Great post. I hope you're right--such an amendment would be a disaster!

I'm satisfied that you've proven that a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would never pass constitutional muster. But is that really the issue? Republicans don't use divisive social issues like gay marriage to pass legislation. They use them to build anger and resentment among their base and to frame debate in ways that suit their purposes.

Republicans have been milking social issues like abortion and flag burning for years. They don't want these precious money makers to go away. A constitutional amendment may fail, but a lot will be sacrificed in the mean time.

--Dan

Though I likewise disapprove of Constitutional amendments as a matter of general principle, Dan's forecast here could be short-circuited by one of the legal aspects of this issue.

Ordinarily a move by one state to change its laws has little or no impact on people living in other states, even if the issue in question is one that arouses great passions (for example, assisted suicide). By long custom, however, marriages recognized as valid by one state have been so recognized in all the others, with all that implies not only for the status of the people in a given marriage but to the laws pertaining to that institution.

A decision by a court in Massachusetts to require recognition of gay marriages as mandated by the state constitution would (if not overturned by the state's legislature) require either that this legal tradition be abandoned or that every other state would have to recognize the gay marriages recognized by Massachusetts. Clearly at this point we are no longer talking merely about gay marriage in the abstract but instead about whether the American people should have any say in how this question is decided.

There are of course many advocates of gay marriage who believe they should not. As the polls Dan cites suggest, a majority of Americans do not favor gay marriage even as an abstract question, so even if he is right and this changes over time it is likely to change only slowly. Legislating through a court (and through a state court at that) is much faster, with the added bonus that the benighted majority with their outdated moral codes can simply be commanded to obey rather than having to be listened to.

But like support for gay marriage itself, this contemptuous attitude toward democracy is a minority view. Insisting on it may at length prompt many Americans who share my distaste for new Constitutional amendments to rethink their position.

Republicans don't use divisive social issues like gay marriage to pass legislation. They use them to build anger and resentment among their base and to frame debate in ways that suit their purposes.

Of course, it's not like Democrats don't also use divisive issues to pass legislation and energize their base (abortion & affirmative action, anyone?). It's called "politics" and it's a game both parties like to play.

But like support for gay marriage itself, this contemptuous attitude toward democracy is a minority view. Insisting on it may at length prompt many Americans who share my distaste for new Constitutional amendments to rethink their position.

Perhaps the best way out would be a Constitutional amendment not outlawing gay marriage, but making gay marriages in one state not binding in another.

I agree that it's unlikely that such an amendment could pass, but I'm very concerned about the Times' assertion that Bush is supporting the FMA to shore up conservative support, secure in the knowledge that his actions won't actually have an effect. If I'm not much mistaken, Bush tried a similar tactic with McCain-Feingold, and look how that turned out. I love Bush (take that, Jonathan Chait), but it'd be really nice if he did SOMETHING right on domestic policy once in a while (other than tax cuts).

By long custom, however, marriages recognized as valid by one state have been so recognized in all the others,

The case of Christie Lee Littleton, a postoperative male-to-female transsexual was married to a biological male in Tennessee. The Texas Supreme Court deemed her a male for the purpose of the marriage statute and the marriage was ruled invalid because it was a union between two men and therefore against public policy.

The Kansas Supreme Court ruled the same way in a similar case.

Let's stop calling it "gay marriage." "Gay marrriage" is and has been legal and at least occasionally accomplished forever. No town clerk has ever asked the man and woman who applies for a marriage license if either is homosexual. With the exception of already married people, close family members, and youngsters, any man of any sexual orientation can get married to any woman of any sexual orientation in all 50 states.

The controversy is over "same-sex marriage." This is not a trivial difference. If we term it "gay marriage," it opens the door to claims of civil rights violations, since we are denying to one group (homosexuals) what is freeely available to heterosexuals. If, on the other hand, we say, "anyone is free to marry any other person, so long as the two people getting married are of opposite sex," it is no longer a civil rights issue. I agree that it is not the government's business what any two people consensually do with their body parts. It's just that there is one specific act that when done by two people of different sex that has the potential to create a child. THe welfare of that child is a concern of the government, and therefore government creates certain advantages for people who marry. Anyone else who wants to get married, to take advantage of those advantages, or for any other reason, is free to do so, just as long as you follow the basic rule (one man, one woman). If what you want to do is allow a person to designate another particular person to visit you in the hospital, inherit your money, raise your kid if you die, share ownership of a house, or other aspects of everyday life that go along with marriege, any attorney can draw up a suitable document for a few dollars. If two people of the same sex want to be able to save a few bucks by filing joint tax returns, get congress to adjust the IRS rules. What proponents of "gay marriage" want to do is further damage an institution that has been seriously eroded over the past 40 years, an institution that has served as the basic building block of civilized society for the past 3 thousand years. While I don't agree with amending the Constitution for trivial matters, I do not think this to be trivial. "Same sex marriage" is an oxymoron.

I'm actually responding to several posts with this one, for those keeping track...

By long custom, however, marriages recognized as valid by one state have been so recognized in all the others, with all that implies not only for the status of the people in a given marriage but to the laws pertaining to that institution.

It's not by 'long custom'. The court case that codified this was Loving vs. Virginia, decided by the Supreme Court in 1967. In 1958, a black woman and white man married - unfortunately for them, they lived in Virginia, which had a law on the books banning interracial marriage. They were sentenced to one year in prison, but the sentence was suspended for a twenty-five year period on the condition that the couple leave Virginia and not return together for twenty-five years.

The thought process behind the law? According to the trial judge:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

DOMA (the Defense Of Marriage Act, brought to law by a bunch of people who have been married several times apiece - I love the smell of irony in the morning...) will be shown to be unconstitutional, as soon as someone bothers to officially challenge it.

If what you want to do is allow a person to designate another particular person to visit you in the hospital, inherit your money, raise your kid if you die, share ownership of a house, or other aspects of everyday life that go along with marriege, any attorney can draw up a suitable document for a few dollars.

I know of some people who have gone this route, and they need to carry a briefcase filled with documents with them wherever they go, like on vacation, in case something happens.

It's just that there is one specific act that when done by two people of different sex that has the potential to create a child. THe welfare of that child is a concern of the government, and therefore government creates certain advantages for people who marry.

In this day and age, with adoption, in-vitro fertilization, and 'blended' households, to mention just a few, the idea that a man and a woman are needed to have a child is outdated. Also, what about couples that decide not to have children? Should their marriages be considered null and void?

I do not see a problem with any sort of couple gaining the rights and protections afforded by marriage. By allowing any couple this option, the institute of marriage can only be strengthened, in that more people will be practicing it.

If and when the Senate debates this one, look for Cheney to be in his undisclosed location.

I believe that marriage is an institution restricted to males and females primarily for the purpose of raising children. My argument is premised solely on secular values---and have absolutely nothing to do with religious ones. Nonetheless, I adamantly desire for gay couples to have full legal protections up to that point.

A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is doomed to fail. I cannot imagine a scenario where its supporters can pick up enough votes to win. The resulting divisiveness is also not worth the price tag. President Bush should not get involved in this issue. Our country has far more important challenges to resolve. Some battles are simply not worth fighting. I won’t be thrilled if gay marriage is legalized, but it won’t be the end if the world either.

"I believe that marriage is an institution restricted to males and females primarily for the purpose of raising children."

Implicit in your argument David is that same-sex couples will/do somehow damage the children that they might raise. (Do you oppose same-sex marriages for infertile same-sex couples?) Otherwise, why would you insist on the centrality of children to this debate? If your claim, which is an empirical one, were true, I might be more sympathetic to the anti-same-sex marriage arguments. Fortunately, most of the social scientific evidence suggests that children raised by same-sex couples do just fine. Should that evidence matter? If not, why not?

quick follow up to my own post:

"(Do you oppose same-sex marriages for infertile same-sex couples?)"

I should have added: "or same-sex couples who contractually agree not to adopt?"

Obviously, infertility is only a partial barrier to child-raising for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. :)

I hope Bush is smart enough to diffuse the foolish idea of a constitutional amendment for or against gay marriage. It's too trivial for a constitutional amendment. Sorry. I know some gays think it's the only important thing on the face of the earth, but truly it isn't.

If gays want some kind of moral equivalency to marriage, go for it. In a lot of countries there are two marriage ceremonies. The legal one at the city hall and the optional religious one in a house of worship. Same thing could apply to gays. Set up a legal contract with the rights and responsibilities of marriage, but don't call it marriage and there will very little opposition to it.

All couples, mix or match, go to city hall, sign the contract and make it legal. The religious ceremony is up to each couple and their religious persuasion.

The state should never have given over the legal right to marriage to the religious in the first place. Marriages that take place in a house of worship can follow the rules of that religious persuasion only up to the point where they comply with the law of the land, i.e. no multiple wives for Moslems and Mormons, no wife beating, no disposing of the female babies, etc.which are allowed in some religions.

The worst thing Bush can do is get embroiled in the question of same sex marriage. It's just the kind of issue that takes attention away from the important issues of the day.

“Fortunately, most of the social scientific evidence suggests that children raised by same-sex couples do just fine. Should that evidence matter? If not, why not?”

I strongly believe that committed gay couples should be allowed to adopt children. It may surprise you, but so does Bill O’Reilly of the “infamous” “O’Reilly Factor!” That is why I am only willing to put up a halfhearted fight against gay marriage. I'm only interested in promoting the abstract optimal situation. Needless to add, I can be very pragmatic soon afterwards. Do I perhaps sound like a mealy mouther? Oh well, as I’ve said before---I prioritize my battles and some just are not as important as others.

If we as a society believe homosexuality is not a disease or deviancy, then there should be no problem with single sex marriage.

If a single sex couple is willing to deal with the resposnibilities of marriage, and the secular consequences of divorce (alimony/property settlement), then why-- as a matter of state policy -- should the state refuse to recognize the union? What is the specific problem? (Please, no slippery slope arguments.)

This said, I find solutions like Vermont's civil union statute to be worthless symbolism. It's a way for politicians to "make a courageous statement" without actually conferring any rights or priveleges on anybody.

(This is not a brief for the Mass court, by the way,which is indulging in social engineering. The people of a state, or the nation, should be the one determining if their goverment is ready for single sex marriage. Judges are in the business of enforcing the law, not discovering new rights uniumagined by the drafters of a state'sconstitution.)

At this point, gay marriage is an abstract idea to most people, especially to people who don't (think they) know any gay people. It's much easier to be against something if you don't know anyone who is affected by it. Understandably, the poll numbers for gay marriage change substantially among people who do have gay friends, family members, neighbors, etc.

So, I think it's possible that there are unintended consequences in pushing for the FMA that anti-gay folks don't understand-- yet. By pushing for the FMA, more gay people will be forced to come out, talk about their lives, talk about their relationships and the issue could become "humanized." More people will talk about it. My own family is a good example that even very anti-gay people can change their minds. It took a few years, but they consider my 5 year relationship with my partner my "marriage." Heck, even my grandparents do. When my younger sister recently married into a small town, conservative Alabama family, both me and my partner were welcomed with open arms. We soon found out that we aren't the only lesbian couple in their extended family-- and the other one has a new baby!

So, despite what a lot of social conservatives may think, people can get used to new ideas, even if they're older, live in the South, and so on. In some ways, there is great potential for this issue to really backfire and even help gay people gain some ground in places where we have little.

Then again, maybe I'm just having a glass-half-full sort of morning.

If we term it "gay marriage," it opens the door to claims of civil rights violations, since we are denying to one group (homosexuals) what is freeely available to heterosexuals.

And isn't this what is happening? Homosexual families want civil marriage protection, but are denied it - something that is freely available to heterosexaul families.

If, on the other hand, we say, "anyone is free to marry any other person, so long as the two people getting married are of opposite sex," it is no longer a civil rights issue.

That logic didn't work when the law limited marriage to two people of the same race; why should it work against same-sex marriage?

THe welfare of that child is a concern of the government, and therefore government creates certain advantages for people who marry. Anyone else who wants to get married, to take advantage of those advantages, or for any other reason, is free to do so, just as long as you follow the basic rule (one man, one woman).

So, you're basically saying that because some heterosexual couples procreate, all heterosexual couples get the special rights of marriage? But since homosexual couples cannot procreate among themselves, they don't get the same rights? Seems like a double standard.

Also, if the welfare of a child is the concern of the government, then clearly it has an interest in encouraging same-sex couples to get married. As hundreds of thousands of children are being raised by same-sex couples, the government should encourage them to get the structure, rights and responsibilities of civil marriage that will be good for the couples and good for the children.

If what you want to do is allow a person to designate another particular person to visit you in the hospital, inherit your money, raise your kid if you die, share ownership of a house, or other aspects of everyday life that go along with marriege, any attorney can draw up a suitable document for a few dollars.

Heterosexual couples automatically get more rights and responsibilities through common law than homosexual couples do. Thus, if homosexual families don't need civil marriage, then heterosexual families REALLY don't need it. Why aren't you telling heterosexual couples to just see a lawyer, rather than get a civil marriage license?

What proponents of "gay marriage" want to do is further damage an institution that has been seriously eroded over the past 40 years, an institution that has served as the basic building block of civilized society for the past 3 thousand years.

And how would allowing more committed couples and their children benefit from civil marriage do anything to harm the "institution"?

"Same sex marriage" is an oxymoron.

This remains to be proven.

Same-sex civil marriage can be traced back at least as far as Renaissance Italy. Even in the US, polygamy was legally going on as recent as the 1800s. Opposite-sex marriage doesn't exactly have a monopoly on history.

Anyway, I'd like to see some of the opponents of same-sex marriage seek out some children being raised by homosexual couples and explain to the children how preventing their parents from the structure, rigths and responsibilities of civil marriage is good for the kids.

The problem here, of course is one of definitons... the legal definitions vs the Cultural.

A prohibition on homosexual unions wasn't written into the constitution because such things were assumed, and therefore never legally defined.

Proof of these assumptions is easy enough to find.
It is interesting for example, that Jefferson, (arguably the biggest social liberal of the lot) thought homosexual acts to be worthy of hanging... (I commend Fawn Brodie's Jefferson to your reading list) and yet he never indicated anything of the sort in his ... our... documents.

Clearly, there was some assumptions made on the part of the founders in this area.... cultural assumptions.

And here, we walk a legal fine line, I fear.

Government, you see, does not operate inside a cultural vaccum. Rather, it exists inside a cultural context it must not run afoul of, lest it become irrelevant to the people it's supposed to be governing. Yet, while law and government is a more exact science, culture is less so. And so, cofification of the culture is problematic at best.

Given this, Jefferson, and the rest of the founders apparently took the attitude that their best tack would be to write laws and a framework that would at least not run afoul of the existing culture, without specifying without attempting to codify the boundires of that culture.

Dan, I think, is right insofar as such an amendment not passing, because it, unlike the remainder of the constitution attempts to define the social boundries of the culture it's charged with governing.

But I wonder what it is then, that the culture has to protect itself, in the end, if not government.

This question takes on particularly bizzare twists when you consider that, as in this case, when the forces being brought to bear *against* the culture and it's values, are using the overwhelming power of government, under the guise of equality.

(As an aside, I would argue that words like equality and rights are meaningless outside the cultural construct, since they are cultural inventions, after all. So, in seeking to uproot and redefine the culture and it's values by means of law, I wonder these folks being counter productive to even their own stated goals, in the end? I wonder....)

(Sigh... added comment... typos are my own,and copyrighted.....it's what I get for trying to do this at work, I guess.)

Bithead, I'm kind of slow, so I was wondering what you were inferring the culture had to do to protect itself. Do you mean enforced sodomy laws? Long jail sentences for homosexuals? What? I'm not trying to attack you, I just wanted to know.

I think that's a strong possibility with our current administration and w/the "I'll do anything Bush wants" mentality, but that type of stuff will float around with or without the FMA. Although I think if the FMA passes the really strong anti-gay laws would be more likely to be enacted.

w/the strong "I'll do anything Bush wants" mentality of the public. Sorry, I left a few words off.

If we term it "gay marriage," it opens the door to claims of civil rights violations, since we are denying to one group (homosexuals) what is freeely available to heterosexuals.

And isn't this what is happening? Homosexual families want civil marriage protection, but are denied it - something that is freely available to heterosexaul families.

Your premise is faulty-- what is a "homosexual family?" It's a bunch of people who decide to share a house. You can call it a family, but putting a baseball into the oven doesn't make it a biscuit.

If, on the other hand, we say, "anyone is free to marry any other person, so long as the two people getting married are of opposite sex," it is no longer a civil rights issue.

That logic didn't work when the law limited marriage to two people of the same race; why should it work against same-sex marriage?

Sorry, it works quite well. We realized that marriage was OK when the people were of different sex, and that it's not OK to say otherwise just because the races are different. You prove my point.

THe welfare of that child is a concern of the government, and therefore government creates certain advantages for people who marry. Anyone else who wants to get married, to take advantage of those advantages, or for any other reason, is free to do so, just as long as you follow the basic rule (one man, one woman).

So, you're basically saying that because some heterosexual couples procreate, all heterosexual couples get the special rights of marriage? But since homosexual couples cannot procreate among themselves, they don't get the same rights? Seems like a double standard.

That's exactly what I'm saying, and there is no double standard. Any man of any sexual preference is cmpletely free to get married to any consenting woman of any sexual preference, thereby getting the same social benefits, whether homo- or heterosexual.

Also, if the welfare of a child is the concern of the government, then clearly it has an interest in encouraging same-sex couples to get married. As hundreds of thousands of children are being raised by same-sex couples, the government should encourage them to get the structure, rights and responsibilities of civil marriage that will be good for the couples and good for the children.

Hundreds of thousands??? I do not doubt that there are some kids being raised well and happy in "2-mommy" or "2-daddy" households, but to say that the government should encourage this is ludicrous. All studies that I have seen is that kids do best when raised in a home with mom and dad, their own mom and dad, not mom's latest boyfriend or dad's current squeeze. When the government encourages other arrangements, it serves to break up nuclear families, and on balance the kids suffer the consequences. I agree that you could find hundreds or thousands (not hundreds of thousands) of kids doing OK in homosexual households, but the number of kids who do worse because dad realized too late that he was gay and broke up the family greatly outnumber them.

If what you want to do is allow a person to designate another particular person to visit you in the hospital, inherit your money, raise your kid if you die, share ownership of a house, or other aspects of everyday life that go along with marriege, any attorney can draw up a suitable document for a few dollars.

Heterosexual couples automatically get more rights and responsibilities through common law than homosexual couples do. Thus, if homosexual families don't need civil marriage, then heterosexual families REALLY don't need it. Why aren't you telling heterosexual couples to just see a lawyer, rather than get a civil marriage license?

The only reason heteros need these rights and responsibilities is that they have the potential to generate offspring who will need protection. Some hetero couples do not want to get married, but they are free to see lawyers to codify their desires, just as homo couples can do. An individual homosexual who wants these rights just has to do the exact same thing that a hetero does, i.e., marry someone of the opposite sex.

What proponents of "gay marriage" want to do is further damage an institution that has been seriously eroded over the past 40 years, an institution that has served as the basic building block of civilized society for the past 3 thousand years.

And how would allowing more committed couples and their children benefit from civil marriage do anything to harm the "institution"?

Again, a faulty premise. These couples do not have "their" children, they have someone else's children.

"Same sex marriage" is an oxymoron.

This remains to be proven.

Same-sex civil marriage can be traced back at least as far as Renaissance Italy. Even in the US, polygamy was legally going on as recent as the 1800s. Opposite-sex marriage doesn't exactly have a monopoly on history.

Anyway, I'd like to see some of the opponents of same-sex marriage seek out some children being raised by homosexual couples and explain to the children how preventing their parents from the structure, rigths and responsibilities of civil marriage is good for the kids.

For every stable, healthy kid in this situation, there are dozens who have had their lives disrupted by our society's attitude that marriage is a matter of convenience, to be discarded when it no longer fits our chosen lifestyle.

posted by: Zip Copper on 12.22.03 at 02:59 PM [permalink]

Mr. Sears,

Congress won't pass an amendment resolution for the same reason China won't invade Taiwan - doing it means they will no longer be able to threaten to do it. Both want the latter, not the former, i.e., they prefer that the issue continue to exist for reasons of domestic political advantage. In China's case the pertinent faction is the military. In Congress' case the pertinent faction is the GOP's religious fright wing.

It is not possible to be too cynical in such matters.

>

Do you have any evidence of this? I would say that many families where the parents live a lie, grow to despise each other, cheat on each other, etc. would be better off if they were split up.

It would be great if every child had the chance to be raised by his biological parents. But many of these kids are dumped at birth, and then go on to linger for years in foster care, with nobody wanting them for one reason or another. I don't see why a gay couple who love these children and want to give them the best home possible should be shut out of even the smallest legal benefits just because they're of the same sex and are not the child's biological parents.

I think that the point of the article was not to assess the probability of this ammendment succeeding (which, as has been pointed out, is practically zero), but to demonstrate how the issue of gay marriage might be used in the coming election. Many Republicans think that gay marriage can be used as a wedge issue; this survey suggests that they may be right. Opposition to gay marriage is strong; any Democrat who comes out in favor of gay marriage risks losing the middle. Any Democrat who comes out against gay marriage risks losing his or her base. This poll tells us which groups stand to gain and which stand to lose when this topic comes up.

>>Bithead, I'm kind of slow, so I was wondering what you were inferring the culture had to do to protect itself. Do you mean enforced sodomy laws? Long jail sentences for homosexuals? What? I'm not trying to attack you, I just wanted to know.

No, Jon. I don't mean that.

But I do hold that there's a major difference between making the behavior legal, and normalizing it by means of law. The former allows for the behavior. The latter tries by means of law to alter the culture by means of legal manuvering, which I find unaceptable.

I'm at work and my time is somewhat limited today... pre-holiday, short staff, etc. At the risk of this being called self-promotion, I suggest a quick read of http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/bits/062003.htm for a a somewhat more detailed view of my thinking here. (Second item on that page.)

OK, I read the comments on your site. They're certainly thought-provoking. I really can't go along with seeing Camille Paglia as the gospel just because she's gay, because some of the most anti-gay people are usually homosexuals themselves (but at least she isn't as bad as Tammy Bruce). That "study" by Spitzer was shopped around for about 2 or 3 years due to questioning of the merits of the piece, from what I remember. The whole problem with this notion of "curing" this as a mental illness is that many people who are "treated" for homosexuality usually wind up killing themselves or regressing back into discreet gay encounters. They could, with enough conditioning, have sex with a member of the opposite sex and have a child, but would a home which is not made up of marital love and founded on mental disorder really the best place to raise any child? And who exactly is hurt by homosexuality? Not the person himself, who can, if he accepts what he is, can live a reasonably happy life. Usually, when people try to cure this, it is the family and friends and the patient himself who are the most hurt, because every slip back into what is natural for him becomes a violation, an obscene slap in the face to those he promised to go straight for.

I would say that so-called "normalizing" of homosexuality would actually benefit society under your argument, because homosexuality would slowly become less of a forbidden fruit, less of an outlaw behavior which is used to stigmatize and divide. Under your theory, there are probably many people who slip into homosexuality just because of how risque the "lifestyle" is considered by the media. Same-sex marriage would help to eliminate that taint and lead some of those who are teetering to go back to the heterosexual "lifestyle".

There are tens of thousands of gay couples in the US, some who've been together longer than some of us have been alive. They are directly hurt by having no marriage protection or strong legal benefits. Meanwhile, aside from slippery slope, no one has ever been able to come up with a valid reason why straight couples will be hurt by same-sex marriage.

Of the states you list as not supporting the constitutional ammendment, how many of them passed their own version of DOMA? I know that California and Hawaii have. Why wouldn't they support a national ammendment?

>I really can't go along with seeing Camille >Paglia as the gospel just because she's gay

Then, I'm afraid you've misread my placing her in the article at all. The only concept I was trying to impart there is that her comments, while not 'gospel' as you put it, should certainly carry more weight than someone making such judgements from outside the fold.

>some of the most anti-gay people are usually
>homosexuals themselves

A point which should also be considered instructive. As you will see.

>That "study" by Spitzer was shopped around for
>about 2 or 3 years due to questioning of the
>merits of the piece, from what I remember.

Certainly, Spitzer got a lot of argument about it, but this too should be considered instructive. Think on it this way: his *methods* between the time he declared in the 70's it was not an illness, to the time when he changed his mind and decided it was, had not changed drasticly. What changed, then was the data his conclusions were based on.

Yet, to hear some tell the tale, he'd driven off into the dragon pit at the end of the world in a fit of pique. What in reality changed is the conclusion, and that alone is what drives his oposition, I think. The vitriol contained in the responses to him, is indicative of that.

>...would a home which is not made up of marital
> love and founded on mental disorder really the
>best place to raise any child?

Isn't that the question supporters of DOMA are asking as well? Seems to me, as I say, you're dealing with definitional issues... the legal vs the cultural. And, that swerves into the point you raise about some of the worst anti-homosexuals are homosexuals themselves. How can this be described, other than self hatred? Ask your question about the environment you raise a child in, within THIS context, and let me know the answer you get.

>..no one has ever been able to come up with a
> valid reason why straight couples will be hurt
> by same-sex marriage

(sigh)
Then, I fear the entire concept embedded in the cultural aspect of this discussion has given you the slip.

Yet, to hear some tell the tale, he'd driven off into the dragon pit at the end of the world in a fit of pique. What in reality changed is the conclusion, and that alone is what drives his oposition, I think. The vitriol contained in the responses to him, is indicative of that. >>>

He got flak because many people thought it was a shoddy study, not just because of the results. And when you consider that the gay community is constantly berated by zealots who tell them that they HAVE to change because they are all a threat to society and will die of AIDS and assault kids, then of course they are going to freak out any time they see this kind of maybe-possibly-who-knows type of study. If you beat a dog with a stick every day, that dog isn't going to jump in your lap just because one time you decide to use your hand instead of the stick. That's the situation here. And even this doctor himself said that it was only true for SOME homosexuals, and that was only after years of conditioning and guilt and fear on their parts. Does this really sound like a successful "cure" for homosexuality? Would you advocate this type of therapy to turn straight men gay?

>

No, I don't think so. DOMA, like all gay-marriage issues, was about hate and fear. I've never seen any of the big gay marriage opponents, those who screech about saving traditional marriage, trying to do anything to help stave off the disastrous state that heterosexual marriage is currently in.

>

The answer I get is simple and obvious. Parents who accept themselves and love their child will raise a happy and healthy child. The reason that so many gays hate themselves is because they have been told all their lives by "normal" society that they are pond scum. And every time the scum has tried to change their so-called behavior, through Jesus or celibacy or brainwashing, the feelings are still in there somewhere. That leads to resentment and a need to control. They think that if NO homosexuals have rights, then somehow that will make their own life easier and justify their decision. That's why most of the so-called ex-gays are not simply enjoying their new straight lifestyles. They are constantly out there trying to "save" gays by taking away any legal protection in the workplace, the courts, or at home. They are trying to justify their own choice to go straight.

>

I've yet to see you give any reason that is not faulty at best. Under your logic, a crack addict and his prostitute wife are better equipped to raise children than two gay men, because they're the biological parents. And all homosexuals are desperate to run away from some obligation you seem to think that they have to go through years of brutal and often unsuccessful therapy, so they can prove their benefit to society by being miserable, self-loathing, depressed heterosexuals whose only purpose in life is to knock someone up or to get knocked up.

If homosexuality were as easily and merrily cured as you think it is, then it would have vanished years ago. It never would have been controversial enough to be taken off the books as a mental illness. One of the reasons that it was taken off was because a very noted psychiatrist spent years and years trying to "cure" homosexuals who came to him begging for help, and he never could. If THESE people, who despately wanted to be straight, couldn't find their way to so-called goodness, then why should people who are actually happy to be gay and do not see themselves as these big menaces to world safety? It never ceases to amaze me that anyone who chooses to want to sleep with a member of the same sex or want to have a recognized relationship w/this person or raise a child is always public enemy #1 based on nothing but decades of unfounded suspicions and biased "studies".

http://www.365gay.com/newscontent/122103psychObit.htm

Sorry about my quoting feature being so bad.

>He got flak because many people
>thought it was a shoddy study, not
>just because of the results.

Perhaps they did. But if the study was created by similar methods to their earlier study, where were these to object to his methods at THAT point, or since, until this more recent study was out?

>If homosexuality were as easily and
> merrily cured as you think it is,
> then it would have vanished years
> ago.

At what point did I suggest this? I merely pointed at available treatment. Also, I think I should point out that declaring something an illness does not mean it's curable at all, much less easily.

>One of the reasons that it was taken
> off was because a very noted
>psychiatrist spent years and years
> trying to "cure" homosexuals who came
> to him begging for help, and he never
>could.

Fine. By that logic, let's simply call Cancer a lifestyle choice. After all, they never COULD come up with a cure. Sound logical to you?

I'm by no means being flippant, here... I'm making a point about the threshold of logic, given various topics. As in the link I provided, I draw parallels to a known illness... an incurable one, and ask the question; why the different treatment for each? Is it because one involves sexuality?

You know it is.

You're seriously comparing cancer to homosexuality? Cancer kills people. Homosexuality does not. (Don't even try to argue that it does. The contraction of stds/HIV does not require someone to be gay. There is no gay-specific disease that kills gay people just by the fact that they are gay.) Cancer in most cases (if caught in the early stages) is curable. There is no evidence that homosexuality is curable at all. Even Spitzer's controversial study concluded that a small sample of people, mostly referrals from "ex-gay" ministries, who hated their sexual orientation and believed it to be wrong due to their religion could suppress it. That's far from a cure. Most people who call themselves ex-gay admit that they are gay, but have learned to supress their feelings and live a straight life. That's not the same thing as being straight.

As for children with two moms or two dads. Why would anytone want to intentionally destabilize these families? They are indeed families, whether you want to acknowledge them or not. What else would you call two adults who love one another, share their lives together and (many) raise children together? Are only opposite sex, 2 parent families a "real" family? Does that mean children raised by their grandparents or a single parent aren't in a real family? According to you it's important to protect society by creating families where both parents are legally related to a child or children but aren't legally permitted to be related to one another. How is that encouraging a strong, healthy family? How is that beneficial?

For the record, we do have two types of marriage in this country already. There's civil marriage, requiring a trip to the county clerk's office, and then there's an OPTIONAL religious service. Most people don't seem to understand the difference between the two. There are millions of non-religious marriages performed by judges and justices of the peace. Should we nullify those too? Are they not real families?

Personally, I don't care what you call it-- marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships. I just want my family protected the same as the family that lives next door to me. What gay people want is simply access to all the rights codified in a marriage license. Perhaps those rights should be stripped from marriage and people should be able to designate who their next of kin are?

I am who I am. I didn't choose to be female. I didn't choose to be white. I didn't choose to be gay any more than you chose to be straight. If I were given a magical ability to change any of these things now, I wouldn't change them. They are me and who I am. Would you? Then why do you think I should? You don't know me. Why not let me live my life in peace?

>>You're seriously comparing cancer to homosexuality?

Oh, come on, Zoe.... You know better, don't you? Really?

Apparently not, so I'll go over it again:
The context of the comment was on the logic being invoked by Jon, nothing more... and the question, if the logic he's applying doesn't work in both cases, what's missing? I suppose it would also help you better understand my position, were you to read the link Jon and I were discussing, in this context.

By the way, while I have the editor open, Merry Christmas, everyone.

Ok. Answer me one question. Please explain how denying same-sex couples the right to marryand enshrining this denial of basic rights in the constitution would in any way actually help or strengthen existing straight marriages.

Hmmm. How to answer this one?

Think of "marriage" as a brand name.

The culture, which is in reality the final arbitor of such matters, decided long ago that "marriage" is two people of the opposite sex. Now alog comes to the homosexual crowd, claiming what they engage in is "marriage".

How would MacDonalds respond to someone using it's name and logos? Don't you think they would they file a damage suit? They would of course do the exactly that, pointing out that the people stealing the MacDonalds name, are trying to push their product as something it was not, and claim that doing so caused the real MacDonalds chain damage, by dilluting the meaning associated with that name, wouldn't they?

Society long ago decided that marriage is people of two sexes. That's the culture's value. What people pushing for homosexual "marriage" are really demanding, is that a law be imposed, the purpose of which is to alter the culture. Law isn't going to overcome that, and in fact law is supposed to be the extention of the culture, not the arbitor of it.

And I find your call for 'basic rights' to be utter nonsense. Rights are a cultural concept, and meaningless outside of that culture's influence. Nobody's rights are being denied, here.

The culture, which is in reality the final arbitor of such matters, decided long ago that "marriage" is two people of the opposite sex. Now alog comes to the homosexual crowd, claiming what they engage in is "marriage".

Well, let's get the full history here. Near as we can tell, marriage started back in Egypt as a contract between a husband and his wife's father for custody of her property, and essentially herself as property. Same-sex civil marriage can be traced back as far as Renaissance Italy. And in the US, we only "decided" in the 1800s that polygamy wasn't going to be legal. So, first off, it's not like there is this undeniable history of what "marriage" is exactly, as we can clearly see that it has changed quite a lot, even in the last 100-200 years.

Even as recent as 50 years ago, "marriage" was limited to same-race couples. Many arguments of gloom and doom, and upsetting people's beliefs were made when anti-miscegenation laws were struck down, but in the end, the sky didn't fall. No one was forced to marry someone of a different race, and people in same-race marriages didn't see their marriages fall apart all of a sudden.

Given the history of marriage, it isn't really that shocking that homosexual couples are coming along asking for equal marriage rights.

How would MacDonalds respond to someone using it's name and logos?

This is essentially the segregationist's argument. "Those coloreds are trying to use my water fountain." Not very convincing of a reason to deny equal rights - the fact that your personal definition doesn't fit with someone else's.

Society long ago decided that marriage is people of two sexes.

Not true. See above.

That's the culture's value.

Yes, and "the culture" also valued anti-miscegenation laws, treating women like property in marriage, slavery and disallowing women from voting. Your argument isn't convincing. "The culture" has been wrong often.

What people pushing for homosexual "marriage" are really demanding, is that a law be imposed, the purpose of which is to alter the culture.

Well first, it isn't "imposed." No one has to change their views; you can continue to ignore interracial or homosexual marriages and not engage in them, if you so please.

Second, it's not a change in culture, but equalization under the law which is demanded. Homosexual couples and their children can benefit from the structure, rights and responsibilities of marriage just as much as heterosexual families.

So, you're equating color and race with a chosen behavior? Almost interesting, but unavailing.

This is a bedrock change you're attempting to inflict.
If it were nt, you'd have far less problem than you're having tryingt o pass this off as a 'right'.

>Well first, it isn't "imposed." No one
>has to change their views; you can
>continue to ignore interracial or
>homosexual marriages and not engage in
>them, if you so please.

You're asking society as a whole to normalize homosexual "unions'. And they won't do that without a foundational change. Not only this, but we're already seeing where even speaking up against such 'unions' or homosexual behavior at all is being criminalized, as I pointed out.

>Second, it's not a change in culture,
>but equalization under the law which
>is demanded

The law is already equal. You can marry anyone of the opposite sex that will have you. That is equal application of the law.It applies the sdame to you as it does anyone else.

I've read the above comments with great interest, but feel I must address some of Bithead's remarks.

"So, you're equating color and race with a chosen behavior? Almost interesting, but unavailing."

Your thinking reminds me of people hundreds of years ago who fiercely believed that those who were left-handed were possessed by the devil. After all, using your left hand is a "chosen behavior," right? Nonetheless, you're obviously convinced about the "chosen" thing and I won't try to change your view. However, by your logic I guess we should remove religion from anti-discrimination ordinances because it's also "chosen," isn't it? Why should we protect people who *choose* to be Jewish? Or Muslim? Or pagan? Or athiest?

"This is a bedrock change you're attempting to inflict.
If it were nt, you'd have far less problem than you're having tryingt o pass this off as a 'right'."

First of all, marriage has not always been the union of one man and one woman. Many cultures even today (in African tribes for example) practice polygamy (polygyny, or one man having more than one wife, is far more common than polyandry, or one woman having more than one husband). Polygyny was practiced in North Amerca as recently as the second half of the 19th century in Utah. Plus, let's not forget that Abraham from the Bible actually had more than one wife.

Another important point here is that even *if* something is defined by some (or even by the majority) to be a "bedrock" institution, is that a sufficient reason for maintaining it the way it has been? After all, people used very similar arguments to yours to support slavery, anti-miscegenation laws, and Jim Crow laws, as well as oppose the rights of women. Many Southerners in the fifties used almost identical language when expressing opposition to integration, saying "this is the way it's always been, thus this is the way it always should be."

Take slavery. It has long existed in countless societies and eras throughout human history. Some could have argued (and did argue in the U.S. in the 1800's) that it is a fundamental institution that shouldn't be changed. So were we wrong to abolish it? Also, marriage in the Western sense (and in many other cultures as well) originally involved denying women fundamental rights and treating them like property. Was it wrong to change what was once considered by many to be a "fundamental" aspect of marriage?

For a modern example, just as there has not been a legally recognized civil marriage license granted to a same-sex couple in United States history, there also has not been a single female president. Does that mean there should *never* be one? Using your logic, one could argue, "We decided long ago that having a male president is a fundamental, deeply established tradition that shouldn't change."

"The law is already equal. You can marry anyone of the opposite sex that will have you. That is equal application of the law.It applies the sdame to you as it does anyone else."

Just like in Virginia in the 1950's the marriage laws were also completely equal. Any person could marry any other person of the same race. Blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites -- how can that be discriminatory? Everyone was treated equally and allowed to marry. This logic reminds me of a notorious comment that laws in England that took away a loaf of bread from everyone punished the poor and rich equally.

Come on. Current marriage laws are not equal because gays are the only group of citizens that are denied the right to marry a person *they love*. I guess I'm one of those old-fasioned people who thinks love and marriage still actually go together. I find it ironic that you seem to think it would be better for gays to marry people of the opposite sex whom they don't love romantically -- that'll create strong families!

I don't see a problem with single-sex marriages. Marriage is for two people who love each other and want to spend the rst of their lives together, and whether they're both female, both male, or male and female, thay should be able to love who they want.

Interesting that people make the comparison to various civil rights. Slavery was ended by the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th amendment to the Constitution. The right for Blacks to vote was the 16th Amendment to the Constitution (1870?) followed by the Civil Rights Act (1964). The right for women to vote was also a constitutional amendment (19th, 1920). These major social changes were all voted on by elected representatives in Congress and ratified by many states. Over years, if not decades. Not by judges or the Supreme Court. People want due process. Major social changes take commitment, time, dedication.

I had initially had a difficult time understanding how the opposition to gay marriage was rooted in anything other than intolerance, but a couple of Op-ed pieces in today's papers have opened my eyes to what I consider worthwhile concerns. (Mary Ann Glendon in the WSJ and Maggie Gallagher in the NYPost)

Glendon asks "Shouldn't citizens have a chance to vote on whether thay want to give homosexual unions, most of which are childless, the same benefits that society gives to amrried couples, most of whom have raised or are raising children?"

Both articles discuss the government benefits bestowed upon married couples and make the argument that these benefits are conferred in order to affirm, as Gallagher puts it, "the ideal that both mothers and fathers matter to children." This ideal appears to be rooted in fundamental biology and seems worthy of debate.

I agree Zip, that "Homosexual couples and their children can benefit from the structure, rights and responsibilities of marriage just as much as heterosexual families." but it is not clear to me that both heterosexual and homosexual unions ought to be defined and treated in the EXACT same way.

First of all, I don't understand why people keep saying that judges have tyrannically bypassed the will of the people. The Mass. court made a controversial decision, as judges can do, but Mass. voters will have an opportunity to overturn it. (And they've had many opportunities to make that amendment in the past, which the legislature has resisted) The Supreme Court has not ruled at all in this matter, and I think it's pretty clear that the Supreme Court will not find a right to single-sex marriage in the constitution.

Secondly, many same-sex relationships have children. Every lesbian I know has children, and more and more gay men are adopting. This is a social reality, whether you like it or not. Maggie Gallagher has a Christian "ideal" that the family can only be mother and father, but the family is an institution that has changed over millenia, and there's no reason why it shouldn't change further except for a superstitious fetish about biology. The notion that biology is destiny has been used to justify slavery, and a confinement of women's roles. Homosexuals are not the same as heterosexuals; but many people in this society judge their relationships as loving and committed, and see they can be wonderful parents. More and more people will see this as time passes and this debate will fade.

I did not read the NY Post Op Ed, but in the WSJ, Mary Ann Glendon lazily retreads the same arguments that have been debated for months on this topic, only labeling them as economic ones.

Unfortunately, the benefits conferred upon a married couple for child bearing don't present themselves until they have children. Ergo, it's a rather unceremonious (and certainly intellectually unintended) slap in the face to childless married couples.

Her piece, to me, seems more of an attempt to create some kind of an armageddon when--gasp--discrimination of gay people would be outlawed.

Again, it's off topic. I read this piece and was so wholly unimpressed by her inability to show just exactly how much it will cost us economically to recognize same-sex marriage. Sadly, it was a more solid argument for removing these economic perks from any kind of marriage.

****

FWIW: If the court ruled on a grievance filed by plaintiffs in Massachussetts, I fail to see how they just "made up" law. The plaintiffs claimed they were denied equal protection under Commonwealth law. A court ruled 4-3 in favor of plaintiffs and were asked by Legislature for proper remedy.Ta-da.

Doesn't take Mary Ann's Harvard law job to figure out that it always depends on whose ox is being gored to determine which people cry "TYRANNY IN THE COURTS"! (Imagine if this were an anti-school voucher ruling?)

Furthermore: Pro-FMA folks, including Mr. Bush, play this false, 'get out of intolerance free' card that "the people should decide" when they know the minority does not have the votes to get the rights in the Constitution by a vote. In a constitutional republic, as I understand it, the courts rule often to protect a minority.

As a famous porn peddler recently said: "You can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner"

The ideal "that both a father and a mother matter to a child" is most certainly rooted in fundamental biology as it takes both a father (male cell) and a mother (female cell) to create a baby.

It seems that the argument against gay marraige as it relates to children depends on the idea that if all else is held equal, a child is better off having a parent of each sex as opposed to parents of the same sex. I would not call this an indefensible position. It seems however, that there are other more important considerations relating to marraige benefits as discussed above and said benefits should not be withheld from those of the same sex who wish to marry.

I wonder how long it will take for this debate to "fade"?

It is clear that this argument can go on indefinately. The gays want to get married and the gay haters (some claim to acutally love gays)don't want the gays to get married. We can argue forever about whether or not homosexuality is a choice and still not settle the argument. We only have but a short time to live on earth and it unreasonable for some of us to live happily then force others to live utterly miserable because what makes us happy don't make them happy. homosexuals are BY DEFINITION people who are sexually attracted people of the same sex, so while it is true that a gay man can take onto himself a wife, he will never love her like a man ought to love his wife. Gay hating women, how would you like to know that your housband does not actually love you and is married to you only because society forced him to. We are so cuaght you with in-the-box thinking of one-man-one-woman that we forget the importance of these two people LOVING each other. This seem much like prearranged marriages to me... who cares who you love? you must get married to who we say you can or simply don't get married at all! Who cares if, like everybody esle, you are trying to be happy? People we are forgetting the "human" element here. I'm tired of hearing that a family MUST have one loving submissive Mother and one hard working head of the household father and two cute little children. This fairly tale may be true for some, but in the process of trying to impose it on everyone, we are hurting people. Variety and difference are inevitable in humanity and nature. If you do not agree just give me one characteristic (except for those that difine us as humans, like the fact that we have blood, etc) that holds true every single human. We are of different races, sexes, culture, we like different food music etc. Society should try as best as it can to accomodate for these differences instead of tring to defile nature by trying to force us all into the same little box.
No!...people should not be allowed to Muder people if they feel like!!! the reason is obvious, so i can't bother to explain the difference between two people getting married and murder.

I feel that gay marriage is something that should be accepted by the people of the state and country,and everybody in the world.Gay marriage should be legal in the U.S. everywhere.(Me Personally I'm gay).

I think that homosexual marriages are none of the heterosexual community's problem. I don't believe that people can choose to be gay. I have a few gay friends that say if they could, they'd be straight. It's hard enough being harrassed socially, but the fact that they are trying to take away the only hope the homosexual community has at a regular life makes life even more difficult. It may be morally wrong, but who is to say what wrong is. Gays may believe that the straight people are wrong. Let the gays decide what they want to do with their life, leave it up to them to decide what is right or wrong in their own life. Don't jeopardize the homosexual community, because you think it's "wrong". If you were a lesbian, or a gay, would you want your rights stolen away from you? It's not morally right and that's what I think.

The conflict here is should gay marriage be accepted, or not accepted. True, man thought interaccial marriage was wrong for the longest. God only requires them to be man and wife. (Where in the bible does it say don't marry someone because of a certain color?) The error is that we are looking to man for answers, not God. God is, has, and always will be perfect, which man is not. A sin is to not obey God. The reason God makes rules is a) they make sense b) to test us c) to see if we will love him and serve him. Seeing that many have turned into gayness and openly rebelled against God, I can see many do NOT love God. That can be forgiven, thanks to the goodness of God. It is not man that is in charge of right and wrong, but God. The end is near. There will be more gay/lesbian unions for it must come to pass for the end of the world to appear. But you don't have to be a part of it. If you support gay activities, you may as well support murderers and all other crime. For if you know a thing is wrong and decry it not, it is a shame unto you & you are the same as an accomplice. Soon, this country will be destroyed. God already said that as it was in the days of noah, so shall it be before the son of man appears. What was it like then? We are beginning to see. The same thing Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for will be what America is destroyed for. If you are mad, your heart is not right and you need to seek God. Only God can help you. You are not born gay, else you would not be able to choose to be straight. Gayness is a choice. Fight it, overcome it, or it will overcome you and you will burn in hell. God will not allow this to go on too much longer. When more than 50%, I dont know what God's cutoff is, it might be as high as 90 or 95% or even 99%, rest assured, earth will be destroyed. And that without remedy. You think you can fight God? You are a fool. Seek him while he may be found.

I seriously think that george bush SUCKS.He hasnt done anything good for our country and its time for a new president.Anyone can do a better job than george bush.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mandy chagoya, give me a break with that bible shit,
Our nation is not ruled by the Bible. We are not a theocracy, but a democratic republic. We believe in the freedom of religion. That means we can't force the ideas of one religion on the entire nation. It is unconstitutional.
Besides, this country was NOT founded on Christian beliefs or doctrines, but rather it was founded on the ideal of allowing people to be FREE from persecution because of their beliefs, religious or otherwise. Anyone quoting the bible to back-up any amendment allowing exclusivity into the Constitution is in direct violation of the Constitution itself.
u christians say "We need to protect the liberties of civil unions (i.e. marriages between a man and a woman)"
Even if gay marriage were legalized, civil unions would still have all rights they have now.

i think about this everyday when i hear my friends talking about it and saying that they dont agree with it and how they jus outcast gay people, when they make fun of them and make jokes about them, i dont think its right because everyone has their right to be happy and live a happy free life, if thats what they want then why take it away from them...
whether people know it or not, it is a good deed even though it may be wrong, but you cant help if you are that way, you were born that way and nothing can change that, so why should they be looked at differently...we all are the same, we all have bones and flesh, skin to cover our bones, we are the same, everyone should have that one right that fits them

How do children turn out who are raised in same-sex marriages? Do we really have any evidence to prove one way or the other?

It seems to me that a country with the majority of citizens who do not want marriage between couple of the same sex shouldn't have it crammed down their throats. It's more of the people's decision than the government's. George W. Bush sided with the people's opinion because he also believed how the majority believes. America should not have to jump through hoops in order to appease 3% of the population of this country who believe that they have the right to an act against nature.

You might say that the majority of America didn't favor integrated schools in the 1950s and 60s but the majority of Americans believed so.

Since America is a democracy its citizens should be the ones to decide how they want things done and not solely on a handful of judges from massachusetts. The people have spoken and the door should remain shut.