Openly gay Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, made a highly personal appeal before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday.
“When I go home from today’s work and I choose, because of my nature, to associate with another man, how is that a problem for you?…How does that hurt you?”
To gay Americans and many others the FMA is horrendous. It’s actually nightmarish, and it is incredibly personal. It goes well beyond discrimination and enters into persecution. Proponents of the FMA can’t see that though.
Proponents of the amendment said they were offended by the suggestion that they were trying to write discrimination into the Constitution. They noted that Congress and more than three dozen states had passed laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
“The American people are sophisticated enough to know the accusation of discrimination is false,” said Representative Marilyn Musgrave, Republican of Colorado, the chief House sponsor of the proposal.
Does that mean to suggest that gay Americans who know in their hearts it is discrimination (and feel it’s perhaps even persecution) are not sophisticated?
As for Mr. Frank’s appeal, both Mr. Cornyn and Wayne Allard, a Colorado Republican who is the chief Senate sponsor of the amendment, said that they sympathized with his deep personal interest in the issue but that they were unswayed.
“We all have personal concerns,” Mr. Allard said. “There are a lot of American people out there that have personal concerns, too.”
And we’re back at square one. Gay Americans, like Barney Frank, ask honestly and against their own interests, how does gay marriage hurt straight Americans? The most common responses echo the apocalyptic predictions we heard when the issue was marriage between the races, but not once have I heard a compelling rationale that didn’t focus on some myth about gays not wanting to raise children or caring about monogamy or any other stereotype that gets all fuzzy around the edges when you compare straight Americans with reproductive limitations.
The facts are many gays actually have their own children, many others want to adopt, many gays commit to one partner for life and live monogamously, and many gays have real-world concerns about rights such as adoption, hospital visitation, insurance, immigration, and wills. Life and death issues, folks. Life and death issues. All the fuzzy fears and ick-factor rationales pale in comparison.
I know. I’m gay.
Long-time readers of Tacitus may be surprised by this. Many of them know that my partner is Muslim, but most likely assumed I was straight. I chose to discuss Islam-related issues on that site (the topic that brought me there) with gender-neutral terms in order to not confuse two highly emotional issues. I guess I also simply didn’t trust the response to such a revelation on a conservative site. I regret what may have seemed to some as duplicitous, but I can no longer discuss this issue anonymously.
The FMA is particularly nightmarish to me because my partner is a refugee. Should the US change its position on his case (which is up for review each year), and he be sent back to his country, there is good reason to believe his life would be in danger. The ratification of the FMA would dash our hopes that US law will change (and soon) so that we could be married and he could legally stay here permanently. You’ll understand why I see this proposed amendment as particularly hateful and why I consider the personal concerns of its proponents, given my complete lack of understanding as to how gay marriage could possiblly hurt them, no where near as important.
“Three dozen states did it, therefore it’s not discrimination” — what kind of argument is that? It may work for preschoolers (“But moooommmm, Georgia and Ohio and Wyoming get to ban gay marriage! Why can’t I?”), but not for “sophisticated” people.
Move to Canada as a refugee! We’ll marry you guys, and it’s legal. And congratulations on a truely courageous post, that must have been a very tough decision to make.
Move to Canada as a refugee! We’ll marry you guys, and it’s legal.
Canadians are my personal heroes of the year, Stu. God Bless You All!
Good luck on your partner’s status. Hopefully more Americans can draw lessons from his home country and decide that America should stand for a little more humanity and equality in its own treatment of same-sex couples.
Wow. Funny how that never even occured to me.
As anyone who reads this site regularly knows, I’m somewhat obsessed with both these issues (immigration law and gay marriage). I get worked up enough about them, and they have no effect at all on me personally–I’m impressed that you’ve been able to debate it with such equanimity. Probably more than I’ve shown, actually.
I don’t think the FMA will pass.
On days when I’m feeling optimistic, I even think that, while the Supreme Court will not interpret the Full Faith and Credit Clause to require unwilling states to recognize gay marriage, it will interpret the Equal Protection clause to require the federal government to provide equal rights and benefits to married gay couples. But I’m not an expert on the Supreme Court, and I thought that Howard Dean could be elected President and that last year the Red Sox would win the world series, so you know…take my optimism with a whole shaker of salt.
I don’t think the FMA will pass.
That seems to be the word on the Hill, Katherine, but the NYTimes article about Frank’s testimony sparked a moment of doubt.
last year the Red Sox would win the world series
I’m an Indians fan myself…most folks take our optimisism with a whole shaker of salt and lime and tequila.
Well said, Edward — and congratulations (now, publicly) on your engagement.
It’s important to note that a key issue with the FMA is not merely that it enshrines discrimination in the U.S. Constitution, but that it also makes discrimination the law of every state in the union.
And I look forward to the day that Edward and his partner can get married in a big Mosque wedding. ‘Cause it’s coming (I hope).*
von
*Long-time readers (all three of you) will know that I’m in favor of gay marriage. (See fools and knaves, for example.) They will also know, however, that I don’t think that there’s a right to gay marriage in the U.S. Constitution. (It’s a difficult point, sometimes, but morality and the Constitution are not necessarily coextensive.) But neither should there be a prohibition against gay marriage. The states should decide — at least until a pro- gay rights and marriage amendment is ratified.
Thanks Von. The mosque idea, while very intriguing (beautful buildings, the ones I’ve visited), seems a bit further down the road, (and I’m not sure if weddings are conducted in mosques…guess I should ask…only Muslim wedding I’ve attended was in a hotel).
The engagement, btw, was still a secret, but many many thanks for the wishes.
e
As a Canadian married to an American, I have to say that marriage dramatically improved the practical aspects of our ability to stay together (without marrying, we could have tried to settle in Canada, which allows one to sponsor a ‘common law’ spouse for immigration, but it’s a harder and lengthier process). In fact, the US is slightly better in its treatment of foreign spouses, as it would issue them a temporary work permit, which Canada does not do (is that strange or what?). Anyhow, it occurred to me during the recent debates about gay marriage and civil unions and whether the latter provide all the benefits of the former, that exactly this situation is not covered, and that struck me as deeply unfair, as I know from personal experience that love is blind to nationality (among other things). I wish the best to you and your partner, Edward.
Thanks Mara.
The immigration question is the starkest inequality in this debate (at least as I see it). I’ve travelled a great deal over the years and many of my straight friends who married someone from another country tell me it’s no picnic getting it all sorted out, so you have my sympathies there. Canada’s not offering a temporary work permit does strike me as strange…leaving marriage an option for only the independently wealthy??
“that I don’t think that there’s a right to gay marriage in the U.S. Constitution.”
Hey, what the heck does that darn Article #9 mean, anyway? 🙂 Maybe the rest of your paragraph; maybe a little more.
Congratulations and best wishes, Edward.
As a straight, married male, I was always curious how gay marriage was any sort of threat to my marriage or my masculinity. My brother-in-law is gay, and I’d trust my kids with him and his partner in a heartbeat- something I can’t say for a hell of a lot of straight people.
Edward- from my brother-in-law’s experience, I know coming out is tough, even when “everyone knows.” Doing it on-line takes big brass ones.
Well, Edward, I have to say I’m neither surprised nor…unsurprised by this announcement. It does explain your having been more passionate about the topic of gay marriage than on other issues, but I also have to say that your sexual orientation was (and continues to be) irrelevant as far as I’m concerned.
To me, the whole key to understanding the FMA is the following: do you remember when Mormons were posthumously baptising Jews who’d died in the Holocaust into their faith? Something of that nature. I don’t feel that way, but it’s how I imagine those that do feel that way look at it.
Legitimized gay marriage is not going to be an all-encompassing fix to the issues you mentioned. China (and doubtless other countries such as India and Korea) will continue to deny adoptions to gays, regardless of how legitimate the union is in the eyes of the State, and mothers who give their babies up for adoption will still be free to reject gay parents based on their personal preference.
That aside, it may be a decent start. My personal preference is to take it all the way in the other direction, though: the Federal government ought to have no stake in marriage as an institution. Anyone ought to be able to form any sort of legal relationship at all with one or more other adults, giving them (for instance) power of attorney and the same inheritance rights that blood relatives enjoy. But I’m sure von will have something to say about that.
I particularly enjoyed Rep Frank’s comments. I grew up hetero in a sort of straightlaced Midwestern environment where homosexuals are traditionally and ritually outcast. It was the sudden realization that what gays with each other is just as much not my business (if not more so) as what any random hetero couple does, that shifted the whole paradigm for me. And it didn’t happen out of the blue; I had made a friend who was gay and it wasn’t in any way covert. So I had to either get over it, or not associate with him. Joe quickly became my best friend in the world, and was my best man at my first wedding. Probably would have been at my second wedding as well, had he lived that long.
So, Edward, not all right-wingers are raging homophobes. Although some of us started out on that path.
Probably would have been at my second wedding as well, had he lived that long.
Sincere condolences Slarti.
I don’t think rightwingers, as a group, are homophobic. Barry Goldwater set me, er, straight on that.
I do think some of the issues, such as immigration, however, do not occur to people who believe that “marriage” is between a man and a woman.
Edward; congratulations on finding the person you love and want to share your life with. I hope all the bureaucratic problems will not get too much in the way of enjoying that love.
It has always been totally incomprehensible for me why people would feel threatened by other people’s partner choices. I was really glad when marriage was opened for gay people thus providing my friends with the same legal rights and protection as well as the communal recognition of emotional bonds as I have.
I sincerely hope that the US will follow suit soon, for you and for all those other people who happen to love someone of the same gender.
Marjolein (the Netherlands)
Sincere condolences Slarti.
Thanks, Edward. He was pretty much doomed from the moment I met him, although neither of us knew it at the time. All of my constant browbeating of him on the necessity for safe sex was too little, too late. But I’m a much better person for having known him than I otherwise would have been.
But it’s been an even dozen years this May since he died, so it’s not freshly painful, anymore.
Barry Goldwater set me, er, straight on that.
I think you’ve opened up a whole new set of possibilities for humor, here.
Edward,
I wasn’t surprised at all by this post. Maybe it’s just being the sensitive, intuitive, yet lunatic right-winger that I am, but I’d read between the lines quite some time ago. Including the conclusion that your significant other was a Muslim. It seemed obvious to me, but I now realize that you didn’t mean it to be obvious. Not sure why I mention it, but just thought I should. Doesn’t seem like the time or place to argue the merits of gay marriage, so separate from that, I hope you have a permanent and successful relationship that remains here in the U.S.
Cheers
I’d read between the lines quite some time ago
You are a sensitive, intuitive, yet lunatic right-winger, Mac. (emphasis on the first two.)
Having said that, I wasn’t trying that hard to hide it. I was surprised when Tacitus refered to my “girlfriend.” Actually, I guess I’m not surprised. Personally I’m usually clueless about most people.
I’d actually come right out and said my s.o. was Muslim, though…it’s the basis for my self-appointed role as referee in the jihad against jihad…I kind of take it personally when folks let the rhetoric get out of control…this is also not the thread for this, but Muslim immigrants in NYC don’t always feel safe because they hear or read some of those comments.
Thanks for the comments.
The libertarian in me rejoices at the notion.* The pragmatist, though, sees all sorts of implementation problems. (F’istance, I’d appreciate the extra business it’d send my profession’s way — all the drafting and negotiating and revising — but I’m not sure you would.) And the traditionalist in me thinks that it’s almost always better to modify what you got, rather than start anew.
von
*In a prior life (it feels) I was a founding member of the student libertarian group at the university I attended.
F’istance, I’d appreciate the extra business it’d send my profession’s way — all the drafting and negotiating and revising — but I’m not sure you would.
On the contrary. I think the possibility of such complexities would induce people to take the whole thing a bit more seriously. It’s easier to commit if you’ve got nothing at stake.
It’s easier to commit if you’ve got nothing at stake.
Well, maybe, “seems like you’ve got nothing at stake.”
And, sorry for not mentioning this earlier: condolences to you on the loss of your friend.
Thanks, von. As I said, it’s been a while.
Edward, I was surprised only because I rememeber you responding to a comment on Tac about a “girlfriend” and not correcting anyone.
Congratulations, love is an extraordinary gift. As for the engagement/marriage? Good luck with that too.
Edward,
I was surprised with your announcement, although I had never given it any thought. Being less perceptive than many, I often fail to see anything other than the text.
I must say that your characterization of the FMA as “nightmarish” and “entering into persecution” is a little over the top.
I have no doubt that you feel shortchanged regarding official sanction of your relationship. However, I think that the aforementioned words are better applied to truly severe situations. Situations that I am sure you know much about, where homosexuals without legal protection are actively persecuted in other parts of the world.
You do have a point regarding immigration, though. However, I am wary of any measures which ensure rapid citizen status. For obvious reasons, they can be used contrary to their intent.
“. . .the Federal government ought to have no stake in marriage as an institution.”
Of course the government and therewith society must have a stake in marriage. Traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of society.
That said, I believe there should not be a constitutional amendment for marriage between a man and a woman. I am against “marriage” per se because that is a sacrament between a man and a woman made to propagate the species. However, I believe there should be legal unions for gay people that offer the same rights, privileges and obligations as marriage. i.e. support, inheritance, insurance, etc.
As a heterosexual female I can say that “some of my best friends” have been—gay males, many of whom have been in monogamous relationships for decades. (Gay females tend to like me “too much” or not at all. 😉
I don’t for one moment believe that gay unions will threaten the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. That idea is just plain ludicrous. After all, one is either homosexual, bi or straight. It is highly unlikely that any straight person would decide now, that there is another “legal” option s/he would try that gender orientation. And bi people are who they are, marriage or not.
I always wonder about these people who have the need to control the way others just are. Don’t they have gay relatives and friends? The world would be a much poorer place without homosexuals. Just think of all the art and culture that would not be in civilization. . . from Leonardo to Michelangleo to Andy Warhol. Vive la différence!
Here’s one of my favorite books: “Homosexuality and Civilization”
And congratulations, Edward. But, you might want to forget about “marriage” in a mosque to your “apostate” intended. That idea alone might get you a fatwa or two. Go for the Islamic marriage contract though. 😉
Read Rumi poetry.
Lumico
I must say that your characterization of the FMA as “nightmarish” and “entering into persecution” is a little over the top.
… I think that the aforementioned words are better applied to truly severe situations.
“Persecution” I’ll agree with you, which is why I qualified it. “Nightmarish” I’ll stick with. Should my partner have his status revoked, we are definitely facing a nightmarish situation (him more than me, as having already received refugee status here, his return to his country would be all the more dangerous…petty people have ways of expressing resentment about such things). Ratification of the FMA would set in motion a chain of subtle shifts in how his continued status is approved that could make that more likely. I do have actual nightmares about this, and his life, should it come to that, would be a living one. You don’t get refugee status in the US unless there’s perceived to be a real threat.
However, I am wary of any measures which ensure rapid citizen status.
I’m not advocating any measure that’s not currently available to straight Amercans.
I never would have guessed. I even remember seeing someone say something about your “Muslim girlfriend” and you replying that they assume too much, but I thought you meant it in a “We’re just good friends” kind of way. Huh.
You have and always have had this particular socially-left libertarian on your side in this fight. Because it isn’t just your side — as a matter of equality, social justice, and the well-being of a not-insignificant proportion of the population, it’s our side.
Just dug this out of my archives:
The Education of a Holy Warrior
I thought, given the subject matter of this thread, you might find it interesting. . . it is a long article, well worth reading.
“. . . Later that day, I met with a small group of students I had grown to like, hoping that, away from their teachers, they would talk a different talk. Meeting students out of class had already made for a number of interesting moments: I had, for example, been asked for sex, as had Laurent Van Der Stockt, the photographer with me. Sometimes the propositions were intimated; sometimes they were unusually blunt, especially given the Taliban’s official position on homosexuals, which is that they should be killed. Those few students who knew a bit of English seemed most interested in talking about sex. Many of them were convinced that all Americans are bisexual, and that Westerners engage in sex with anything, anywhere, all the time. I was asked to describe the dominant masturbation style of Americans, and whether American men were allowed by law to keep boyfriends and girlfriends at the same time. . . ”
“. . . “In America, parents do not show love to their children,” he informed me — but he said the average Afghan doesn’t necessarily share his feelings. They may feel warmly about America, because of the help it gave to the mujahedeen during the struggle against the Soviets.
Mullah Muhammad feels no such warmth, however. A couple of days after seeing the foreign minister, I asked Muhammad what he thought of America.
“America is the place that wants to kill Osama,” he said. “Osama is a great hero of the Muslims.”
Does anything good come out of America?
He thought about that one for a while.
“Candy,” he answered finally. “Candy comes from America. I like candy.”
Did I mention that Mullah Muhammad is 17 years old? . . .”
Lumico
Traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of society.
Read through the U.S. Constitution and tell me where the government’s charged with propping up society. Take your time; I’ve got all night.
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ”
Probably shouldn’t have pasted the whole preamble, but one wonders, for instance, about ensuring liberty for our posterity while letting society collapse. Not to enter your argument
“Traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of society.
Read through the U.S. Constitution and tell me where the government’s charged with propping up society. Take your time; I’ve got all night.”
And once you’ve read Slarti to sleep, you can move on to reading all of those terrible accounts of the foundation of society being ripped apart in Canada and the Netherlands.
“And once you’ve read Slarti to sleep, you can move on to reading all of those”
I guess in context….but I was afraid of Slarti slipping into some kind of strict constructionist or formalist interpretation. As I hope to imply above, I think there is an interpretation that already enshrines gay marriage into the const. The ninth amendment, I believe exists to protect common law rights, and to allow a dynamic, evolving constitution, so that as the popular will changes, “new” rights become available. So in addition to the 14th, I think the ninth provides a right to gay marriage.
All good, bob. Was responding to Lumico via Slartibartfast.
For maximum confusion.
Edward — that’s a wonderful post and I’m so glad you shared this with us. I’ll add you two to my prayer list, which currently includes prayers that Ms. Musgrave will see the light, retire, or fall in love with a woman — God’s choice. 🙂
Probably shouldn’t have pasted the whole preamble, but one wonders, for instance, about ensuring liberty for our posterity while letting society collapse. Not to enter your argument.
Too late. Heh.
Ok, here’s the deal: the preamble says that the purpose of the Constitution (IMHACUO*) is to support all of those objectives. You then have to wonder why, given those stated objectives, they failed to put in moral restrictions of practically any kind. No, the purpose of the Constitution was to outline the various ways the government is constrained from sticking its oar in the private business of individuals, so that liberty, etc. could be more easily achieved. And I’ll note that the Constitution as it stands now gives the U.S. Government exactly zero permission to place constraints on what constitutes (no pun intended) marriage.
Which makes one wonder how this affects IRS treatment of married couples, but that’s a question that’d still be valid outside of this thread.
*IMHACUO = In My Humble And Completely Uninformed Opinion
I was surprised when Tacitus refered to my “girlfriend.”
Hey, I apologized.
Anyway, at some point, perhaps far in the future (’cause it’s not public business, even if it is interesting), it would be pretty engrossing to hear some about your fellow’s acceptance, or lack thereof, into his family/faith community/ethnic group, and the extent to which he feels he can be forthright with them. And why.
And really, there need be no trepidation about discussing such things at my site. Rest assured I’d be happy to slap down any vicious attackers.
Hey, I apologized.
No need Tac. I was simply running on the assumption that most folks, like Mac, had read between the lines.
I also meant to imply in the original post above that I’ve since learned my initial reluctance was based on a misperception about your readers. One I’ve since seen is groundless.
I’ll consider your request about the family’s response…should discuss it with my s.o. first though.
I admire your bravery in announcing this publicly, Edward, and I think the appellation of “nightmarish” to your parter’s potential return to a tyranny is just. Nevertheless, these personal facts cannot blur the issue of principle before us. To tether politics to the personal is to make of it an activity which reduces to the exercise of sheer, naked will — a condition none of us, upon reflection, desires.
To reiterate what has been said many times, here and elsewhere: there are indeed strong “compelling rationales” against gay marriage. There is, first, the argument from Natural Law, which holds that the State has no authority to take into its hands and radically transform an institution, the roots of which lie in the nature of men and women as complimentary sexual beings, that predates the modern State by several millenia.
There is also what we might call the argument from Political Philosophy, which holds that, even if the State were given such authority, in some “social contractarian” transaction, it cannot undertake this innovation except through mechanisms which decisively reveal, for all to see, that a consensus of We the People (us the people for you grammarians) has developed and matured; that this, if it happens, must not be an act of usurpation by an factional minority, but of republican consensus. More: that the consensus itself must not be a bare majority, or a mere plurality, but instead reflect the “deliberate sense of the community” (as Publius in The Federalist aptly phrases it). Still more: that even a solid majority, if it is achieved, must be able to pull along in acquiescence most of its opponents. That is how republics operate.
As it happens, we have just the mechanism for this: the Constitutional amendment process. Failing that, proponents of gay marriage can turn to state legislatures or Congress. But for this to be accomplished through the action of the least representative, the least accountable and the least flexible branch of government, against the wishes of the majority of We the People, and against the laws duly-enacted in our august republican bodies, would comprise an act of usurpation without parallel.
Finally, I want to say a word about Lumico’s fascinatingly emphatic statement that “After all, one is either homosexual, bi[sexual] or straight.” In fact, the range of human sexual desire is far broader, compassing bestiality, pedophilia, etc. This is not at all to imply a moral equality among these desires; but I do wonder how the line can be drawn. We do know, for instance, that the fine men over at NAMBLA would like to obliterate whatever line still prevails, and that the Mormans (and others) would like to fudge it in another direction. I would like to ask, in all seriousness, how the proponents of gay marriage plan to resist these innovations? I ask it not polemically, but with an eye to draw out the thinking of those who, I feel confident, despite by own opposition, will emerge victorious on the question at hand. Is the frail reid of “age of consent” to now restrain all the passions of fallen man?
(That last question was phrased polemically, but . . . well, once a polemicist, always a polemicist.)
There is, first, the argument from Natural Law, which holds that the State has no authority to take into its hands and radically transform an institution, the roots of which lie in the nature of men and women as complimentary sexual beings, that predates the modern State by several millenia.
Natural Law? What, exactly, is “Natural Law”? I’m intimately acquainted with a great deal of physical law, and there ain’t anything about human sexuality or morality in there.
For those of you who don’t read Paul Cella regularly, you should. Do I disagree with the thrust of his last post — absolutely. Did I find it engaging, informative, and well-reasoned — well, again, absolutely.
I’d actually respond on the merits, but, unfortunately, I’m out of time.
von
Natural Law? What, exactly, is “Natural Law”? I’m intimately acquainted with a great deal of physical law, and there ain’t anything about human sexuality or morality in there.
I can’t tell you how much I loathe responding to myself, but after rereading what Paul wrote, I’m going to have to amend what I said to encompass laws of constraint for government in addition to morality. So, even though I agree with the spirit of what Paul said, I’m inclined to disagree with the idea that an argument has validity now because it’s been an agreeable argument in the past. If that wasn’t your point, Paul, please correct me.
We may have gotten into too big an argument here
1) Don’t believe in Natural Law. Traditions and prejudices actually carry more weight with me.
2) My view of the ninth is that individual rights should be presumed to exist and carry the day, and it should the onus of the govt to give compelling reasons to restrict.
3)Whether gay marriage is an individual right or a govt function, the fed govt has already long intruded into the matter and definition of marriage, and may not now say it is none of its business
4) If matters such as school integration or abortion had been decided by national plebiscite instead of the courts, they would have remained as contentious. The problem is a divided people, not the process.
I’ve been reading Paul for a long time. His website is an impressive collection of good writing and passionate arguments. The fact that we often disagree does not diminish my respect for his talents.
As Von notes, to address his comments here would require more time than my day job allows at the moment. But I do want to note that I appreciate his recognition that my partner’s situation does deserve consideration.
I’m also encouraged that he feels, despite his own opposition, the issue will be resolved in a way that will help us. That’s a lot to get from this thread.
Edward,
Upon further contemplation, I can definitely see why you used ‘nightmarish’ to describe the potential deportation of your significant other.
Although, I must say again that I am opposed to most fast-tracking of immigration simply because it is so open to abuse. This is more true in Canada than the US, as we accept a large number of refugees, many of whom have a dubious claim to the appellation. And, unfortunately, we cannot accept all who are true refugees.
Mr. McManus:
My view of the ninth is that individual rights should be presumed to exist and carry the day, and it should the onus of the govt to give compelling reasons to restrict.
But then you must demonstrate (a) that marriage is a right and (b) that some groups have that right impaired. The latter can only be true if we transform the meaning of the word marriage, for no homosexual man is prohibited from taking a lawful (female) wife.
If matters such as school integration or abortion had been decided by national plebiscite instead of the courts, they would have remained as contentious. The problem is a divided people, not the process.
No one is talking about such a monstrosity as a “national plebiscite.” I, for one, have taken specific pains to insure than my arguments do not read as endorsing such folly: as when I write about the peril of “exercise [in politics] of sheer, naked will,” and insist that “the consensus itself must not be a bare majority, or a mere plurality, but instead reflect the ‘deliberate sense of the community.'”
The legislative process is precisely designed to mitigate the power of factions, to foster unity and alleviate division, through compromise, delay, deliberation etc. Which is why Supreme Court decrees are so dangerous. The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were far superior acts of statesmanship than Brown v. Board of Education.
Oh, and I should say that I also believe that gay marriage will be recognized in North America. Regardless of my refined opposition, of course. (Insert humorous emoticon here.)
3)Whether gay marriage is an individual right or a govt function, the fed govt has already long intruded into the matter and definition of marriage, and may not now say it is none of its business
I couldn’t disagree more strongly. The way I look at it, you’re saying that now that the government’s overextended itself to the point it has into the issue of marriage, it really ought to make it part of the law of the land.
Or, in other words, we’ve screwed things up so badly, we may as well cast it in concrete. Because undoing the damage might be, well, too hard.
” The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were far superior acts of statesmanship than Brown v. Board of Education.”
Two very good examples of contentious issues somehow become less contentious. And food for thought.
“Or, in other words, we’ve screwed things up so badly, we may as well cast it in concrete. Because undoing the damage might be, well, too hard.”
Well, yes, though there was some principle involved. As a libertarian, I would not mind removing all 1150 mentions of marriage from the federal code, but considering each of these have a constituency, we better get started soon. 🙂 Yeah, really hard.
Yeah, really hard.
This is exactly the problem with government. It’s much easier to make laws than to remove laws from the books. This is one thing the Founding Fathers failed to consider (or to implement; same thing as far as we’re concerned): periodic audit of the book of law to remedy the mistakes of the past. Before they become legion.
“Read through the U.S. Constitution and tell me where the government’s charged with propping up society. Take your time; I’ve got all night.”
The Constitution is there to provide for a civil society in which the rights of all are protected. Thus, an amendment discriminating against one group would not be proper.
However, it has little to do with the U.S. Constitution and everything to do with how human civilizations are set up, Slarti. Marriage and family are the foundation on which a solid society is built and that has been so ever since the stone age. Even gays, who want to marry and have a family, recognize this. Otherwise, why bother?
But, my personal opinion (and I hope I have a right to this) is that a “marriage” is a sacrament between a man and a woman. Gays can have a civil union with the same rights and responsibilities. One does not need a constitutional amendment for that.
Lumico
I third the endorsement of Cella and his site.
And, in truth, I find his argument immensely persuasive. The refugee angle here points to a pressing need to revise US immigration law and policy, not revise marriage statutes in order to escape the dictates of that law and policy.
First arts funding, then Islamism, now this. Is Edward the living archetype of the person my politics are meant to thwart? It seems a pity.
I will say, though, that I find a Constitutional amendment here to be massively unnecessary.
I will say, though, that I find a Constitutional amendment here to be massively unnecessary.
Phew!…at least a small patch of common ground. 🙂
However, it has little to do with the U.S. Constitution and everything to do with how human civilizations are set up, Slarti.
Which effectively removes it from the concern of Constitutional law. We agree, on that, at least, then?
Edward,
Do you and the boyf talk politics and religion much? Did you have to tread lightly around them in the beginning because he’s Muslim? Or were his positions on the two already reworked in the process of reconciling his faith with his sexuality?
I’m asking for personal reasons myself. I have Muslim friends and the events of the past few years have harshened some of their dispositions towards the West (Jews in particular). I’ve known some of these people for years and the paranoid anti-Semitic conspiracy theories were never there before. I have personally witnessed one of them stand up for a Jew in response to an anti-Semitic comment. Ironically, he is now more openly hostile and paranoid about Jews than anyone I have ever known.
Another is a girl. And I’m a straight guy. And she’s expressed interest. She’s very Westernized but her take on politics is of the Chomsky/Said conspiracy theorist sort. Whenever she’s tried to starts to go off on Western imperialism, I reply that the Western Europe wasn’t the first civilization to have an empire and she usually takes the hint.
Just wondered if you might have any advice.
JFD,
We tiptoed around some issues in the beginning, and had one nearly relationship-ending argument about religion, but I started it and so I corrected it. It actually was my fault.
As with most relationships between people of two faiths, the degree of devoutness plays a major role. Neither of us is very devout, although we do observe our respective religious holidays and each pray in our own way (but no, he doesn’t stop 5 times a day and face Mecca, and when he does pray, he prays in private). Another complicating factor of course is a wedding cermony (which neither of us would want to be religious should it ever be legal in New York) and the big one—raising children, which is something we do talk about a lot (he’s a natural parent, having raised a sister, and you’ve rarely seen someone children take to as immediately as they do to him…really it’s quite remarkable…me I’m afraid I’ll break them, so we’re still talking about it). But which religion to raise the children is definitely something that needs lots of discussion.
We don’t discuss politics too much. And this is important, we defer to each other in our respective areas of “expertise.” That doesn’t mean I agree with him…but it does mean I stop myself from insisting on things I know less about than he does. Knowing what those are is the trick.
We do agree on most recent events though: we both oppose the war in Iraq and we both lean way liberal on most issues.
The big dividing issue with us, and any Christian/Muslim couple, of course is Israel/Palestine. He feels assasinating Yassin was a tactical mistake, for example, but mostly because of the violence it’s bound to spawn. He’s pessimistic about the chances for peace there (less so than I am)…when we discuss such issues, we try to leave an opinion that strikes us as “just wrong” unchallenged in the moment, so as to leave emotion out of it. There’s always time to revisit something down the road, when it seems less immediate.
I’m rambling now…so I’ll stop, but I hope this helps. Best of luck with her JFD.
It was helpful.
Thank you, Edward.