There’s no way around it. The FMA is either
1. anti-Liberty
2. anti-Sanctity or
3. anti-Equality
To defend the FMA, you must own up to one of these stances.
1. Anti-Liberty
In this context, anti-Liberty means anti-gay. One must believe that sexual orientation does not fall under the umbrella of the “liberty” we believe is our inalienable right. In short, one must believe gay people should not be gay.* President Bush has on several occasions argued that “that everybody ought to be treated with continuing respect.” For the moment, I’ll take him at his word, and I’ll assume that means he’s not “anti-gay.” I’m sure he’d argue he’s not “anti-liberty.”
*CLARIFICATION UPDATE: One must believe that gay people should not be free to be who they are in public; that they are not at liberty to live their lives as who they are in plain view of other Americans.
2. Anti-Sanctity
I have a great respect for conservative blogger Paul Cella. Although I seldom agree with him, he’s true to his convictions and remains one of the best writers in the blogosphere. On this subject, however, he wrote:
There is no “right” to marriage; but even if such a thing existed, it is not being denied to homosexuals — any whom can legally take a husband or wife, of the opposite sex.
Forget the divorce rate, forget the quickie Las Vegas, Elvis-impersonator weddings; How is the “sanctity of marriage” maintained by advocating fraudulent or sham weddings?
The only sound defense of Paul’s argument is the assumption that gay men and women would first convert to heterosexuality; in which case I re-direct you to #1. above.
3. Anti-Equality
If one maintains that one is not anti-Liberty and not anti-Sanctity, the only remaining defense for supporting the FMA is a stance that advocates codified inequality. If one argues that that “gays should be allowed to be gay” (and the SCOTUS has argued just that) and that “marriage is sacred” (suggesting that it should only be entered into by people who will mean what they say when they take their vows and that what they’re presenting to the world is in fact true), then denying marriage to gays is to say gays are not equal to straights.
Supporting FMA and denying you adhere to at least one of these stances is simply lying to yourself.
Thanks. I’m going to link to this from my livejournal: well said!
Sanctity of marraige : proposed marriage amendment :: Sanctity of diet : “low-carb” cheeseburger
What’s the link to your site Jesurgislac?
Fisking Edward Finkleman argument:
The “Anti-Liberty” line:
Always nice when you can simply redefine words to fit whatever silly argument you want to make. Liberty=Gay, got it?
Nope, one can simply say that people should be free to practice whatever consensual adult activities they wish in private but when they come to the government asking for public sanction of their relationships and to receive privileges, we as a society are free to pick and chose who does and does not receive public sanction and benefits. Denying them to a particular individual or group in no way prevents them from exercising their liberty.
Bush has to his credit tread carefully on this issue while being forced by the GLBT politicos into supporting the FMA. He has and I suspect will continue to treat his opponents with far greater respect than they deserve and certainly greater respect than he has received.
The “Anti-Sanctity” line:
None of which have anything to do with the FMA.
And the ever popular “Anti-Equality” line:
Except that the awarding of public sanctions and privileges has never been an “equality issue” because they are awarded to individuals or groups for some public purpose.
Nope, it just means that while a man and a woman getting married may potentially provide some societal benefit that makes it worthwhile to provide some benefits to encourage the stability and continuance of their relationship (as a rule but obviously not in every case), it does not necessarily mean that two men, two women, or more than two adults would provide the same or comparable societal benefits. We’ve had a few thousand years to look at what the benefits to society are for civil marriage including the consequences of at least one ill-advised attempt to abolish it. Proponents of trying to change the legal definition of civil marriage seem unable to argue that the new arrangements they wish to encompass into civil marriage serve the same or a comparable public purpose, which is why they have fallen back on the “equality” non-issue.
Nope, it just means we recognize that Edward set up a series of strawman arguments without thinking them through. Denying you adhere to the stances outlined in his strawman arguments simply means that you put more thought into the issue than he did.
Sort of like with environmental issues. 😉
Denying them to a particular individual or group in no way prevents them from exercising their liberty.
So what you’re arguing, Thorley, is that there is a fourth possible option: you’re anti-marriage. Is that your argument?
(My livejournal is here, Edward.)
Proponents of trying to change the legal definition of civil marriage seem unable to argue that the new arrangements they wish to encompass into civil marriage serve the same or a comparable public purpose
Well, to start off with, Thorley, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, you seem unable to explain why allowing same-sex couples to marry means changing the legal definition of civil marriage.
To go on with, you suggest that the reason for supporting civil marriage (I apologise for the earlier comment – a too-swift reading suggested that you were anti-marriage) is because ” a man and a woman getting married may potentially provide some societal benefit that makes it worthwhile to provide some benefits to encourage the stability and continuance of their relationship”.
Yes. And the societal benefit cited is usually that of bringing up children. Which is fair: while most of the benefits of marriage are aimed towards the married couple themselves, one positive thing that marriage both gets and gives back is providing legal security to children.
That being so, the only reason to oppose gay marriage is if you are anti-equality: you believe that children being brought up by same-sex couples do not deserve the legal security that marriage gives.
So you see, Edward’s right: your opposition to gay marriage is sourced in one of his three options. You believe that the children of same-sex couples should not have the same rights and benefits as the children of mixed-sex couples. It’s anti-equality, just taken down a generation.
(If you had some other benefit in mind that married couples provide to society, that you believe mixed-sex couples provide but that same-sex couples couldn’t, of course you should outline it.)
Thorley,
Making fun of my name is a good start, with regard to “match[ing your] strong convictions with kindness and goodwill and decency.”
I sincerely believe public opinion in changing on this topic, and that views like the President’s and yours will be viewed by future generations as the meanspirited bigotry they are.
Paul was arguing that there’s nothing about the FMA that denies gays “the right” to marry (if such a right is argued). It has everything to do with the FMA, Thorley. Try again.
How does it not? The only thing a straight couple can do that a gay couple cannot is have children of their own without outside help. And not even all straight couples can do this. In every other way, the stability of marriage will benefit gay men and women the same as it does straight couples and their stability will in turn benefit society at large. Besides, you’ve qualified any absolutism out of your basic premise, making it wobbly at best, you should really give this idea another shot as well…
Here’s how I look at it:
I will vote against this amendment simply because I find government mucking about at this level to be more distasteful than I find the idea of gay marriage to be.
I don’t approve of gay marriage, but I don’t exactly think my approval is required. The government, OTOH, has asked me to approve of this, and I’ll actively decline.
Edward wrote:
Apparently, in my last post I accidentally wrote “Finkleman” rather than “Winkleman.” My mistake.
Ah yes the “gay marriage is inevitable and if you oppose it you’re just a mean spirited bigot” line. Sorry but it’s not and you betray your desperation and your argument’s utter lack of merit by calling the overwhelming majority of your countrymen “bigots” because they disagree with you. However, please, by all means, feel free to marginalize yourself further.
Nice attempt to switch the subject but my comments were in response to your earlier attempt to conflagrate “divorce rate, forget the quickie Las Vegas, Elvis-impersonator weddings” and “fraudulent or sham weddings” with the FMA in your “sanctity” argument. These of course have nothing to do with the FMA and as such, your “sanctity” argument fails for lack of relevancy.
Sorry but the burden is on you to prove that it does.
Bingo, which alone is reason enough to promote civil marriage amongst men and women even if not all of them do have children, the majority do though which provides a societal benefit.
Doesn’t matter. Gay couples don’t generally create children and as such there really is no reason for society at large to care a whit whether they stay together or not. There is however for heterosexual couples which is one reason why we do care that husbands and wives stay together (barring exigent circumstances) and so we provide benefits to encourage one and not the other.
Slartibartfast wrote:
Are you a member of Congress or your State’s legislature?
Ok, that should have made me blush. If I were the blushing kind.
No, I’m not. Let’s say, instead, that I’ll actively express my lack of support for this amendment.
Thorley,
I could be more clear here, I guess (although I suspect you already know what I’m saying and are too obstinate to admit it). Let me try again:
If one argues that one is not anti-gay or anti-equality because there is no inequality in the FMA, and then justifies the claim there is no inequality with the assertion that gay men and women are free to marry someone of the opposite sex, one cannot still insist that denying gays the right to marry is an attempt to promote the sanctity of marriage, because they’re actually advocating sham marriages.
Civil marriage amonst gays would also promote their having or adopting children (the fact that it’s already on the rise among gay couples with the benefit of society’s legal support indicates they want to raise children). So if some, but not all gay couples raise children, and some, but not all straight couples raise children, where’s the difference?
that should be “the fact that it’s already on the rise among gay couples without the benefit of society’s legal support”
I’ll offer a shorthand version of Edward‘s well-argued post: one should support the FMA if and only if one feels thatr same-sex relationships of any kind are qualitatively different than opposite-sex relationships – in particular, that the former are inherently false and invalid compared to the former. I understand, begrudgingly, that this is a stance that many people – perhaps most people – take. But it’s important to be honest about it, to make sure that people know what the issue is. What one says when one supports the FMA is that any relationship between gay people is incapable of providing the stabilizing social benefits of the institution of marriage than any opposite-sex relationship.
I’m also surprised that more people aren’t taking Slartibartifast‘s attitude – that monkeying with the Constitution in this way seems like an awfully drastic step. I hope the idea that we’d be enshrining this for generations in the Constitution will fill people with a little trepidation as the votes approach.
Gay couples don’t generally create children and as such there really is no reason for society at large to care a whit whether they stay together or not.
Right, Thorley: so your argument is that the children of gay couples don’t deserve the legal benefits of having married parents. Therefore, you fall into Edward’s category 3: you’re anti-equality.
(You could climb out of this by saying that you were against marriage for any couple that didn’t intend ever to have children, but that would be an entirely different thing from opposing gay marriage: many gay couples either have children already, or intend to do so, and many straight couples do not have children, do not intend to do so, or can’t.)
Edward’s thesis stands proved by you, so far.
Edward:
When I wrote “There is no ‘right’ to marriage; but even if such a thing existed, it is not being denied to homosexuals — any [of] whom can legally take a husband or wife, of the opposite sex,” I meant that what gays are demanding is not equality but a new “right” — that is, a privilege. They are not denied the opportunity to marry.
The hidden premise here is that the basis for marriage is romantic love (I do not doubt that homosexuals feel this emotion). I reject that premise. In fact, I lay down as a principle that to the degree that our society has conceived of romantic love as the primary or exclusive basis of marriage — to that degree it has enervated the institution. Romantic love is an appallingly fleeting emotion upon which to rest an institution that is made by vows of “til death do us part.”
Therefore I have no hesitation in saying that heterosexuals have done more to wound the institution of marriage than homosexuals will ever do. I apologize for continuing to plug my own work, but I wrote just that here. I would like to eliminate, or at least drastically reform, the “no-fault” divorce laws. As I wrote in the above-linked essay:
The center of marriage is a vow, not romantic love. Now: to answer the obvious objection, “isn’t it a vow into which homosexuals can enter?” No, it is not. The vow is an attempt to reflect by human agency the nature of men and women as sexual beings. A man cannot “vow himself” into being a woman.
Nope, one can simply say that people should be free to practice whatever consensual adult activities they wish in private but when they come to the government asking for public sanction of their relationships and to receive privileges, we as a society are free to pick and chose who does and does not receive public sanction and benefits. Denying them to a particular individual or group in no way prevents them from exercising their liberty.
This shows such a feeble grasp of the principles of “equality” and “liberty” that I’m almost at a loss to respond. We do not get to pick and choose who gets the benefits of equal protection under the law, to cite just one example. We can’t make laws saying that members of groups that we don’t like don’t get all the benefits of the groups that we do like — that was pretty clearly settled in Loving v. Virginia. Social approval is certainly no place for the law, but tangible benefits are exactly what the law should cover.
The situation calls for re-examination of some assumptions that have gone into the way that our laws have been made over the years. We need to look at our old assumptions about gays, and about marriage, and about things the government ought to do. We’ve come across a fundamental inconsistency in our laws — we hold all people to be equal, but we don’t give gays the same rights and benefits. Do we let gay people in the “club”, or do we bar them? Do we even want to keep the “club” in place at all, or do we want to totally redefine it?
It’s going to take a serious, thoughtful national discussion to work this out, and people are going to have some basic assumptions questioned, which certainly isn’t fun. I think that we’ll ultimately come down on the side of liberty and equality, though it’s going to be a long and bumpy road.
I’m also surprised that more people aren’t taking Slartibartifast’s attitude – that monkeying with the Constitution in this way seems like an awfully drastic step.
Well, I’m not opposed to monkeying with the Constitution in general; it was designed with further monkeying in mind. I’d be equally opposed to an amendment making gay marriages legal nationwide, and for the same reasons.
The hidden premise here is that the basis for marriage is romantic love
I’ve read enough on your site to know you reject that premise Paul. You’re in the minority there, I would argue.
The vow is an attempt to reflect by human agency the nature of men and women as sexual beings.
You’re so close to understanding here (and I really don’t mean that as condescendingly as it sounds, I’m sure). That sexual nature runs along a spectrum. Whether you like it or not is really beside the point.
A man cannot “vow himself” into being a woman.
That suggests a very limited view of the spectrum of human sexuality. A man need not be a woman to love another man or to have sex with another man. The only avenue left to you after the SCOTUS said gay sex is legal then is a religious argument, which should not be codified into the Constitution, regardless of how strongly you believe it.
Thorley, who’s been dodging the question for weeks, finally seems close to putting it simply. He doesn’t believe gay men and women deserve the same marital rights he does. Tho’, like others, he spends a great deal of time clothing his bias in pristine legalisms — which is an old trick, as old as, well, segregation. Funny. I’m not at all surprised.
The vow is an attempt to reflect by human agency the nature of men and women as sexual beings.
Why do you think that?
As far as I can see, marriage vows in a civil marriage constitute a mutual promise by two people that they will become a partnership. There is no form of words required by one partner or another based on gender (this may differ in a religious marriage).
Precisely what civil marriage vows are you thinking of that require a man to promise he’ll be a man and a woman to promise she’ll be a woman? Supply a link to the text, if you can.
By the way, Edward: very, very good post.
Many thanks, Slarti…really. ‘Preciate it…
Sigh. Must the Medium Lobster descend once from his lofty spire to explain to you mortals the ways of the Enlightened Ones?
As those who have touched the Infinite know, gays are icky. You can’t have icky people getting married because that’s what normal people do. If icky people can get married then that would mean icky people are the same as normal people. And then what? Men marrying men, cats eating dogs, up is down, Spock has a beard – it’s the end of Western Civilizatio, my friends.
Civilizatio? Is that another of those icky acts you’d foist upon us, Oh Medium One?
Speaking of which, though, now that you’ve attempted to unrestrict marriage, I think you’re going to have a hard time justifying the remaining restrictions. Why just unions of two?
Why just unions of two?
How about, “been there, done that, rejected it”?
Polygamy is not an advance in civil liberties, but a retreat into an ancient tradition that codified women’s stature only slightly above that of cattle.
Just a thought…
Harley put it more eloquently than I will, but Thorley might want to remember that 50 years ago mixed-race marriages were considered just as big a threat to the institution as gay marriages are today. There are some who feel as strongly about the horrors of marriage across religious lines.
It figures that Bush would be the first President to propose a Constitutional amendment limiting human freedoms.
Polygamy is not an advance in civil liberties, but a retreat into an ancient tradition that codified women’s stature only slightly above that of cattle.
Who said anything about polygamy? Why not generalize into group marriage?
And, although polygamy may have been as you described in the past, that doesn’t necessitate it being so in the future. Because, you know, we’ve taken all traditional and cultural restrictions and thrown them out the window.
It figures that Bush would be the first President to propose a Constitutional amendment limiting human freedoms.
Just out of curiosity, can anyone name other amendments proposed by the various Presidents?
Thorley might want to remember that 50 years ago mixed-race marriages were considered just as big a threat to the institution as gay marriages are today.
Thorley’s got his mind made up already, don’t try and confuse him with the facts…
;p
Edward,
Great post. I’m a little late in getting to the commenting, of course, but nonetheless, very clearly put.
This is an issue that is fairly simple at heart, I think. The trouble that arises in discussing it, is that all too often people’s choice of side is rooted in things that they frankly cannot begin to clearly say. I’ve been involved in several discussions around and about this issue, and the individuals that suggest/support this sort of thing seem to have legions of straw-men waiting in the wings for support. (Jesurgislac knows what I mean, re: charlie/al over at calpundit.)
It seems to come down to fear, and some sort of closely held belief that being gay is somehow wrong. I’m fairly certain that in twenty or thirty years society in general will realize how silly this all is, and tolerance will have expanded again, but for the moment, I find it extremely frustrating.
My position on the issue is also somewhat muddled, and sooner or later, I’m hoping to be able to have a piece posted over on my site trying to explain it. I’m fervently against this amendment, that is for sure. But there is more to this issue than that.
Thanks for this piece, though. It is well written and well thought out!
caleb
It seems to come down to fear, and some sort of closely held belief that being gay is somehow wrong. I’m fairly certain that in twenty or thirty years society in general will realize how silly this all is, and tolerance will have expanded again,
I agree Caleb. I believe Bush will live to regret what he’s doing now. I don’t imagine any of our grandchildren will think highly of him for it. It seems so remarkably short-sighted to me, and down right mean to boot.
“Just out of curiosity, can anyone name other amendments proposed by the various Presidents?”
It is usually a cooperative action by Congress and the President. No, since he really has not got a vote, Presidents don’t usually *propose* amendments. On the other hand, I can’t remember an amendment being passed that a President disapproved.
On another matter, I agree with Mr Cella about the relationship of romantic love with the traditions of marriage, tho I don’t really understand his argument about gender. I have always viewed marriage not as a contract between two individuals (who in many cases can do what they like without it), but as a contract between each individual and the community. And disapprove of divorce perhaps as much as he does.
I am still working on how this relates to the current controversy.
Polygamy is not an advance in civil liberties, but a retreat into an ancient tradition that codified women’s stature only slightly above that of cattle.
Edward, be not so quick to judge. I have an under the radar polygamist friend. In talking with him and his wives, its a good arrangement. Inasmuch as you’d have Thorley and Paul put aside their own notions, you should not be so quick to judge the decisions of other rational people.
And no, I’m not trying to be a smarta**.
To those who are too Unenlightened to know: Civilizatio is like Civilization, but even bigger, and more more important, and more at war with Islam (or Isla).
Crionna,
I tried to couch my opinion carefully as just that, a quick opinion. I realize you’ll be able to find anecdotal evidence that supports variations on the theme.
There’s a reality to the issue of what society will tolerate that transcends what’s right or wrong. I understand that. But if the issue is going to be up for debate, like FMA currently is, I’m going to speak my mind on it. If someone wants to present the pro’s and con’s of group marriage, I’ll consider them too. I simply haven’t met anyone in my travels who advocates US law changing to accomodate it, so I don’t have any reason to support it, even in theory. It’s like asking my opinion on marriage between siblings. I don’t know any siblings who want to marry each other…so I’ll side with those opposed to it until which time I hear compelling evidence to support it.
All politics is local. But more than that, all politics is personal. My point in this thread has been to try and generate awareness about which of the three stances above those who oppose gay marriage should own up to. I truly believe they should own up to at least one.
“Speaking of which, though, now that you’ve attempted to unrestrict marriage, I think you’re going to have a hard time justifying the remaining restrictions.”
Ah, the Santorum argument. “I recognize only my preferred barrier and perceive no barriers beyond it. Beyond is only chaos, no matter how many people are manning each”. Miscegenation sure was a slippery slope, wasn’t it?
I think through the weaving of the various threads we’re getting delightfully close to the nut of the arguments for the anti-same-sex-marriage contingent, particularly Paul and Thorley.
Thorley’s concern seems to be that he recognizes state marriage as a societal reinforcement of unions that lead to well-raised (I’m assuming you don’t just mean ‘more’) children. Beyond the obvious arguments that there is therefore no justification for state sanctioning infertile or elderly heterosexuals, there is no incompatability with homosexual couples, who adopt children now, and are likely to provide a more stable home environment and better raise their children in a state-sanctioned marriage. This is an argument for recognition of homosexual civil marriage (or at least the ones who plan to raise children).
Paul’s argument is a complete rejection of the notion of romantic love as the basis of marriage. This is a fine argument, but even he would recognize it’s in a minority (in regards to civil marriage, anyway) and is certainly no basis for a constitutional amendment of all things, particularly one that does nothing to address this issue. Second, marriage as a vow of sexual monogamy is entirely compatible with homosexual unions, and given his (your. . sorry. . slipping between audiences) concerns about homosexual promiscuity, it would seem to be a benefit rather than a threat. Third, as I mentioned in the other thread, you are wilfully confusing civil marriage and religious marriage, the former of which has scant tradition and is entirely the product of a secular bureaucracy.
Paul Calculate what thunder about “rights” would issue….if it were understood that to violate this vow is to stain one’s legal record:…
IIRC Divorces are already a matter of public record and therefore can (and I’m sure already are) be used to discriminate (and that’s what it is) against divorcees. Likewise, “broke a vow” is implicit (to those that care) whenever a person owns up to being divorced, as at a trial.
It seems to me that you suggest trying to do what you claim homosexuals are trying to do, force acceptance of an unpopular position through the law.
Ah, the Santorum argument. “I recognize only my preferred barrier and perceive no barriers beyond it. Beyond is only chaos, no matter how many people are manning each”. Miscegenation sure was a slippery slope, wasn’t it?
No, nitwit, it was the Slartibartfast question, not the Santorum argument. Don’t put words in my mouth, and I won’t refer to you as a nitwit.
It’s not a slippery-slope argument. Or it is, only if you have some phobia against group marriages. Slippery slopes only work if you’re supposing that falling down the slope is going to get you hurt. Such was not my implication.
Sorry for the misunderstanding Edward, but terms like Been there done that and Just a thought don’t say “quick thought” to me, they say condescension and generally bracket a statement the writer believes is obvious. It sure seemed to me like you attempted to condescend your way into a refutation that group marriages=gay marriage=het marriage.
That you use those terms differently I’ll put into my memory. And, that I jumped on something that was perhaps off topic, I apologize for, but as the thread poster, I’d say anything you decide to comment on becomes part of the thread, no?
PS. For the record, I’m fine with the government declaring that a marriage can be created between any number of unrelated homo sapiens. And I agree with you that those opposed are opposed for one of your three reasons.
wrongly opposed, lest you think I join them in their opposition.
“No, nitwit”
Obviously I have a tendency to get people’s hackles up these days. That’s unfortunate and not intentional. I try to separate criticism of arguments from criticism of people, and I’d appreciate the same. Thanks.
And to the issue,
“Because, you know, we’ve taken all traditional and cultural restrictions and thrown them out the window.”
How does this not fit my characterization? By eliminating one traditional restriction, we have thrown all out the window? How is this not perception of a single absolutist barrier? To the extent you care about what I think, you’re welcome to clarify for me.
I try to separate criticism of arguments from criticism of people, and I’d appreciate the same.
Ok, provided you get the issues right. Seriously, my apologies for the name-calling; that’s never, ever warranted. I’m having a bad head day.
How does this not fit my characterization? By eliminating one traditional restriction, we have thrown all out the window? How is this not perception of a single absolutist barrier? To the extent you care about what I think, you’re welcome to clarify for me.
Let’s turn this right around and ask: why is the restriction at marriage between couples only any less restrictive, oppressive or moralistic than restriction of marriage to couples-only and hetero? This is essentially what my initial statement on the topic boils down to.
“why is the restriction at marriage between couples only any less restrictive, oppressive or moralistic than restriction of marriage to couples-only and hetero?”
Well, the easy answer is it includes a larger number of people and is therefore definitionally less restrictive. But I understand where you’re going. If less restriction is the only governing principle, then there are no rules at all, and man on dog marriage is here to stay.
However, that is not the only principle for many (most? some? not sure) advocates of gay marriage, as they attempt to show by targeting loving, monogamous couples as the most deserving of the opportunity to legally marry.
Various people maintain various principles about what marriage should be (seen clearly even just in this thread). . some of them are compatible with group weddings and pet weddings, some of them are not. But including homosexual marriage by no means necessitates including the kitchen sink.
No need to apologize Crionna, I think the best thing about Bush’s decision is now, finally, the nation is debating the finer points pro- and con- of gay marriage. Even Paul and Thorley, who I generally disagree with, are saying things I appreciate knowing (after the hair on the back of neck lays back down, yes, but I do calm down and re-read everything eventually).
It figures that Bush would be the first President to propose a Constitutional amendment limiting human freedoms.
Now what freedoms are being limited?
However, that is not the only principle for many (most? some? not sure) advocates of gay marriage
Actually, I’m not arguing with advocates of gay marriage. I’m asking a question: if religious and/or traditional definitions are too restrictive, what’s left when you take those away? I’m thinking, not much. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, mind you. And Christians are certainly not compelled to be involved in same-sex or group marriages, so I think life will be largely unchanged for them.
targeting loving, monogamous couples as the most deserving of the opportunity to legally marry
I think that’s where the selectiveness comes back in. The “most deserving” part.
Well, the easy answer is it includes a larger number of people
Is there some number less than all of the people that’s the right answer?
Ok, here’s my point, here. I don’t think the government ought to (strike that – I think absolutely should not) concern itself with relationships between its citizens. To the extent that I think variations for such relationships in tax law and the like need to go.
It figures that Bush would be the first President to propose a Constitutional amendment
Might have been a correct statement if he’d stopped there. Dunno; was hoping others would research it for me.
Slarti, I was thinking about the 16th, 18th and 22nd Amendments to the Constitutions just off of the top of my head. Still not sure what freedoms are being denied here.
Now what freedoms are being limited?
The freedom to live with the person you choose. Trying to codify a ban on gay marriage (thereby sealing the fate of gay couples where one partner is not a citizen) is definitely a limitation in their ability to work toward a legal solution to unfair barriers. As long as marriage remains a “possibility,” they can hope to find a solution (and government agencies can be encouraged to help them). Once a ban is written into the legal backbone of the country, that hope is dashed.
I’d call that a significant limitation of their freedom.
if religious and/or traditional definitions are too restrictive, what’s left when you take those away? I’m thinking, not much.
I’d say what’s left are those things with the propensity to harm or take advantage of society. Want to marry your dog so that it gets your SS when you die? Sorry, that’s taking advantage of society.
The freedom to live with the person you choose.
FMA doesn’t impact one’s freedom, one is free to live with anyone they wish.
Trying to codify a ban on gay marriage (thereby sealing the fate of gay couples where one partner is not a citizen) is definitely a limitation in their ability to work toward a legal solution to unfair barriers. As long as marriage remains a “possibility,” they can hope to find a solution (and government agencies can be encouraged to help them). Once a ban is written into the legal backbone of the country, that hope is dashed.
DOMA precludes the issues you have raised here Eddie. However, all you need to do is to change federal laws to include civil unions.
I’d call that a significant limitation of their freedom.
As my comments detail, your analysis is faulty.
I have a question: If legislators were working to outlaw the practice of homosexual adoption, would the proponents of gay marriage rely on the same language of rights in their arguments for adoption? In short, do Harley and Edward (and others) believe that homosexuals have a right to adopt children?
Let me also add that I feel quite confident that most of my countrymen who oppose homosexual marriage would be more open to the idea of civil unions or some such compromise, if we had been given any assurance that the opposition was itself prepared to compromise. But there can be no compromise on their principles, for they often seem to say we are haters and nothing more; at best, we are misguided fools, led by the nose by hypocrites. The activists of the Left are the aggressors here: and when we are told arrogantly that our views about the traditional nature of marriage, shared by the great majority of the citizens of this country, are nothing but archaic bigotry; that we are nothing but neo-segregationists — we find ourselves pushed into a mood which is hardly conducive to compromise.
I say again: the issue here is not whether the Constitution will be amended, but how it will be amended. The Constitutional amendment process is as republican (small “r”) a process as can be undertaken in this country. If we are still a republic, this is our method of adjudicating the question.
Some proponents claim that public opinion is turning in their favor, and they may well be right; but if that is true, then it is incumbent upon them to develop the consensus they anticipate, and comport themselves as good republicans arguing with fellow citizens of a republic, whose own arguments are not rooted in pure “animus,” as the Supreme Court declared when it overturned a Colorado law, nor in ignorance, but rather in thoughtful reflection about the nature of Man and Society.
If an innovation such as this is to be accomplished, it must be accomplished through the duly-elected representatives of We the People; otherwise we are no longer a republic.
Edward insists that I come out and say what I am “anti-“. Well, I think his middle construction — “anti-Sancity” — is rubbish; but I will admit that I am anti-Liberty and anti-Equality. I do not believe that unlimited sexual freedom is protected by the Constitution; nor do I believe that sin is equal virtue; nor that the law ought to pretend that it is.
Finally, I believe that an issue so huge, affecting so profoundly our conception of ourselves as a people organized for action in history, cannot be justly addressed absent the sustained, systematic, and definitive consideration of what The Federalist calls the “deliberate sense of the community.” That is not how democracies work.
OK, slacktivist makes an interesting point. He essentially asks, if there is a need to amend the constitution to identify specifically what marriage is, does that mean that until so ammeded, outlawing gay marriage is unconstitutional??
In short, do Harley and Edward (and others) believe that homosexuals have a right to adopt children?
They have the right for their sexuality not to be used as a prima facie disqualifier.
As my comments detail, your analysis is faulty.
There’s not much detail in your comments, Timmy.
In short, do Harley and Edward (and others) believe that homosexuals have a right to adopt children?
Absolutely, the same right as straight people, yes. 100%.
Edward insists that I come out and say what I am “anti-“. Well, I think his middle construction — “anti-Sancity” — is rubbish;
Ahhh, and that’s the one I worked hardest on. Oh well. We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. I’m sure I’m right about that.
but I will admit that I am anti-Liberty and anti-Equality. I do not believe that unlimited sexual freedom is protected by the Constitution; nor do I believe that sin is equal virtue; nor that the law ought to pretend that it is.
That’s why I respect you Paul. You’re honest about your opinions. Again, however, I’ll have to agree to disagree.
I do agree that a legislative process would be better. But I think I actually believe that more than the loudest advocates of it, who I suspect only say they support it because they think there’s no chance of its success…not because they’d support similar majority-rules interfernece in their own private lives.
Edward:
I think this has gone about as far as it can go for today (unless you have more to add of course), but I would like you stop and think very seriously about the appalling sweep that this ridiculous “rights” language has taken on. Above you declared that there is a “right” to adopt children. As David Warren put it, “the idea that the adoption of a living child can be a human right is a moral obscenity, on a level with slavery.”
I don’t know how to put it more cogently: we have expanded the Rights of Man so far as to almost include a “right” to own other people. This language has become either absurd or vicious. It obscures and confuses more than it illuminates. It must be either restored to its proper function, or abandoned.
What a bait-and-switch-artist-like move that was Paul…you asked if “Harley and Edward (and others) believe that homosexuals have a right to adopt children?”
I assumed you meant “as compared with straight people.”
I said that gay people have the same rights as straight people do to adopt children…not that anyone has the all-out right, per se. Mine is a moral judgment based on the belief that all people (include gays) are created equal…not a legal decision on whether anyone is entitled to children as property.
Put up a warning notice if you intend to be so tricky.
Since I got tugged into this, allow me to agree whole-heartedly with Edward. And add my own observation: Paul and others feel a specific group of people is inferior to them. They’re not the first to do so. Sadly, they will not be the last. As to the amendment, it should come as no surprise that this would be only the second in our history to restrict, rather than enlarge our freedoms. Also sad.
“Paul and others feel a specific group of people is inferior to them.”
This is not central to me, simply ad hom. I myself consider all Protestants since Luther heretics, and Luther a very wicked man. Ok, not in great seriousness, or enough intensity to act upon it. But prejudice is not really negotiable, nor a subject for public deliberation. What is the preference for blood relatives and family but a prejudice? (As a near nihilist, I can more easily reduce values to personal preferences.)
The question before us is how shall our private prejudices be allowed to compete in the public market. By what mechanism? To enshrine some people’s prejudices as “rights”, when most of our “rights” exist to facilitate a process…hmmm I seem to have moved into a utilitarian argument.
Frankly, I have a problem with some rights being natural and unquestionable, and this being a limited set. And a method of determining which is
right is really a right.
bob I myself consider all Protestants since Luther heretics, and Luther a very wicked man. Ok, not in great seriousness
That’s OK, some would consider you an idolator…with the same degree of seriousness.
This argument about rights seems odd. Clearly we’ve identified some actions as those we have a right of, but mostly we have the right to prove ourselves worthy. So, I have the right to speak but not to be heard and the duty to not yell “fire” where there is none. I have the right to arms, but not to kill indiscriminantly and the duty to use my arms to prevent Tyranny. And so forth. Where a right to a specific action is not given by our constitution, the basic right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is ensured in the Declaration of Independence.
It is “pursuit” that always seems forgotten. Paul seems to believe that many in the world today demand the happiness (in this case an adopted child) as their right when it is simply the pursuit they are guaranteed. Perhaps so. However, I would also say that many are and have attempted to deny the pursuit to others based on criteria of their own making that is immaterial and cannot be changed or chosen by the puruser.
I would assume that Paul might contend that the criteria are not of his making, but rather of God’s, and therefore they stand apart and above the Constitution, BoR and DoE. However, I would dispute that contention in that we have agreed to live within a system in which the very first right is that not to be bound by a particular religion.
I don’t think the framers meant that we should live against the will of God, but rather that government was not to establish that will as law, leaving eventual disposition of one’s actions, where they do not infringe on the rights of others, to be between the citizen and his God.
Where I ran aground above was whether the bill of rights are process oriented, items presupposed in order in ensure a free republic. Much like the SEC ensures a free market. Even though I really don’t like utilitarian arguments.
But freedom of religion gave me problems in that analysis. And if the bill of rights are in some way “natural” rights, I have little more to say, not actually apprehending such things.
Bob, I’m not sure if it’s ad hom — if, in fact, it’s accurate. How else do you define it? I know it’s not, well, nice and all, but at some point it helps to eschew the legalisms and reduce this to the basics. Those who would deny gay men and women the right to marry are making a value judgement about both their persons and their place in our/their society. They would, as a result, cede them fewer rights than they take for their own.
They are, of course, welcome to their prejudices. As you suggest, we all are. It’s when they wish to enshrine them in the constitution that I have a problem.
Harley. Imagine a situatiohn where the discussion is about making Methodism the state religion. I am a Baptist ( a hypothetical). Is my resistance based on an abstract concept of freedom or on my preference for the Baptist religion? Am i allowed to argue on grounds that his Methodism is itself wrong and wicked compared to my Baptism? I certainly believe it.
I prefer a secular society where religion does not define what homosexuality is or how it is defined. But I recognize this as my prejudice and preference, not as scientific truth or indisputable moral law.
Mr Cella may not accept this, for he recognizes moral law in a way I do not. But as a secularist, I argue for my preferences without an absolute ground of superiority, but much as I would argue for the design of a memorial…taste. The argument should be “let the marketplace decide” rather than “you are wrong or immoral”. Or at least my argument should be there. And I see that as part of Cella’s position, and why an attack based on his beliefs is out of place.
And yes there are internal contradictions in that
Mine is a moral judgment based on the belief that all people (include gays) are created equal…not a legal decision on whether anyone is entitled to children as property.
Edward have you been reading some of that prolife literature or what?
Hang on. You’re saying there’s a contradiction in my suggesting that people who think other people are inferior are inferior? 🙂
Well, okay. But you’re close to excusing slavery, among other things, and I know I’m exaggerating to make a point, but when do we dispense with the notion that everything, including bias, is merely relative?
And btw, I’m not disagreeing with the truth of it. I see the world differently than Paul C. does. So be it. And assuming moral superiority is more a bad habit than a considered response.
In the end? My complaint is Paul wants to force his religious convictions on others. He’s not interested in letting the marketplace decide. Neither is GW. And, as previously stated, I don’t want his bias, okay, preference, enshrined in the constitution.
No I was seeing some of the problems you talk about in my own argument. Cella.s preferences might be to give mine no weight at all, etc.
And I really don’t think he would prefer to let the marketplace decide….no this is unfair.
Read his last comment. I think he would accept a vote of the people, through a full amendment process. He would be sad and disappointed. But I think he would accept it.
And why is this happening now? Why not just leave this to local control? Why go federal? Because I think Bush et al believe that a test of DOMA and/or Full Faith and Credit would be inevitable, and they cannot afford to take a chance that DOMA would be struck down. This really is not pretty.
Harley, I loved slavery seque, the snappy retort, is who enpowered SOTUS to decide when life begins.
My complaint is that four activist judges in MA started this pissing match and the good mayor in SF escalated it. I have no problem in letting the market place decide but history is replete with activist judges and lawyers (the ACLU) who won’t let that happen.
Bob, I’m much more cynical. Bush has horrible internal polling data, he had to do something to get the religious right and social conservatives thinking about something other than Mexicans with jobs, and the issue more or less fell into his lap as an appropriate and effective pander — knowing, and this is the genius of it, that the amendment has absolutely no chance of passing.
What he didn’t expect, is reasoned men like Tom DeLay suggesting this was a bridge too far. What he doesn’t expect, is that, like his father, he may find his second convention a little more acrimonious than the first. Becuz once you start a culture war, it’s sorta hard to dial it down in time for the photo ops with Harlem choirs.
Harley, political calulation was indeed at least a large part of this.
I don’t know how this will turn out. I think Tom Delay prefer not to have a vote this year, but he also owes people in Congress and may not be able to avoid it. And the pressure will be huge.
This is probably politically both good and bad for all candidates, and will be the year of the quirm. But I know it is gonna be a fun year for political junkies of all persuasions, until one sides heart is broken.
Chinese Curse: may you live in interesting times.
Harley, you’ve missed the sound bite, we are forced to enact FMA to stop activist judges.
“My complaint is that four activist judges in MA started this pissing match and the good mayor in SF escalated it.”
I believe one of the significant problems in this is that a large number of people view it as a pissing match. As if interpreting the law of Massachusetts to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriages was some kind of judicial wedgie for conservatives.
“..we are forced to enact FMA to stop activist judges…”
Yeah, and the civil war was about states rights. Carry on!
Paul Cella: In short, do Harley and Edward (and others) believe that homosexuals have a right to adopt children?
No, Paul. No one has the right to adopt children, though you’d think otherwise from the complaints of many people (all across the spectrum) who have not been able to adopt.
But children who have no parents have the right to adoptive parents chosen for them (if the children are not able to help choose for themselves) who are the best possible parents available. There is a severe shortage of good adoptive parents, especially for older children in need of parenting. The state has no right to eliminate good potential parents for arbitrary, bigoted reasons: such as whether the parents are a “mixed race couple”, or are the “wrong” sexuality, or aren’t wealthy, or any other reason.
Does that make the situation clearer to you, Paul? It’s not that anyone has the “right” to adopt children: it’s that children have the right not to have good potential parents arbitrarily eliminated because of religious or other bigotry.
State’s rights, Harley, the Dem meme on the current issue, get one or two states to get the issue into the mix, followed by black robe legislation. And you said you were mkt driven, what a farce.
Don’t hold back, Timmy…how do you really feel about gay marriage?
From his woofing here (in particular at February 25, 2004 04:50 PM and at 05:10 PM) Timmy is faking ignorance about gay marriage and claiming that the issue is “activist judges” – which betrays an ignorance of the legal system in the US so profound that he may actually be that ignorant about gay marriages, no fakery involved.
Jesurgislac, you know, I never looked at that way, but you may be right. If nothing else, the Timster is shouting the annointed slogans. And in fairness, neither side wants to talk about gay men and women marrying — it’s either Don’t Do This To The Constitution or The Judges Made Us Do It.
Bob’s right about interesting times.
Oh, and Paul, if you’re still around, check out today’s lead post at pandagon.net — re the Bible’s actual perspective on homosexuality, as opposed to the Christian RIght’s distortions of it. Interesting reading.
Not to be snarky, but what happens when a gay couple goes to war over “community property” in CA? I’d assume that a good divorce lawyer might try to prove that since gay marriage is currently illegal and that no Domestic Partnership papers were signed that a hypothetical spouse that brought less than 50% of marital assets to the marriage was not entitled to community property.
And, if that lawyer won her case, would a legal precedent then be reset?