Non-genius Matt Singer says it better than I can:
The American Family Association, an organization I would never let anywhere near my family, has a poll up asking for opinions on gay marriage. They say they’ll submit the results to Congress. It’s an online poll on their own website, so the results are unlikely to be taken seriously by anyone, but wouldn’t it be nice if they went and had to tell Congress that the vast majority of their poll respondents support gay marriage?
That would put a smile on my face.
Please, put a smile on my face.
The link is here. I normally take a very dim view of on-line polls, but why not–about 400,000 people have voted already, and support for gay marriage has a decent-sized but nowhere near insurmountable lead. Anyway, it’s a worthier cause than pointing out how unelectable certain politicians are.
(Sorry Moe. All the cool kids were doing it, and our commenters said it wouldn’t break Google.)
“Sorry Moe. All the cool kids were doing it, and our commenters said it wouldn’t break Google.”
Grumble grumble grumble… (wanders off looking for coffee)
😉
Moe
PS: Of course I voted – for the civil unions compromise as opposed to actual use of the M word. But if no compromise, then the vote switches to recognizing gay marriage. I think that’s reasonable enough.
PS: Of course I voted – for the civil unions compromise as opposed to actual use of the M word. But if no compromise, then the vote switches to recognizing gay marriage. I think that’s reasonable enough.
We have something we (mostly) all agree upon. My vote is for gay marriage, and I shall cast it . . . . now!
(Continue to believe that gay marriage should be instituted by State legislatures, not the Courts, of course.)
When I voted, recognition of gay marriage (which I voted for) was neck and neck with voting against recognition.
(The compromise, giving same-sex couples all the rights of marriage without the name, seems to me to be a foolish nod to the bigots: it will not make same-sex couples who want to get married happy, and it won’t make bigots who hate all legal recognition of same-sex relationships happy either.)
I’d be interested to see how many pro-traditional marriage groups (who I don’t read) linked to this poll and encouraged people to keep marriage “heterosexual,” ’cause pro-gay marriage sites linked to this poll like crazy.
(And like Moe, I voted for civil unions.)
Voted “no” but I agree that online polls are rarely accurate especially when their questions operate from a false premise.
Moe,
I’ve been thinking that we should start an alternative google bombing campaign to deal with the loser who is the current Democratic front-runner who appears to be insane and is definitely bad for America.
Turnabout is fair play and all that. 😉
Thorley, I for one have better things to do with my time. 🙂
Also, if you don’t mind my asking, why no?
Why no I don’t mind at all (although this probably kills any chance of future invitations as a guest blogger – not that any were probably forthcoming 😉 ).
Several reasons come to mind the first being that this is fundamentally a question of privileges rather than rights – the privileges of married couples being that they have a default standardized contract (civil marriage) which addresses issues like child custody, inheritance, who gets to make medical decisions, etc. – while the rest of us have to set up separate contracts for these things.(1) It’s more that married people enjoy a convenience that the rest of us have to work a little harder at.
Because this is a matter of privileges, it stands to reason that they can be awarded in a limited manner to promote a valid societal purpose. In the case of married men and women, they create the more ideal situation for the raising of children (which most married people have) (2). We certainly know the societal chaos, which ensues from marriages breaking down or from marriage being devalued, so it makes sense to try and promote this institution.
While there are valid societal reasons for wanting to promote stable relationships between married couples (e.g. the creation and raising of children), those reasons really do not apply to homosexual couples and there is no compelling reason to change the definition of marriage when it does not enhance this societal purpose. Arguably, it may even undermine it by providing a governmental sanction to alternative lifestyles but it certainly does not in my view enhance this.
TW
(1) I’ll grant that there may be some legislative impediments in some States, which limit your ability to make these contractual agreements, and I would probably agree with changing these statutes legislatively.
(2) Yes there are exceptions as not every married couple decides to have or is capable of having children but they are the exception rather than the rule and we generally do not make rules based on the exception.
Thorley, so should gay couples who have children or who intend to have children be allowed to get married?
“Thorley, so should gay couples who have children or who intend to have children be allowed to get married?”
That was the question that I would be asking, as well.
Words of wisdom from the girlfriend* hanging over shoulder. I had just shown her the poll, mentioned that online polls are alas meaningless:
“Yeah, but I like it when people who put up these polls just so they can feel self-righteous and correct when the results come in get their ass handed to them.”
Of course, she’s also used the Chicago Method in regard to voting for this thing, so whaddya going to do?
Moe
*Also a Republican, although much more nominal in her case than in mine. NRA member, too.
And, indeed, given that same-sex couples can and do have children, and these children are as deserving of the right to married parents as the children of opposite-sex couples are – what reason is there to deprive other childless same-sex couples of that right?
If mixed-sex couples are entitled to get married even if they never intend to have children, why should same-sex couples not be equally entitled to do so?
Thorley, I’m myself very tolerant of people who take a while to reply to questions posed on blogs – I have a life spent away from the computer, and I tend to assume that other people do too. But I am interested to know your answer, should you return here: feel free to e-mail me if you’ve responded so long after that you think I might not notice.
I have cast my vote.
I wonder when they’re going to submit the results? Probably after there’s a lot more people voting their way, I suppose.
I cast my vote…found out about this poll through the tireless efforts of my sister, who was tracking the progress all along. The most important thing, I think, is that it says on the AFA poll “results will be sent to Congress.” Not if I can help it, they ain’t. Whatever I can do to deny the AFA an anti-gay press release is valuable.
My question is what right the state would have to withhold marriage from gays and lesbians. The “sacrament” stance doesn’t work very well for me, since I’m not convinced civic officials like justices of the peace should be conducting sacraments. The business of the courts is to file paperwork and conduct legal matters, and it would seem to me that official recognition of a long-term relationship falls into this category.
Leave the sacrament business to the clerics.
As for the slippery slope and bad influence arguments, I have known many same sex couples in long term relationships and found their relationships to be indistinguishable from their heterosexual counterparts. As far as I can tell, they have inspired neither an increased interest in being gay in the people around them, nor an increased desire on anyone’s part to have relations with children, animals, or any of that other rot.
I’m sorry, but digging in against gay marriage, from my point of view, looks like state sanction for bias against a minority group. Maintaining the premise that we should continue to withhold this right because society gains no benefit from recognizing it keeps gays and lesbians in a state of second class citizenry. Where I split from other people is the degree to which I feel they do not belong there.
I suppose if heterosexuals had a better track record these days of demonstrating their belief in the sanctity of this holy sacrament, I might hear the appeal differently, but let’s face it, the straights are making a hash of it all on their own. I do not think letting gays into the club will undermine respect for marriage below the shoddy performance already being turned in. Obviously, my point of view in these last two paragraphs is not universal, and I can respect the fact that people have convictions which cause them to disagree with my premise. However, for me, I see little about marriage 2003-style to differentiate it from getting a driver’s license (actually, a lot of people fight harder to keep their driver’s license than their marriage), and the government forbidding gays full legal recognition of their relationships is something I completely disagree with.