity Political creates in our culture, I now fully understand the concept.
Liberals, ff you really believe your are 'oppressed by some religious right group' you fabricated inside your myopic and provincial black box out the paranoid idea they are denying you the ability to have sex then try being a homosexual, or a black, or a female who believe in Conservative principles in a Liberal-controlled world.
Tyranny comes when the Individual is emotionally blackmailed into a forced Collective.
So count me as an Individual who is over the Collectivist rainbow and wants my life back!
You and your partner aren't the only gay couple out there, you know that.
What is wrong with the idea of making the Civil Union a more solid one? Your post didn't answer that. . .actually it didn't answer much of anything except : How much of a stereotype can you be, seriously? (I almost saw two snaps and a head twist with the "Miss Thing")
*MissQuinn*
Meagen — Had to split into two e-mails
A dissenting voice – society has an interest in encouraging stable families. Families are the backbone of civilized society. Thus, it is in society's interest to foster stable families and to provide incentives. What will 'foster stable families' – there's the rub. There are several big problems traditional folk see with the "societal sanction" of homosexual relationships on a par with heterosexual relationships: first, the belief that men and women are not the same and that the 'ideal' should be upheld (as should the belief that a child has the right to be raised by those who conceived it, hence the opposition to premarital sex, etc.).
Second, the belief that children need a mother/father and anything less (single parenthood, gay parenthood), while not to be demonized, shouldn't be elevated to the same position as traditional marriages. Third, that the public sanction of homosexuality, as does EVERY public sanction of ANYTHING, will inevitably lead to more homosexual behavior even in those who don't consider themselves homosexual – experimentation, "choosing" to partner with a person of the same sex (for those who could go either way, given the greater societal approval – women more than men do this now), etc.
So, it's not just a matter of churches versus society. It's a matter of addressing what's in society's best interest and how to preserve that.
I believe government got involved in 'marriage' way back when politicians-like-Barney-Franks decided they could increase tax revenue by having families pro-create, raise and educate enough children who will in turn pay more taxes to increase government tax revenue.
Government cannot fund itself without the male and the female together pro-creating children.
Homosexuals cannot pro-create children they can only borrow from what Yin and Yang produce.
It all began to fall apart around the time the Democrat Party Slave Plantation destroyed the black man by telling him he was worthless and forcing black women to believe Government was the Daddy because she too was helpless.
Government cannot fund itself without the male and the female together pro-creating children.
As for 'same-sex union between opposite sex' and pro-creating children for future government tax revenue? Homosexuals cannot pro-create children, they can only borrow from what Yin and Yang produces.
So Gaydom, don't blame me for what Yin-Yang controls.
Ever read "The Crooked Man" by Charles Beaumont?
Or has this too been banned by Liberals who banned "The Obsolete Man".
"Menacing Identity Politics!"
Is that the latest Torture Porn filck from Eli Roth?
"Civil Unions"? Separate is never equal.
I'm black too and old enough to remember "Jim Crow." segregation.
best solution is to take away marriage rights from the state, create civil unions for every couple and then let the churches decide who they marry.
This is not a solution at all. You are being led into a trap by the irrgender marriage crowd. Just as the Democrats don't give a crap about anyone actually having health insurance, the left could care less if any gay people got married. There are no gay people that want to be married. The left wants to be able to indoctrinate children to be anti-christian, and by normalizing gay marriage they take one of the main tenants of Christianity, that marriage is a sacramental relationship between a man and a woman ordained by God, and that non-marital sexuality is a moral sin, and they give the State the power discredit it. Religious institutuions will be sued over and over, and denied the right to practice their religious beliefs, if they attempt to deny the legitimacy of homosexual relationships as normative.
Irrgender marriage is a tool the left wants to use to destroy the basis of judeo-chrsitian society.
best solution is to take away marriage rights from the state, create civil unions for every couple and then let the churches decide who they marry.
This is not a solution at all. You are being led into a trap by the irrgender marriage crowd. Just as the Democrats don't give a crap about anyone actually having health insurance, the left could care less if any gay people got married. There are no gay people that want to be married. The left wants to be able to indoctrinate children to be anti-christian, and by normalizing gay marriage they take one of the main tenants of Christianity, that marriage is a sacramental relationship between a man and a woman ordained by God, and that non-marital sexuality is a moral sin, and they give the State the power discredit it. Religious institutuions will be sued over and over, and denied the right to practice their religious beliefs, if they attempt to deny the legitimacy of homosexual relationships as normative.
Irrgender marriage is a tool the left wants to use to destroy the basis of judeo-chrsitian society.
If civil unions had the same benefits, then I would have no qualms with it. Separate, but equal.
those churches/religions that cannot support marriage of LGBT do not have to marry them.
WRONG.
As soon as Gay marriage is legitimized, the next step will kick in. Every Christian organization will be sued and dogged relentlessly into submission. The law will be used as a sledgehammer to force Christians to accept homosexaulity as normative. To be believe that a man and a woman joined together in matrimony is the only non-sinful expression of human sexaulity will be thought crime in their brave new world.
Don't be fooled.
Andrew Sullivan writes, "and most of us who support marriage equality do so because we admire the stability that marriage gives straights.”
Marriage does not give stability. Marriage is a contract, a ceremony, an act of making a promise to someone else that you will work with them as a partner. Depending on the character of the two individuals, marriage can be as flimsy as cardboard or a real refuge. Character is what lends the marriage stability.
I think so many Americans would like for sexuality to be a private matter, we don't like it shoved in our face every second of the day – OK so some people are "gay", it's a private matter.
And as for marriage – this is something that Americans, mostly men and women seemed to be able to do OK many years ago, but now we can't do it anymore, like having a public celebration of Christmas, we can't say the word "Christmas" in public without someone having to insist that equal time be giving to the holiday of Kwanza. WTF?
So people are gay, most Americans don't want your sexuality shoved in our faces anymore than we want to watch old hetrosexual married couples like Mr. and Mrs. Pat Robertson having sex in public. Sure, old hetrosexual married couples often continue to have sex late in life, but it isn't something I or most Americans want to see or talk about.
There are other subjects beside sex.
And the Hate Crime bill is an obamanation. All violent crimes of murder are hateful – is it only PC victim groups like gays, lesbians, Latinos, Blacks and Muslims that should be protected under American law for the violent, hateful crimes of attempted murder?
So Charles, does this mean we're NOT getting married?
I know I know. I've already asked Breitbart and a few others to marry me. But I figure if we move to Dearborn it'll be cool
Aw, I guess Mr. Winecoff doesn't fit the mold libs like you put people in; like blacks, whites, the religious, and gays.
Sorry, some people like to think for themselves.
Separate but equal? Come on, Mr. Ehrenstein. Would a man/women/man marriage be acceptable to you? How about three women claiming marriage? How about four men and an underage girl? Or better yet, an arranged Muslim "marriage" that allows a 30 year old male to claim the rights to a 9 year old girl. Is that OK? Are these equal marriages?
Do you see how ridiculous this "separate but equal" claim is? Jim Crow vs Northern, Midwestern and Western states "defacto" segregation was the same. Both were excuses for discrimination based on race. Jim Crow was bad according to people outside the South but "defacto" was OK because segregation was not based on law; but on normal patterns of living. What a crock.
And as to your relationship of 38 years, congrats. It's amazing isn't it that since this country is so bad and so restrictive and so homophopic and so filled with American Puritanism that you and your mate have endured? Why, the way people like Sullivan act it's like the conservatives are itching to get in your bedroom or wherever and stop you from doing what you do with your mate. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Take a gander around the underdeveloped countries and study the family structure that predominate those backward(yes, I said backward)Hell holes. Than take a look at the Western world. Do you think male/female marriages had anything to do with it?
So for the sake of semantics, you will pass over the right to equality. I got it.
And I'm black as well. Race card play denied.
*MissQuinn*
"Shoved in our faces"? I think you've got it wrong. The "Conservative PC" term is "Shoved down our throats."
Of course there are "other siubjects besiedes sex." There's marriage for example. It's not all about sex, you know. But as you persist in seeing gays as "sexual acts" rather than people with complete and complex lives such insight is barred to you.
Then get a civil union and say you're married to your partner.
Problem solved. Game of semantics is over.
So make it civil union. If th state gets out of marriage entirely, then anyone who wants the legal bennies assigned to marriage now would have to get a civil union, even if they'd previously been married. That's equal treatment under law.
As far as equal treatment under law goes, there is nothing stopping you from marrying now except your preference for same sex partners. No one would stop you from marrying someone of the opposite gender even if they knew you were gay. As far as that goes, you are being treated equally under the law now. The catch is that you can't marry the person you would prefer to, but then, there are fathers that desire their daughters and can't marry them. Men who desire children and can't marry them. Men who want multiple wives and can't marry more than one. Do we also need to recognize those types of "marriages"? And nothing stops any of those other groups from marrying a person of the opposite gender and proper age right now.
http://images.ask.com/pictures?qsrc=&o=0&...
Take a good look at these gay pride parade pictures, and then ask yourself why some people might possibly think that it's all about the sex.
Those aren't the Macy's Day Thanksgiving Parade with giant, kid-friendly balloons of cartoon characters.
Yes, by all means go ahead and try to officially end the concept of civil-marriage. Can you imagine the outcry from formerly-ambivalent heterosexual couples who're suddenly told that THEY'VE lost the right to marry without the approval of a specific church (as opposed to a state contract) and that it "had to be done" in order to make sure the gays remain "in their place?" You'd have pro-gay-rights outcries in something like 47 to 48 states almost overnight; by EXACTLY the same principal that once straight white people started getting AIDS, it suddenly became important
Does anyone know if there was any reaction to the remarks made by the gay British actor, Rupert Everett, criticizing the gay-marriage movement and surrogacy involving gay couples? The following was from the Daily Mail in April:
"The openly gay actor slammed surrogacy for homosexual couples as "utterly horrendous" – and poured scorn on gay marriages……. "It has to change. These awful middle-class queens – which is what the gay movement has become – are so tiresome. It's all Abercrombie & Fitch and strollers. Everybody has the right to do what they want to do, but still…"
I don't agree with everything he said but Everett is a fairly well-known guy and I was wondering what level of support or criticism he received from the gay community.
I know gay Californians who voted for Prop 8 last year because they sincerely believe it is in the best interest of children (some of whom will grow up to be gay), and of society as a whole (which includes gay people), to uphold the ideal of the man-woman nuclear family.
Yup.
Then I went straight (not really) over to El Coyote for a plate of tacos (pun intended).
"As you so well stated, for far too many, its not about equality, its about self esteem. And you are correct, you aren't going to get that from government. You get it from yourself."
Easier said than done. One can tell himself that he, his life and his existance matter all he likes; but it's not so easy to believe it when the entities in charge of every facet of day-to-day interaction with the world are constantly correcting you that "no, you actually DON'T matter."
I guess that makes me an Aunt Jemima.
"nothing more than “Breitbartism… not principled conservatism; it is cultural anti-liberalism so deep it forces people to take positions they otherwise wouldn’t.” I’m touched by the ginger way you avoid placing the blame for what I wrote directly on me. Seriously, it’s very sweet. "
Charles. You are priceless.
Nothing more than “Breitbartism"? Is that what the British Parliament in 1764 called those crazy radicals who annoyingly screamed "Taxation Without Representation!"? "Nothing more than Americanism!" Did Sullivan actually have the audacity to say "nothing more than Breitbartism" as if WE are the problem with this country?
Americanism. Sullivanism. Breitbartism. Pelosiism. SEIUism. Acornism. Bushism.
Okay. Word game. Which aforementioned ism's best reflect the SOUL of the "Taxation Without Representation" movement that commenced in 1764? PICK TWO.
Among both the Right and The Left (moreso the Right in this particular country) there is no more pathetic a set of causes than the protection of "tradition" against question or revision.
"Because thats the way it's always been" is NOT a good enough reason for anything, particularly when it comes to things like man-invented social structures. "Stability" leads to stagnation more often than it does resilience. The nature of the world, down to the last subatomic particle, does not run on "stability" – it runs on movement, mutation and random variable – unstable, apolitical and best of all amoral. "Society," "Community," "The State," "The Family"… such things SHOULD be assailled, questioned and hammered at ALL times in order to ENSURE that they are still the correct solution to whatever they were invented to solve. If they stand, they will stand. If they fall, then they most-likely ought to have fallen.
I am a log cabin Republican you simpletons. LMAO
That doesn't make any sense. Who exactly controls ever facet of day to day interaction? And who exactly are they telling they don't matter?
The only person in the entire world who has the authority to convince you you don't matter is you. You can grant that authority to some one else, but again, its your choice to do that.
You know what I do if some one says something like that to me? Flip them off, walk away, and ignore their existence in this world. If some one doesn't agree with me, I don't care in the least. Life is far too short to spend it trying to gain approval from other people.
I say I'm okay, and that's good enough for me.
Separate but equal didn't work before, what makes you think it will in this case?
Awesome blog! As a Libertarian Mormon I am completely comfrotable with my uncle marrying his partner. But I love the idea of completely separating religious and civil marriage. Most countries in Latin America and Europe already do this. There is no reason that a priest, rabbi or bishop should have the power to marry people by the state. The great thing about this is that everyone I've presented this idea to gay or straight, liberal or conservative have been open to the idea. I agree with Charles. Make all marriages civil unions or civil marriages and let the churches do thier own marriages. This is the best solution.
Charles, in re: all this stuff about how gay marriage rights would somehow threaten traditional marriage: Suppose gay marriage was legal, and every single gay American wen and got married the next day. Well, that's ten percent of the population at most. Probably more like five percent. So (assuming that these gay Americans marry each other, rather than straight people), that would mean that suddenly one out of every twenty marriages in America was a gay marriage. 5% of marriages.
And again, this is assuming every single gay person in America got married, which obviously would't happen.
Meanwhile, the divorce rate in America is around 45%-55% percent depending who you ask.
So, the concern that extending marriage rights to gays will somehow erode traditional marriage seems like a nutso argument to me- because there is no possible way the erosion could be even a fraction as large as the damage to traditional marriage already being done via divorce.
As for the parenting issue, I actually agree that, all else being equal, it's better for kids to be raised with role models from both genders. But that's not an excuse to deny marriage rights to gay people who want them. (I do believe that adoption agencies should condinue to be allowed to weigh this issue in decisions).
And again, re: your observation that a lot of gay people are jerks, you're right– I deplore some of the stuff that went on during the proposition battle in CA. And a lot of gays do denigrate marriage, etc. But evern jerks have civil rights.
" Would a man/women/man marriage be acceptable to you? How about three women claiming marriage? How about four men and an underage girl? Or better yet, an arranged Muslim "marriage" that allows a 30 year old male to claim the rights to a 9 year old girl. Is that OK? Are these equal marriages? "
Nice try at changing the subject. Do you see any mass social movements demanding the recognition of such arrangements?
Didn't think so.
Thanks for playing!
"No one would stop you from marrying someone of the opposite gender even if they knew you were gay."
I've heard that CHEAP INSULT more times than I can possibly recount. Who is the woman you want me to live a lie with?
Diane Von Furstenberg is already taken.
And Liza is pooped out.
Liberals have the power to ban ?
LOL!
Mass social movements? Once again, your logic is flawed. Mass social movements are quite capable of being wrong and/or dangerous. And really, is the gay marriage thing a "mass social movement" or is it but a small, vocal adhoc committee of bullies?
"Who exactly controls ever facet of day to day interaction? And who exactly are they telling they don't matter?"
I'm going to assume it's been awhile since you tried to board an airplane or renew your driver's license, yes?
The notion that gays need simply "call themselves married" and be done with it is a pleasant libertarian-esque flight of fancy, usually spoken by people without much experience in being held lesser in the eyes of those with authority over them. A pending-immigrant MAY be the most patriotic dude in the room, but until he applies for and is granted citizenship he's not an American. A slave was always able to "consider himself free," but if he was still picking cotton for fear of being whipped he was STILL a slave. Documentation and official-recognition MATTER, perhaps not all-importantly but important none the less.
I couldn't agree more.
My lover and I have 38 years worth of character. What we want is a marriage contract.
robert c,
There are men's rooms & ladie's rooms all across America. Yeah, we can treat the sexes – and this case the sexual tendencies – separately, but equal. I'm a straight southern Jesus-freak who is a Dennis Miller Republican type who is against gay marriage based on the (crazy, I know) notion that marriage is a dude & a chick. But, if, say, Susan is gay (I don't know, just using an example) and pays taxes just like I do and is a citizen, then Susan should be treated equally under our law, IMO. So, this Reaganite has no problems giving Susan the same rights – she deserves them, she earned them. So, civil unions, it is.
susan,
if you are gay, please tell your "side" (since you're discussing conservatives in a negative light, I ASSume you're on the 'other side') to stop with the gay marriage thing and go for civil unions. Gay marriage isn't going to happen in our lifetimes w/o it being legislated from above against our will, like what happened with Roe Vs. Wade instead of our going thru several uneasy years of haggling out the abortion issue & instead having to submit to what the USSC "read into" the constitution.
That worked out well and settled things, didn't it?
If you can't win CA, you're not going to get gay marriage any time soon. Why not get the actual bennies that you're wanting via civil unions? Then, years down the road, if our grandkids want to change the definition of marriage, they can.
What's the hold-up?
Take a good look at the Carrie Prejean sex tape ( going viral any minute now) and ask the same question.
gaystapo?
Rupert is a total mess. He had a thriving career about 15 years ago, but a rampant ego, substance abuse and plastic surgery have done him in.
No one pushing for Marriage Equality is insisting that everyone should get married. Only that they have the ability to do so.
No one is lining up to marry Rupert Everett so he needn't worry.
SING OUT LOUISE!
Mike gets it. Mazel Tov!
That's exactly what has always confused me about homosexuals wanting the "tax breaks" that come with being married. You see them asking for it all the time, and I just don't get it. I thought it was common knowledge that you end up paying out more money and getting lower returns when you're married.
"I deplore some of the stuff that went on during the proposition battle in CA. And a lot of gays do denigrate marriage, etc. But evern jerks have civil rights."
Can you IMAGINE the things "Big Hollywood" etc. would be saying about gay marriage advocates if they were to organize and behave the way Michelle Bachman's sheep are behaving in the capitol today?
[...] Outsider = because this guy will blow all your preconceptions out of the water and totally sink your battleship. And thank God for that. [...]
The more you lessen a thing and the easier you make it to back out of it, the less value it will hold in people's eyes. Marriage has been eroded as an institution for so long that I actually run into people who get married and then get out of marriage just as quickly. Their excuse is that "it wasn't a serious marriage, just a trial." Further dilutiung what marriage is and means to people who hold it to be sacred won't make anything different, it will just make it worse.
Are you trying to tell me if you try to board an airline, and the TSA is being rude because he's having a rotten day, that means you are worthless?
If you are going to let your own opinion of yourself be ruled by assholes who you meet in life, you need more help than I can give you here, because there's a lot of assholes out there.
It maybe a while since you've picked up a non CNN news source, but let me help bring you up to speed, the XIII was passed in 1865, there is no legal slavery in the US of A.
I thought I made my point clear. Same sex marriage may have been born out of a need for civil rights, which arguably was won years ago, but in my opinion, it's prime pushers now are people who want to use the government to force me to call them married.
Civil unions enjoy support from a significant majority of Americans, and that can accomplish everything they want. But that's not enough. It is, quite simply, courts changing the definition of a 10,000 year old concept.
Just because something is a tradition doesn't mean it's always a "very bad, no good, rotten thing" that must be destroyed. If gay marriage wasn't that bad, you would think there would have been gay marriage publically allowed and openly acknowledged in some of the previous cultures who had homosexuality as a part of their society. The fact that no culture ever based marriage as anything other than some arrangement of male/female should be significant to people. Traditions that are worthless or bad tend to die over time; they certainly don't hold as stable as the idea of male/female being the arrangement of a marriage. There are plenty of male/female variations in our past, but none that are male/male or female/female that I'm aware of.
so aharris, are you saying that if the divorce rate *weren't* so high, gay marriage might be okay, because marriage have been "eroded as an institution for so long" and would be bette-equipped to withstand the onslaught of maybe one in every 50 marriages being same-sex?
Superb!
Totally dodged the point I made first I see.
Either way, civil unions for all or as it currently stands, you are treated the same as any other male or female when it comes to whom you can marry. Now, if we found out you were gay and hung publically, then you'd have a stronger point if you were still alive to make it. Perhaps you should move to Iran where you will really be oppressed?
"Nice try at changing the subject. Do you see any mass social movements demanding the recognition of such arrangements?"
All across Europe and starting in Canada too, yes. This is easily verifiable with a quick Google search. Polygamist groups are clamoring for legal recognition of their marriages now that gay marriage is legal in those countries, and there is rising interest in the idea with other groups, too.
Too funny coming from you.
I disagree. I think if same sex marriage bills pass and are implemented, then the left might be able to have a legal standing to sue religious organizations who refuse to marry same sex couple.
But if the state gives the authority what to call marriage back to We The People, then we can decide for ourselves if what we want to call our own relationships. If you want to be long to a religious community, and they insist on calling it marriage, then that's between you and your choice of religious community. And if you don't like it, find another one.
Think of it more as incorporating, legally becoming one entity, but with some restrictions as to what one partner can do for another partner, i.e. they wouldn't be able to sign their other's name on legal documents, etc.
I'm not in the habit of looking at anyone's sex tapes, thanks. however, unless she's getting it on in the full view of the public, you can't compare the two. Apples and oranges. One you must look for and the other happens out on mainstreet.
Doubtful. Although it might increase the backlash against gays. We have to give up the official label of married to soothe 10% of the population? Seriously though, I'm on the flip side of that. I'd have to go register for a civil union before the eyes of the law because I was married in front of a minister. I'm completing willing to do that if my definition of marriage remains intact. I would suspect that many civil union couples will continue to call themselves man and wife no matter that marriage happens in a church simply because many of them aren't likely to be religious in the first place.
When the people organizing with Bachmann accost little old ladies and tear the crosses of their necks violently, you might have a point. So far all I see if a peaceful rally where copies of the 2000 page monstrosity are being given out to folks who would like to ask their Congresscritters to explain it to them. The people are inspecting their government.
I don't reply to too many comments, but I just wanted to say that Christopher Isherwood, who wrote the great book "A Single Man," was a good friend to me the last five or so years of his life. He was the first adult who treated me with any respect, and I dedicated my book "Split Image" to him. It is good to know that the film is decent.
That's the point. If the state issues civil union licensees the way they currently issue marriage licenses, at that point the state is finished with the issue unless the relationship needs to be dissolved. An actual wedding ceremony need not even take place.
With no legal requirement to actually wed, there's no legal basis to sue because a religious organization is not discriminating against anything. With a civil union license, the couple would be free to call themselves what ever they want. Civil Union, partners, married, husband & wife, husband & husband, wife & wife, or even mumbo-jumbo-banana-plants. It doesn't matter.
One last point, thank you for the respectful, polite, civil debate. God I don't miss screaming matches with liberals in the least.
Don't give the left any ideas. Total control over society is their goal.
That's some pretty radical thinking there. Be careful. The powers that be don't like the concept of We The People in charge of our own destiny.
As a Roman Catholic Libertarian I can get behind it too!
I've been debating myself about this subject for some time, and what is the proper way to address it. I came up with pretty much the same idea, but I could never explain it as well as Mr. Winecoff did. He takes the concept one step further than I did.
Sorry to hear that Mr. Everett has made a dog's breakfast of his life and career. He has had a couple of performances that I really liked particularly as the Prince of Wales in "The Madness of King George" and as Lord Goring in "An Ideal Husband."
Elton John had it right from the beginning.
Now there's a line I never imagined myself agreeing with.
Garofalo Syndrome sounds like something you'd need chemotherapy to cure, if a cure was even possible.
I'm a simpleton? I live in a real house, not some log cabin. Geeze.
Simple, pass a law that replaces the word "marriage" with "Civil Unions," in all existing and future laws and presto, exact same rights and obligations.
The state would refer to all couples with a civil union license as civil unions. Then you can say you're married, partners, what ever you want.
I agree with your opinion.
Free association doesn't mean every one will enjoy associations, but it does mean people are free to form them, and also free to not form them.
And yet change for it's own sake is just as much of a canard as is "unassailable tradition." History is replete with examples where societies were gripped with "terrible enthusiasms" for something new merely because it was new. Think of Stalin's Five Year Plans or Mao's "Great Leap Forward" and you get an idea where such enthusiasms can lead. Tradition is the sheet-anchor of any sane society that keeps us from indulging many of our worst human qualities.
"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. " – G.K. Chesterton
That's funny – If the D.C. protestors had been bussed in by SEIU, the UAW or ACORN you would be calling them "activists."
The responsibilities far out weigh the benefits granted to you by the state.
I'm a Christian Conservative. As a Christian, I have to say I'm not real wild about the Gay Lifestyle. But also as a Christian I don't have the right to judge. I've got enough of my own to atone for.
As a Conservative. I strongly believe that the Government should stay out of the Marriage Business. I would strongly support Civil Unions, that grant any couple the rights granted by a marriage license. But please leave the term Marriage out of it! In the upcoming fight for our Country's Political future, it's issues like this that allow the so called Progressives to divide us up.
I personally don't care if you are Gay, Straight, Black, Brown, White or green with purple spots. If you support Liberty, the Constitution, and our Country, I'll be proud to shake your hand, defend your right to speak out, help you if you need a hand, and watch your back if things get tough. Just don't trample my rights in the name of "equality". That, to me is the meaning of the term "Big Tent".
Yeah, try smoking in a restaurant in NY some time.
I am a log cabin Republican you simpletons.
You mean the same ones who refused to endorse Bush's re-election?
LCR's are the Dede Scozzafava's of gay conservatives.
Thanks but no thanks.
I really like the idea of getting the government out of marriage. They can have their civil unions. Give marriage back to churches. If the church wants to marry gay couples, then so be it. The government can get their taxes through the civil unions.
Well, I agree with Brian and Charles. Keeping the "union' secular, it should not matter to the state if the people are the same sex or different sexes. Everybody can have a civil union and religious people can get "married" in the religious institution of their choice. It makes the most sense and I have a feeling that a majority of Americans would be just fine with that compromise, especially since many Americans have already been polled on the issue and have supported "civil unions" for same-sex couples, just not marriage. This is the most logical next step.
Or would you rather argue about it for another 50 years or 100 years? I don't care if in the end only 50 gay couples have a civil union, or 1000 or a million or 0. It's insane for the State to care about the gender of the people getting married.
And if we are going to argue about whether or not it's a choice, then that'll be the same circular argument we all make about creationism and evolution. If you believe the Bible is literal, there is no discussion is there? If you believe it's a choice, there is no discussion, is there? So why go that route. Whether or not someone "chooses" it is besides the point. Whether they have a "civil union" or not neither picks my pocket nor does me harm (to paraphrase Jefferson on the point of religion). Just like straights, some will marry and some won't. WHO THE HECK CARES? I only care that this not become a NATIONAL issue like abortion – it should be left up to the states, but I personally feel that a universal "civil union" and a "marriage" for the religious people is the way to go, both being recognized by the individual States.
And no, I don't think it will lead to incest marriages and polygamous marriages. There is a line to be drawn and I think most Americans draw that line already.
And yes, I am a conservative/liberatarian, not a liberal.
EdSki – I agree with you 100%. It's the only logical conclusion since many who don't agree with "gay marriage" have no problem with "civil unions" that basically grant the same rights to gay couples as married people do. So it's a "word" thing really and that is taken care of by what you said (and what Charles said and what I've been saying since the subject came up).
I'm a former Roman Catholic, agnostic conservative/liberatarian – so great minds think alike! I came up with the same idea months ago! It is really the best way to handle it and I really don't want to hear circular arguments about this thing for 50 years.
The state licenses all unions, civil or religious, and in some states imposes waiting periods and demands that couples be tested for STDs. A civil union may be conducted by a judge, mayors, the old time Justice of the Peace, any designated official and, in Nevada, Elvis impersonators. All of that is set down in civil marriage law. In religion marriage is a sacrament and must be conducted by clergy ordained to do so.
Good, so if a civil union offers the same benefits, jump at it!
Does, that float your boat, you "liberal" creep?
My biggest concern with this trend has been the spectre of the ALCU coming after clergy and congregations who don't want to participate as they used Roe v. Wade to go after the Catholic Church's hospitals. Truly separating religious marriage from civil unions would make that harder to do.
I now wonder about the whole "they have it in Spain" thing in Mr. Winecoff's previous piece. Is it like Mexico and The Philippines (my son had both a civil ceremony and a later one in church there)? Is it in fact a form of marriage liberated from Church oversight and vice versa for Catholic marriages?
Obviously you have your firewall up.
It is really the best way to handle it
Which unfortunately is probably why it won't happen. The left likes to gum up the gears of the "system" until sane people just throw up their hands and walk away, shaking their heads.
Me thinks this gentleman(David) needs to educate himself about political correctness(another term for liberal orthodoxy) and its' ill affects on thought, law, free thought, creative beings, art, education etc.
Mwahahahahaha!
You're incorrect. In New Jersey, Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which is a Presbyterian Organization, maintains an ocean front garden/pavillion. They have been forced by lawsuit to allow Lesbian Civl Unions on their premises against their will.
http://www.njfpc.org/html/Musings_12-31-08.asp
This is the true agenda of left. They don't care about Gay rights at all.
Me thinks this gentleman David a modern liberal, and this is the best he can come up with.
Rules for understanding Modern Liberals Idiotis Leftists
A lot of times, when a modern liberal appears dumber than a bag of hammers when debating politics, there's a real good chance it's because they are. This creature is by no means restricted to Hollywood, California, America, it can be found roaming the entire civilized world.
They only seem more prevalent in Hollywood because there are more cameras there, and their main source of substance is weeping gratitude of the unwashed masses, a cushy job, and easy sex. Publicty provides all those dietary needs.
Many instances have been documented where alcohol and recreational drugs, also are known to attract them.
But, to quote Al Gore "the science is settled" they are just plain dumb when it comes to politics. They can not understand the concept of facts, reason and logic.
The halls of science ring with debate why evolution and natural selection have not removed this trait from homo sapien. Because according to Darwinism, they should have been gone a longe time ago.
Hetero couples live in bliss and stability more than gay couples do as they are right now? Really? That's what Sullivan thinks? While my marriage is somewhat stable despite 18 years of military moves, long term deployments to dangerous places, and sending a husband to war, I must say that marriage is not necessarily THE fix for gaining stability. You have to be stable within yourself before you tie the knot. Two unstable people in a close relationship—I'm thinking fission reactor here. I posted this opinion on a blog before the prop 8 vote: I don't want the government involved in ANY decision I make, much less keeping track of marriages. I especially don't want marriage as an amendment to the Constitution—ANY MARRIAGE. The more the government is involved in our lives the less freedom of choice we have. It would be better to change the tax and inheritance laws, or establish some kind of legal partnership, or fight for civil unions than to have marriage–a choice between two people–become imbedded in federal law,
Or would you rather argue about it for another 50 years or 100 years?
Are you actually asking if I will concede that an abnormal sexual relationship should be deemed normative by society to suit a small group of people so they will shut up? F*CK THEM
You are falling into a trap that the left wants you in. You are accepting that the reason they are fighting so hard for this issue has something to do with libertariansim and live and left live. They are lying to you The only reason that this minor issue has been drummed down America's throat is a plan to use it to attack and destroy judeo-christian society. This is an attempt to make normative Christian Morality illegal.
I understand what you're saying, and I am not disagreeing with your interpretation of the far left, I completely agree with you.
Even though the proposal being discussed – the state recognizing civil unions, not in addition to marriage, but instead of marriage – doesn't have a snow balls chance in hell of happening, I think your example helps make my point.
The official act of two consenting adults into a legally recognized association would end with the issuing of a Civil Union license.
There would be no standing for suing religious organizations, as far as I can see. It would also remove the legal authority Priests, Pastors, Ministers, Wiccans and ship captains within the recognized US territorial boundaries. Because the act of marriage itself would be defined by the participants in the legal civil union
The term marriage would hold no legal authority.
It's already happened. In New Jersey.
When the state says Man + Man = Man + Woman
And a church says Man + Man is morally wrong and != Man + Woman. The state will be used to enforce the law. The church, AS IN NEW JERSEY, will be told, screw your moral values
we don't allow discrimination against legally recognizned unions.
That is the purpose of this agenda. To delegitimize Judeo-Christian morals.
Again, I'd like to thank you for this thoughtful debate. Man, this is the one thing I really miss about working in a cubicle. I could usually find a few people who really wanted to debate issues, and we'd all take coffee breaks together.
I'm not a lawyer, and if there's one reading this, please feel free to correct me, but the issue seems to be that Churches have the authority invested to legally certify what is a marriage. If that's removed, because the state authorizes civil unions, then I don't see any standing to sue any one. I agree they'll try, and they will try what ever happens.
Also, I did follow some of those links about the Jersey situation, and I have to say, I think I agree with the gay couple. It's not the Church, it was a Church organization (I'm Catholic, trust me I know what hoops a religious organization has to jump through to be within the bounds of the law.
I didn't read all the links, but I will say if they allow other individuals to rent out their facilities, they are participating in the free market.
And this is one part of libertarianism that really puzzles me. Where does freedom of association end and freedom of markets begin?
Actually they're Methodist. Sry to nitpick; I just happen to know bc I'm a fan of Ocean Grove – such a cute town!
The Gay Gestapo will now map you on the internet and cum to get you.
This is the finest piece I have seen anywhere on this subject. A real common sense, well balanced analysis. Frankly, I didn't know this site allowed gay commentators, and I see it has more diversity than I ever recognized. That's all good. Soon our nation will be full of black Republicans (nobody remembers what that term meant in 1867), white redneck Democrats, black redneck independents, gay conservatives, evangelical liberals, and hopefully most of us will be mixed race. Well, we already are, but our culture doesn't allow us to admit it. And then, there will be no more screaming over entitlements, because we'll all be equally diverse, and we'll each have to succeed on our own merits. Unfortunately, we'll be terrorized by roving bands of unemployed starving social workers.
Could not agree more. I'm a straight, traditional Roman Catholic. And I believe the genuine Catholic position–especially for an officially non-Catholic society–is that marriage is a religious institution. The State has no business in it, and can only harm it by "licensing" it. I never thought I would agree with Alan Dershowitz on anything, but he has a point. Plus, marriage always WAS a strictly religious institution, until Martin Luther came along. He wanted to entice civil authorities (pinces) to join his opposition to the church, so he said that THEY should sanction marriage, that it was purely a civil, and non-religious contract. Once they took that authority from the church, they were in a position to tell him he could violate his oaths and marry a nun. A civil union is just another form of contract, which people are free to enter into and is enforceable by the state. We should formalize that for all, and let those who want to solemnize their union before God as a marriage do so.
reductio ad absurdum
So let's apply that here. Instead of the Gays wanting a marraige on the property what if it was Satanists who wanted to have a black mass (nothing ilegal just simple blasphemy.) Do they have equal rights to demand access. The law cannot make any moral distinction between either request even though there certainly is one. Justice must be blind.
If a church organization has no right to support their beliefs then they have no right to their own property. The very idea that government has the right to dictate what someone must allow on their property is the complete antithesis of libertarian ideals.
"Because that's the way it's always been" is not a good enough reason for anything.
But it IS a good enough reason to be certain that you know the purpose of something before you break it or throw it out. Marriage didn't spring full grown from some pointless origin.
I'm convinced that if those promoting same-sex unions made clear that they've considered very seriously the purpose of marriage, *want* marriage, and are interested in *strengthening* marriage, we'd be having a far different conversation.
Also… I'd suggest that we have, in fact, assailed and questioned and hammered at marriage and we've had a nice long experiment now with many people abandoning marriage, ending marriages, and devaluing marriage and pretty clearly… things are not better. More children grow up in poverty and without a strong sense of stability. Many men are victimized and bankrupted. Many women are scrambling to make it as single providers. Divorce is overwhelmingly destructive.
And yet… we want to solve this by making it even *easier*. We want to assure single mothers and divorced dads that their children are *fine*. And people go into marriage with the expectation that if they meet someone else or decide it's not fun any more they ought to go with their feelings and not face any sort of social censure whatsoever.
You seem pretty confident that all will be well; that there is some self-correcting mechanism that will come into play. And maybe you're right… but just how bad does it have to be before that happens?
Those saying that marriage (or even civil union) between same sex couples is what they *want* should be able to express what it is about marriage that is good, what it's *for*, and how to make it stronger.
Otherwise it really is about spoiled children stomping and shouting that they want what Suzy has… not because they *want* it, but because she *has* it.
Thanks. I stand corrected.
Well, the Catholic Adoption Agency in Massechussetts has actually shuttered it's doors (after placing 10's of thousands of youth in homes for over 100 years) because the State required it to give children to homosexuals, once Gay Marriage was passed there.
I'm very clear here. There is a lot of mushy thinking going on by Libertarian leaning people, who take the attitude that "what they do is not really impacting me". In the case of irrgender marriage, this is not true. This is a wedge that will be used to mandate to Christian people that there children should be taught in schools that homosexuality is a normalized state sanctioned behavior, and that Christian morality is a thought crime against homosexuals. It will be used in the public arena to marginalize Christian morality as discriminatory illegal thought. Normalizing these abormal relationships will have an enormous effect on the ability of the left to supress mainstream Christianity.
Holy cow, I just watched the trailer for _8: The Mormon Proposition_, and… well, like I said, HOLY COW, that is some epic schmaltz going on there. Eleven thumbs up, just for the raw emoting.
Anyway, two things immediately flashed through my mind after viewing it — first, Oscar Wilde's review of Dickens' _The Old Curiosity Shop_: "One must have a heart of stone to read about the death of Little Nell, and not laugh." Second, an anecdote from Barry Williams' autobiography _Growing Up Brady_, in which he described how the child actors on _The Brady Bunch_ would use tweezers to yank out some nose hairs whenever the script called for them to cry on-camera…
Really encourage you and everyone else to google "The Roasted Pig Fable". It really sums up what is wrong with the world today! Kudos to you!
You're missing the point. You can "think of yourself" as anything you want to, but we live in a society governed largely via documentation and on documentation terminology is all-important. A woman "civilly-united" with another woman may find contentment in their own home or family "thinking of themselves" as married wives, but every time they have to fill-out or give that information they'll be reminded that the "marriage" exists only in their minds by being required to use the official state terms: "How many in your household?" "Myself and my wife." "Pardon me, your what?" "…Sorry, my civil-partner."
Are you a religious man, EdSki? If so, how would you react if when filling out some form or another (taxes, ID, take your pick) and, given the option of indicating your particular faith, you're informed: "Sorry, this state we voted not to regard that as a 'real' religion, so you have to call that your club." To me, that seems wrong.
On the contrary, Social Security benefits are either neutrally or positively effected by marriage – almost never negatively. And, because of that, a federal recognition of homosexual 'marriage' would vastly hasten the demise of Social Security for everyone. Go to any gathering of the elderly and you will see that 70 or 80 percent, or more, are female – and none of them care what you think of their personal lives. Old people are not stupid, and they also don't mind at all 'gaming' the system for more cash. They will gladly 'marry' someone of the same sex to increase their monthly benefits. In fact, there is a vast cottage industry out there made up of lawyer types whose entire careers are based on scrounging benefits for the elderly and disabled. It won't take them a week to add on-line gay 'marriage' benefit match-maker services to their businesses. Naturally, when homosexuals, real or pretend, begin receiving Social Security benefits that were never planned for, and for which they have never paid a dime in FICA taxes, the system will go belly up all the sooner.
Friend, I don't care what "side" they think they're on, the only time I mis-identify an politically-motivated idiot as an "activist" is if I'm trying to sleep with one.
"I sometimes wonder if there should be a hate crimes bill to protect gay people from other gay people."
You've got it! If a crime against a gay is a hate crime, there's no exception for the perpetrator being gay.
I am not sure how many I speak for, but I'd not care whether my hitching up with my man was called "marriage" or "civil union", or "coffee cake". My concern would be with legal protections for things like rights of inheritance, medical decisions and visitation rights at hospitals, that sort of thing.
Where I take issue is where some of the more effervescent "good [insert religion here]" Rick Santorum types want not just a ban on some form of union for same sex couples, but take it further, demanding that these same folks may not enter into any form of legal contracts or agreements about such matters. I believe it was Oklahoma that put such a law on the books. I'm not sure if that law still stands. But the point is that it is no one's business if such agreements are made between two adults.
"I like the idea of getting government as far from the institution of marriage as possible (I'm not sure how it got involved in the first place)…"
It got involved for control. Nothing more. The state wants their license fees, they want you registered in their Big Black Book. They do not care about the marriage per sé.
The same holds true with other licenses, fees, and certificates. The state wants their cut, and they want their nose stuck firmly into your private affairs.
Separation of Church and State is the hallmark of Liberal Ideology. Lets put it to use. Civil unions for all and let the churches declare couples as married.
As a conservative/hetero I would support this approach. But I also agree with the writers view, the push for GAY Marriage is all about forced acceptance and hard core LGBTers will never give up that fight. They don't get it, anything forced will not be accepted and any victories will be hollow or enforced at the point of a gun (Federal power). The backlash will be HUGE and for a minority with a population that will NEVER reach a majority, it's not the right approach.
Separation of Church and State.
Separation of Church and State
Separation of Church and State
Separation of Church and State
FINALLY! A voice of reason! Do you think you can get thru to all those who use intolerance to preach tolerance, and hate-mongering to preach love and acceptance? I sure hope so. The ONLY ONLY reason I would be against "gay marriage" is the very reasons stated by others here, that MY church (I, too, am "Mormon") would someday be sued by some gay couple wanting to be married in my church, or worse, in the temple. The "civil union" idea is good. Church marriages could also qualify as civil unions, but it's all the legal rights of marriage that gays want, not necessarily the recognition of ALL churches/synagogues/whatever of a LEGAL union. At least, IMHO.
I have never understood why fundamentalists/evangelicals have a hard time with the idea folks are born gay. Being born gay is totally consistent with the theology of original sin.
What happens if a church organization routinely rents out their facilities to the public?
Can they then decide certain legally recognized groups are not allowed to use them?
Can they make that decision based upon race or ethnicity? How about based on gender, no women allowed? How is this any different at all from hanging signs up saying "whites only"?
I say if they want to remain private, then remain private and stay out of the free market. But if they freely choose to enter into the free market, then they can not discriminate against customers.
I believe the Church I belong to does rent out facilities, but only for registered Parishioners. Which allows them to do both.
Honestly, I couldn't care less what the state or any individual thinks of my religion. That's my point. What I think and how I feel is not dependent upon how I want others to view me. I used to live like that and I was miserable. Over time I realized there is only one person in the entire universe that I have to answer to (religious thoughts aside), and that's me.
And if the state tried to ask me about my religion, I'd be screaming mad, demanding answers, and/or contacting a lawyer to sue the crap out of them. It's none of the state's business.
I'm a Gay Man and I'm not wild about the Christian Conservative Lifestyle.
The notion that "Government should stay out of the Marriage Business" is inane.
Marriage contracts are the business of government.
Always have been.
Armed with said contracts couples can have marriages performed by priests, rabbis, Justices of the Peace and duly empowered Elvis Impersonators in Las Vegas.
If your church doesn't believe in gay marriage there's no reason in the world why it should be obliged to perform marriage ceremonies. It would make as much sense as forcing a Catholic priest to perform a Jewish marriage ceremony.
Gay Marriage would mean that secualr officals — and any religious persuasion that WANTED TO (there would be absolutely no obligation) could perform them.
That's all there is to it.
First another wonderful piece from Mr. Winecoff. Thank you again.
Is Andrew Sullivan still pretending to be in any way, shape or form anything close to "Conservative"?
I agree 100% with taking the government out of marriage – period. Everybody gay or straight would be better off with civil unions, then the churches can do whatever they want re the m word.
Thank you for your courteous response. I think you'd be the type of person it would be fun to sit down with your favorite beverage, and politely and verbally "duke it out!" That said; I believe that the term "Marriage" originally came from religious faiths. Originally the Ministers, Rabbi's etc. were the ones to grant permission to marry, at well as divorce. Henry the VIII created the Church of England to contest the Catholic Church's power in this matter, and proclaimed himself head of the church. For hundreds if not thousands of years the government had no role in it.
The States in America did come up with a licensing system, and generally called it a "Marriage License", primarily because they did not conceive of homosexual unions as ever being an issue. I repeat, the person you chose as your partner, is not my business. But I and a lot of other people do object to changing the definition of Marriage as something other then a contract between a man, a woman, and God. No offense, but if you want a civil union to have all the rights granted to a couple, more power to you. But by demanding to be "Married", I must object. You are intruding on my rights and my faith.
Another way to look at it, the government has no rights in this matter because of separation of Church and State!
I didn't remember Martin Luther's part in this. Thanks!
"A man and a woman and God"?
You mean athiests are not allowed to get married?
Can they then decide certain legally recognized groups are not allowed to use them?
Exactly where in the US Constitution are powers granted to recognise groups legally.
Mind you this is not to offend you but this collctive mindset has been placed into our legal system. To my mind affirmative action laws are as invalid as Jim Crow laws for one very simple reason. It states that I have to create arbitrary groupings of people based on appearance and grant different legal rights and restrictions based on this.
I am reminded of the story of the most influential critic of the Jim Crow law that stated ethnic people had to ride on sepearate cars in a train. This individual owned a large railroad and was also a devout racist. But he understood the law would cost him business as ethnics would no longer ride the trains.
If affirmative action laws are so laudable explain how government run hud housing projects can end up being one race of individuals only. I propose that the well meaning logic behind this meme does not practically work. And I think this is a Libertarian principle. But I have been wrong before so…..
Biblically, No. Sorry but I don't believe that Athiests would be demanding to be married in a church. I do feel that you may call yourself married after a civil union. I wouldn't argue that issue. It's a free country, and if you wish to consider yourself married I don't wouldn't object and probably congratulate you on your commitment to each other. I do care if you would try to force me to recognize that marriage by demanding to be married in my church. You personally may not, but it's been one of the core issues in this argument.
Look as I've said in my first comment, I don't feel I have the right to judge. I don't chose my friends based on race, creed or sexual preference, I don't consider that enough of an issue to determine a friendship. I pick my good friends, by the respect and honesty they show me, and return that respect accordingly. Don't make me sacrifice my beliefs in order to promote your own. When you are demanding to be "married" I feel that you are attempting to do just that.
Actually, the idea of civil unions for all is hardly unique to Mr. Dershowitz though his endorsement of the idea is more likely to be taken seriously by many. Separating civil unions with all the attendant rights from religious marriage rituals was strongly supported by many seminarians when I attended seminary at the Graduate Theological Union back in the 1990s. The general tenor of the commentary then was that the church should "get out of the marriage business." I think the events of the past 15 years have only served to prove why that is a good idea.
I guess what troubles me as I read this column is the perceived need of the columnist to attack other LGBQT people. Straight people are hardly of a single mind on this topic and can be incredibly vitriolic in expressing their differences, as your well-taken reference to Anita Bryant's crusade of the 1970s here in Florida evidenced. I'm not sure why gay people would be any different. Perhaps the reason the writer gets attacked is not because his politics have become neo-con but rather because there is a discernable internalized self-hatred that expresses itself in attacks on others.
Actually, the idea of civil unions for all is hardly unique to Mr. Dershowitz though his endorsement of the idea is more likely to be taken seriously by many. Separating civil unions with all the attendant rights from religious marriage rituals was strongly supported by many seminarians when I attended seminary at the Graduate Theological Union back in the 1990s. The general tenor of the commentary then was that the church should "get out of the marriage business." I think the events of the past 15 years have only served to prove why that is a good idea.
I guess what troubles me as I read this column is the perceived need of the columnist to attack other LGBQT people. Straight people are hardly of a single mind on this topic and can be incredibly vitriolic in expressing their differences, as your well-taken reference to Anita Bryant's crusade of the 1970s here in Florida evidenced. I'm not sure why gay people would be any different. Perhaps the reason the writer gets attacked is not because his politics have become neo-con but rather because there is a discernable internalized self-hatred that expresses itself in attacks on others.
Thanks for the thought full response. I agree, my use of the term legally recognized groups was wrong. Guess I was in a hurry. And I agree affirmative action is completely wrong. I'm a Marin Luther King Jr. guy when it comes to equality and freedom. Content of character, not color of skin.
I'm a computer guy, not a lawyer, so I don't know the correct terms to use. When it comes to Civil Rights, I use the old supreme court adage about porn. I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.
My point is, if a group, any group, religious or not, are going to make facilities available on the free market, for profit, then they do not have a right to pick and choose their customers.
It's a very gray area for me, and I don't have all this stuff worked out, I'm still learning about libertarianism, free markets and economics. And I certainly don't consider myself qualified to define where freedom of associations ends and freedom of markets begins.
But this is more or less where I draw my line.
[...] Note to Andrew Sullivan: Don’t Blame Breitbart For My Thought Crimes SHARETHIS.addEntry( { title : 'One of the best notes ever regarding gay marriage', url : 'http://rossputin.com/blog/index.php/one-of-the-best-notes-ever-regarding-gay-marriage'}, { button: true } ) ; Link to Original post at Rossputin.com. Posted by Rossputin on Nov 8th, 2009 and filed under Syndicated. Subscribe to this entry: RSS 2.0. Comments and trackbacks are open. [...]
The arrogance of Charles Winecoff is so astounding that I wouldn't be surprised if he just sits at home in front of a mirror masturbating to his own image. Does he just write to see his own words, and talk just to hear himself talk? Believe me, Charles, we in the gay community don't want you, don't need you, and could care less about you…whoever you are.
Separate but equal…right, Chisten?
Separate but equal. Subtle but misdirected in this case. Before the Civil Rights movement,, Separate but Equal was the expression used to justify seperate schools, theatres, and various other ways of justifying segregation. I'm not justifying that type of segregation. If you check history, you'd find that many conservatives, myself included, fought to end segregation. I'm just advocating keeping the civil union license, a product of the State, seperate from the term Marriage, with it's roots in the Christian church, and various other faiths.
Speak for yourself, Mary. There are many of us homos out there who agree with Charles' position. Aren't you missing quality time with your life-like Obama Rod?
I prefer the "Hellfire and Damnnation" style sex ed I received in the 90's.
"Practice abstinence, but if you choose not to at least use protection. Otherwise THIS *shows picture of full blown herpes* WILL happen to you at some point. The odds aren't in your favor on this one kiddos."
You must be logged in to post a comment.