GOProud says the World Net Daily report is not true

Today GOProud denied that their organization had been banned from the CPAC convention in 2012. Via Twitter message to me, GOProud said “The WND report is not true.”

Yesterday, World Net Daily reported that GOProud would not be welcomed back next year, but cited no sources for their report.  I have asked CPAC for comment and will report that when it comes.

524 thoughts on “GOProud says the World Net Daily report is not true”

  1. To Jayhuck

    What is your point here?

    The point I was making to Ken is simple–he has argued that not allowing gays to marry is a violation of civil rights and when she asked him about other people who want the definition of marriage to accomodate their needs and desires, he punted.

    You are parroting what he said when you say,

    Each group traditionally takes care of its own. If polygamists want and are able to make a solid argument for polygamy then they are free to do this, but please don’t lay the responsibility for this in the laps of gay people who are merely arguing for their own, in the same way blacks did and do.

    You sound as suspect as he does. That hurts your credibility and lacking credibility hurts all your arguments is all I’m saying.

    I mean this: people who are genuinely concerned that their fellow citizens’ civil rights are being violated do not limit their activism or just their comments on a blog, to their own. If they truly believe civil rights are being violated, they don’t just argue for their own.

    You don’t find it ironic and not the least bit suspect that the two of you are criticizing a law for being “discriminatory” and restrictive, yet faced with the opportunity to argue your principle for all people, you ignore them? You should be arguing for the changing of the definition of marriage by saying that anyone of legal age ought to be able to go to a lawyer and arrange a marriage with a contract.

    if you really believed this was a civil rights argument, and if you really had given it serious thought, and weren’t being hypocritical, you’d be arguing for doing away with marriage as a state or federal issue as others have suggested. You’d be arguing for all marriages to be private and not in need of federal or state sanctions. They’d be personal contracts the way all other contracts are and they’d be drawn up the way all other contracts are–by legal experts and those involved, whether those involved are two straights, two gays, or multiple combos.

    It’s pretty simple to attack your position .Americans of all colors and all races and all religions fough tin the civil rights movement of the 60s. Remember the white boys killed in Mississippi as just one notorious example? Ever see the mass demonstrations, the arrests? See the non-black faces? See the non-Baptists? Jewish people were very much involved in that movement. Heck, go back to the Underground railroad. Why even go into this? It’s safe to say that African Americans and other minorities might still be in the post-Civil War era w/out the aid of many others different from them.

    You know that civil rights movements of all types heavily involve people who are not part of the group that is being discriminated against. You know that straights in NYC and LA are largely responsible for the advances in gay liberation. Without the work of straights on your side, you’d (not maybe you specifically, but many gays) would still be in the closet most likely.

    I am sure you are grateful for their help and their collaboration in gaining your civil rights.

    I am saying you have a serious credibility problem when you say you are only fighting for civil rights when you obviously are avoiding doing the same for others. It hurts your cause.

    In the short term it certainly will hurt your personal cause to admit that changing and broadening the defintion of marriage will have to accomodate those who have even another definition, but in the long term, at least you will have been sincere and honest. In the long term, you have to ask yourself if you really do want to deal with the consequences of the first step in broadening the definition of marriage, because if that does happen, you will be happy, but your happiness will be short-lived (maybe, I don’t know your views on polygamy or other forms of marriage) if you find out down the road that some judge somewhere broadens the term to the point you yourself do not like it.

    So, it looks and sounds really bad of you, very hypocritical, to sugget that blacks were responsible for getting their own civil rights. That would mean all citizens had no responsiblity for insuring the rights of others. Yet, that’s the very thing that angers you about married straights-they have theirs and don’t care about you.

    In short-you don’t sound like someone who is serious about the issue of civil rights.

    I think that in order to make your argument and remain true to what you say is your real concern-civil rights, fairness–you should argue that ” marriage” be privatized. Any other argument leaves you looking foolish in claiming concern for rights.

  2. Male sexual attractions are much more enduring and do not alter much with mood (go back and forth between SS and OS), they don’t remit and then return. They are not debilitating on the whole, and generally they are because the person has religious objections or social stigma to contend with. Male sexual attractions have not responded to much of any kind of intervention or change in religious views. Behavioral control is possible but let’s please be clear about what that change is.

    Very well said! Depression is an illness and is always deibilitating. Treatment for depression is often very effective and has strong scientific support — unlike Sexual Orientation Change Efforts. Homosexuality is not an illness and gay love is not a “pill” — even though Debbie seems concvinced that it is. Perhaps it was for her. She should not make generalizations about how others experience it.

  3. What are you saying? That all gay people are looking for a perfect relationship that they can never find? That’s bull! I lived happily as a single person for 10 years, not looking for a relationship. Rather, the perfect, human, relationship found me. I didn’t give up my relationship with God, or Christ, when I entered into that relationship. Of course God is in the equation, for all people, just maybe not your idea of God.

    Some people successfully medicate their depression, and move beyond it, and even the need for medication. Some people find happy gay relationships. Some don’t. Not everybody is looking for their own “nirvana.”

    Do you realize how insulting it is for you to speak of my “idea of God”? As if I have invented some illusion of Him? He is not “my God.” He is God, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. I am created in His image, not the other way around.

  4. Sexual attractions and depression are not analogous experiences. I recognize that you believe they are or at least were for you. But in 30 years of clinical experience dealing mostly with depression and then in the last 13 years more extensively with sexual identity conflicts, I don’t see an analogy.

    Not only can they be analogous experiences, but sometimes they are comorbid. We have “over-medicalized” depression and “over-socialized” homosexuality. I don’t believe either was ever meant to be a normal way of life.

  5. Sexual attractions and depression are not analogous experiences. I recognize that you believe they are or at least were for you. But in 30 years of clinical experience dealing mostly with depression and then in the last 13 years more extensively with sexual identity conflicts, I don’t see an analogy.

    Depression is always debilitating and fluctuates episodically. For most people, it does respond to medication and/or therapy. The minority don’t get a good response and those can have negative reactions to meds or therapy. Some never remit at all, however, most do.

    Male sexual attractions are much more enduring and do not alter much with mood (go back and forth between SS and OS), they don’t remit and then return. They are not debilitating on the whole, and generally they are because the person has religious objections or social stigma to contend with. Male sexual attractions have not responded to much of any kind of intervention or change in religious views. Behavioral control is possible but let’s please be clear about what that change is.

    For women, context seems to matter more. Some women do experience fluctuations in attractions but do not of necessity find these fluctuations traumatic. Confusing maybe, but not necessarily bad. Women also seem more responsive on average to their deep emotional attachments. These women may change more easily. However, one may not reliably extrapolate from the experience of one woman to all other women and certainly not to men.

  6. Comorbidity does not make two experiences analogous in any meaningful way.

    I merely observed that the two were often comorbid, not that comorbidity made them analogous. I believe homosexuality is one of the manifestations of our fallen nature and not a disorder. Depression is not always a disorder, either. It, too, is part of the fallen world. In that sense, we are all “disordered.” In seeking to medicate our useful pain away (not that it is all useful), we fail to learn what we ought to from it.

  7. They are laying low until the gay marriage battle is won, or so the founders of the Unitarian Universalists’ Polyamory movement told Bi magazine back in 2003. Meanwhile, they still have annual conventions.

    Which is fine. They would, and should, have their day in court although I’m sure they would eventually whether or not gay people were part of the picture.

  8. Debbie,

    I don’t know that any of us have to go through any “contortions” to prove you got “over same sex attractions”. The problem is, what does it mean that you got over this? There are hundreds of answers to that question.

    For people with same-sex attractions, the “pill” is looking for that perfect relationship, the one that will make life worth living. The only perfect relationship in the universe is the one with Christ awaiting us. We don’t have to go turning over stones looking for it.

    God is very much in the equation. Support from other people is, as well, along with a person’s self-determination. When somebody wants something as badly as they need the next breath of air, they unleash forces that are beyond their understanding.

    What are you saying? That all gay people are looking for a perfect relationship that they can never find? That’s bull! I lived happily as a single person for 10 years, not looking for a relationship. Rather, the perfect, human, relationship found me. I didn’t give up my relationship with God, or Christ, when I entered into that relationship. Of course God is in the equation, for all people, just maybe not your idea of God.

  9. Ken,

    When a guy like MLK argued for civil rights, did you think he confined himself to the rights of blacks only?”

    With all due respect, that was not my point, nor is that what I was trying to say. Just reread my above post to Barry! Hopefully it will make sense, although I wander at times 🙂

  10. Ann# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    “The justification will be that other exceptions were made so why can’t the same be done for them. I am not suggesting exceptions should or should not be made, my point is what will happen when and if they are made. ”

    If these “others” can show that state has no justification (“compelling state interest”) then they should be allowed to marry.

    “How do the states decide the eligibility requirements for marriage? ”

    By only restricting marriage for whom the State has a good reason to do so.

    Do you believe the SCOTUS was wrong in the Loving v. Virginia ruling?

    If not, then why is “others might feel discriminated against” a valid reason to deny gay marriage but not inter-racial marriage?

  11. Debbie Thurman# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    “Is it or ought it to be a self-evident truth? Is marriage equality “written on our hearts”?”

    I have no idea, nor do I care about what is “written on our hearts.” Many “self-evident” things turned out to not be true. My interests in this matter are in regards to rights and fairness.

    #

    Debbie Thurman# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    ” “And who here has ever used “inborn immutability” as an argument for supporting gay marriage?”

    I’ve lost count.”

    I wasn’t asking for a count, but actual NAMES (and it doesn’t have to be all of them a couple will do). I’ve been following this blog for a while and I have yet to see anyone use “inborn immutability” as an argument for supporting gay marriage.

  12. Same-sex couples are not capable of reproducing, law or not. Your statement is illogical. I haven’t said anything about laws. I am saying sperm/egg-bank babies are a method of reproduction that raises important ethical and moral questions. What comes next? Eugenics? Designer babies? I realize some couples (straight, obviously) are devastated by the inability to have children naturally. Even so, should they accept this? Should they consider adoption? If God does not bless a couple with children, should they question His wisdom?

  13. Debbie:

    So let me get this correctly. You would like to make it illegal for same-sex couples to reproduce?

  14. Why? Because they want to appear as normal as any other couple? What about the child’s perspective?

    Children have consistently “come out” in defense of their gay parents. Why people feel the need to assault those children’s families by denigrating their value as loving homes is not fair on the child. It should not have to be their responsibility to justify their parents to anyone, and yet they are consistently forced to do so by anti-gay bigots (and concern trolls.)

    When you’re raised in a family with two same-gender parents, that’s what feels “normal.”

    Just like when you’re raised in a single-parent household, it feels normal. Or a household with grandparents raising the grandchildren. Or even foster homes.

    This idea that there’s only one truly “normal” family structure is absurd. It wasn’t even true in the ever-coveted 1950’s – it was only true on TV – where married couples slept in separate twin beds with a lamp table between them.

  15. Would me becoming a father through surrogacy make our family look more normal?

    For all the reasons that you gave, Jon, yes, it would.

  16. Why people feel the need to assault those children’s families by denigrating their value as loving homes

    I don’t know who is claiming that those homes are devoid of love. That’s not what this discussion is about. It’s a straw man.

  17. John appears to be saying it doesn’t matter what the origins of sexual orientation are. It stands to reason, then, that the inborn immutability question cannot be the basis for supporting same-sex marriage.

    No.

    Actually he’s saying that the origins of sexual orientation are not the best argument to use. I agree.

    That orientation is for the vast majority of gay people both immutable and determined at such an early point as to be – for all practical purposes – inborn is not “the basis for supporting same-sex marriage.” No one (literally no one) argues that every right is based on – and only on – an inborn immutable attribute. Rather, our arguments are against irrational discrimination.

    The fact that for most gay people their orientation is innate and immutable is simply the fact that removes one of the most specious (and cruel) arguments made to exclude gay people: that they could just become straight if they really wanted to.

    The issue of innate immutability addresses the legal question of whether discrimination could be avoided by the conscious choice of those who are subjected to it. That some few persons could pretend to be white (or identify as white) to avoid discrimination says nothing about those who could not. Nor does the testimony of those who no longer identify as homosexual says nothing about those who are innately immutably gay.

  18. Debbie Thurman# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    “It still does not go far enough in explaining why homosexuality, which has always been in existence, has not been recognized until fairly recently as an alternative underpinning for marriage. ”

    then let me re-iterate, because equality of the spouses was not part of marriage. Because of the imbalance between the sexes in a civil marriage the gender mattered. With marriages today it does not matter and that is only a recent (over the last few decades) development.

    “What I am getting at is that we have to ask ourselves, has society evolved this much, or do you think the legitimacy of same-sex unions has always been a self-evident but overlooked truth? ”

    Yes, I think society has evolved in its treatment of women and minorities. However, I think it still has further to go.

    ” “That all men are created equal” was a self-evident truth that this country chose to ignore for the many years it supported slavery. Is there such a self-evident thing as marriage equality?”

    I don’t understand what you are asking here.

  19. “That all men are created equal” was a self-evident truth that this country chose to ignore for the many years it supported slavery. Is there such a self-evident thing as marriage equality?”

    I don’t understand what you are asking here.

    Is it or ought it to be a self-evident truth? Is marriage equality “written on our hearts”?

  20. On in Iowa, instead of debating the merits of the case, people just worked to remove long-time judges from their positions! Rational debate indeed

  21. To Ann and Barry Re: polygamous mariages.

    Our legal framework cannot handle polygamy. Nor do I think it is capable of

    it. Lets take the simplest example of one man with 2 wives (A and B):

    What is the legal relationship between A and B? If the husband dies is there any legal relationship between them?

    What if the husband is incapacitated, who makes medical/legal decisions for him

    A or B? What if they disagree, who decides?

    If the husband and A want a divorce does B have any legal standing to contest it?

    If A does divorce, how much of the property is she entitled to? 1/2? 1/3? 1/4?

    And if you go beyond 3 people the problems get even worse.

    This is just a small sample why our legal system can’t handle polygamous marriage. Further, all schemes I’ve seen that deal with polygamous marriage unfairly regulate women to a subservient role in marriage. I do not think there is a fair, workable solution to the problems of polygamous marriage. That is why I

    believe thee government is justified in not allowing polygamous marriages.

    That said if someone smarter than me can propose a fair, workable solution I would certainly be willing to consider it. However, until I actually see such a

    solution, then I believe the government is justified in denying polygamous marriages.

  22. After many, many major depressive episodes, I walked away from depression. Since 1991, I’ve had none. After many years of same-sex attractions, I walked away from those. Is there a correlation?

    There are a host of reasons for why this might be the case and I don’t have the time to go into all of them.

    One could say the same for how much of the world views gays.

    Alcoholism is a disease and being gay is not. How many times do I need to tell you this?

  23. Polygamy, as mormons practice it, is a religious marriage modeled on the patriarchs. So it really has nothing to do with marriage equality. I don’t want a religious marriage I want a civil marriage that is meaningful.

    As soon as one mentions God or Jesus one is, by definition, using unrational terms, concepts beyond the reach of reason, which, though they might be meaningful to you, have nothing to do with the discussion of civil marriage between consenting adults. i’m happy for those possessed of faith just don’t try to make me live my life according to your belief. I read an astounding amount of slander and outright lies directed against gay people. Language which would not be tolerated for one second were it directed at any other group. Personally, I don’t care what anyone thinks of me. If I had children I’d feel differently perhaps. I only care when groups try to write legislation based on nothing but prejudice and willful ignorance.

    And can we please, once and for all, stop equating sexual orientation with morality?

  24. Barak Obama just ended the court defense of marriage act.

    Not quite. They stopped defending certain sections of Federal DOMA in one federal court case. It’s unclear to me whether this even effects married folks like me here in Iowa. The case mostly affects those of us who are married under state law, but whose marriages aren’t recognized under Federal law.

    There’s a good summary of the lawsuit here: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/08/24154

  25. Al Cardena of the American Conservative Union indicated yesterday on CSPAN that while individual members of GOProud are welcome to next year’s CPAC, GOProud the organization won’t be allowed unless it disawoes itself of any gay rights policy stands. Keep in mind that GOProud’s only real gay rights policy stand is its support of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell’s repeal. As far as marriage, GOProud opposes the federal constitutional amendment defining marriage, but that’s b/c they believe that the states should be have the ability to make their own policies regarding marriage.

  26. Ken,

    as a married man myself I don’t understand any of these benefits on the state level. Unless one is a government employee. I’m not and neither is my husband. We live in NY state which recognizes our Canadian marriage but offers none of the benefits or responsibilities (or stabilizing) benefits of marriage. Am I missing something. We’ve been told by the AG’s office not to bother trying to file joint taxes either federally or for the state. Since we’re both self-employed, making one return could be a big saving. The new governor has committed himself to re-introducing a marriage equality bill here in the current session. Perhaps that will have some meaning. Right now I would much rather have a civil union that has some legal standing than this marriage which is mostly symbolic. I’ve also been really revolted by the torrent of vitriol and lies that have been unleashed on us by the anti-gay industry on the right. To say it leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth is an understatement.

    I wonder what would be happening if it was a jewish group that CPAC was excluding.

  27. Maybe I want a biological heir. Maybe I want to see my eyes and hear my laugh reflected back at me (something I heard yesterday on Catholic radio regarding the joys of parenthood). Maybe I want a third child and for some reason it’s not the right situation for us to go through adoption again. There are lots of reasons why people want to become parents and why they choose the methods for becoming parents.

    Would me becoming a father through surrogacy make our family look more normal?

  28. If I became a dad through a surrogate, would we look more normal then because I’m biologically connected to one of my kids?

    What would be your reason for bringing a child in this way into the world?

  29. Debbie Thurman# ~ Feb 17, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    “Same-sex couples who go through the intricacies required to have a child conceived are engineering something nature never intended.”

    What about straight couples who go through the EXACT SAME intricacies to conceive, are they “selfish” as well?

    “Why? Because they want to appear as normal as any other couple? What about the child’s perspective?”

    Or maybe the couple simply wants a biological connection to their child just as straight parents do. Perhaps instead of simply assuming the worst about gay parents you could just ASK them.

  30. A child already in the world is one matter. Same-sex couples who go through the intricacies required to have a child conceived are engineering something nature never intended. Why? Because they want to appear as normal as any other couple? What about the child’s perspective?

    The before-mentioned Zach Wahls was brought into his mothers’ home (along with his sister) through artificial assistance. He has indicated that he’s very happy with his family. I’m sure he’s happy to be alive. I know several other kids who’ve come into their gay families through non-adoptive means. I’m not aware of any of them that wish they’d never been created.

    I dont’ get the “appearing as normal as any other couple” statement. Are you suggesting that Zach Wahls’ family looks more normal that my family, which was conceieve through adoption? I mean, I’m a huge proponent of foster parenting and adoption and I wish more people would do it. But I also realize that it’s not for everyone. I guess I’m just stuck up on the whole “normalcy” issue. If I became a dad through a surrogate, would we look more normal then because I’m biologically connected to one of my kids?

  31. A child already in the world is one matter. Heterosexual couples who go through the intricacies required to have a child conceived are engineering something nature never intended.

    And you’re okay with this?

    No, I am not.

  32. A child already in the world is one matter. Same-sex couples who go through the intricacies required to have a child conceived are engineering something nature never intended.

    A child already in the world is one matter. Heterosexual couples who go through the intricacies required to have a child conceived are engineering something nature never intended.

    And you’re okay with this?

  33. There was no disagreement historically about genders.

    There was no disagreement historically about race and religion until someone said that it was wrong to deny marriage to two people of different races or religions. Just because “it’s always been done this way” doesn’t make it right.

  34. I don’t get it. Why are bioligically connected kids more of a fate-tempter than adoptive kids? Do bio kids react worse than kids who’ve been adopted if/when their families dissolve?

  35. A child already in the world is one matter. Same-sex couples who go through the intricacies required to have a child conceived are engineering something nature never intended. Why? Because they want to appear as normal as any other couple? What about the child’s perspective?

  36. Wow. So you believe that gay parents like myself are selfish for taking on the challenges and responsibilities of parenthood?

    I was thinking more of those same-sex couples who tempt fate to have one conceive a child. If a parent already has a child from a previous marriage or if a couple adopts children who would otherwise be left to foster care, the motives are different.

  37. If that’s all it’s about, then it is selfish. In fact, it was selfish to start with.

    Wow. So you believe that gay parents like myself are selfish for taking on the challenges and responsibilities of parenthood?

    Wow…

  38. I’m curious Jon, are you and your spouse considering challenging DOMA (ex, by filing as married on your Fed. Income taxes)?

    No. I’m not sure that Mark would go for it.

    Then again, who knows what changes the future may bring.

  39. “We are boldly going where no man has gone before. The consequences may not be what we hope for.”

    Several countries already allow gay marriage Debbie. The US is hardly trail blazing on the issue of gay rights.

    The “we” is a universal we. It’s all a recent phenomenon.

    It has worked since this country was founded Debbie. Who was eligible to marry has ALWAYS been defined at the state level.

    There was no disagreement historically about genders.

  40. barry# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    “You see, it’s your particular point of bias that says our legal framework ” cannot handle polygamy.” As the laws are now written, yes, but new social orders (polygamy, homosexual marriage) would have new laws written to deal with legal issues that would arise from them. ”

    What “new laws” would need to be written to support gay marriage (other than changes in the forms (i.e. removing references to gender)? What legal impediments are there to gay marriage (i.e. what legal issues would arise from gay marriage?)

    “Opponents of gay marriage can make the same claim you just made–think of all the legal problems that are now about to arise over custody claims of offspring of gay marriages”

    And how are these claims any different that the custody claims of straight married couples for whom only one (or neither) parent is the biological parent of the children?

    Further, the courts are already dealing with custody issues and gay parents.

    Custody issues and marriage issues are 2 separate things.

    Here is a challenge for you, find me any legal issue (such as I did with polygamous marriages) that arises from gay marriage that our current legal system cannot handle (or that I can’t show applies to straight marriage as well).

    “The bottom line remains the same–changing a definition that has historical weight for all of recorded history (let us not forget also that polygamy has common historical weight as a social institution as well, while homosexual marriage does not) is tantamount to inviting all kinds of changes to the concept/definition.”

    Which definition are you referring to? one man and one woman? one man and one woman of the same race? one white man and one white woman? one man and many women?

    The definition of marriage has changed through out history.

    “Your civil rights argument may (or may not, I am not a constitutional expert) be your strongest argument, but if you argue that, then you have to argue it for others as well.”

    Again what others? I explained why I think the government is justified in denying polygamous marriages (none of which apply to 2 person – gay or straight – marriages). You didn’t address a single one of the issues I raised (merely make an unsubstantiated claim that they could be solved).

  41. And, BTW, that article was from 2004… they aren’t exactly clamoring very loudly or consistently

    They are laying low until the gay marriage battle is won, or so the founders of the Unitarian Universalists’ Polyamory movement told Bi magazine back in 2003. Meanwhile, they still have annual conventions.

  42. Jon T

    Do they want the assistance of GLBT supporters?

    As they’re almost inevitably fundamentalist Mormons the answer would be no.

    In the US, polygamy is a RELIGIOUS form of marriage based on the OT. It has nothing to do with a civil marriage between two men or two women. This nonsense invariably comes up to smear us with being intolerant or hypocritical. It also usually ends up with a man and a dog on a slippery slope.

    The Wyoming senate just made clear the unreasoning animus against gay men and women by voting to block any recognition of a legal marriage or civil union entered into in any other state or country. They tacked on an amendment giving civil unions access to the courts. One more state I won’t visit again.

  43. I have often gone back to my own life experiences. It is clear, from looking at my family history, that I have a genetic predisposition to depression. I know God did not expect me to embrace that as my identity. I languished in it for a decade, however. The world has acted as an enabler toward the depressive. Depression is “the common cold of mental illness.” That leads us to reckon we’ll all have it at some point. The pharmaceutical industry develops and markets more drugs aimed at it than any other illness. Some to counter side effects of others. It has become accepted as a “brain disease” that one may well have for life. After many, many major depressive episodes, I walked away from depression. Since 1991, I’ve had none.

    I would rather have a tooth filled as to comment again but I think it important to point out the negative effect this claptrap could have if you keep repeating it. I’m not sure I understand your need to relate everything in your life to God. Some seem to have faith based on all sorts of magical things they can relate as proof of God’s existence, like saying you “walked away from depression.” What the heck does that even mean?

    People do get over depressive episodes, Debbie. If you want to attribute this to God, have at it. But to belittle the facts concerning depressive disorder and ridicule the use of medications by those who suffer from it is simply irresponsible. And please don’t exclaim that you did not do that.

    There was a time when people suffering from depression suffered in silence (even now, some still do), not understanding what was going on. Some, many even, took their own lives because there was nothing available for them. This has changed greatly because we now understand the disorder better and how it works. That has led to medications which save lives. People are encouraged to seek help and awareness of the problem is countering misinformation. Yet you mock that same push for awareness. Should we just tell them all to “pray the depression away?” Is that your point?

    You could simply have said that you used to suffer from depression, that you realize it is understood much better than it once was, and thank God you don’t suffer from it any longer. It’s a horrible thing and no one should have to live with that. Wouldn’t that have been a lot more responsible — and honest?

  44. Let ’em argue it in court. If there is no rational basis for banning polyamorists, then my own personal religious beliefs ought not dictate civil law.

  45. As I noted before, plural relationships are a lot more complicated. Even if allowed, I’m not sure how many people will actually want to enter into them. And the various practical questions will need to be figured out (do all spouses need to consent? how is divorce handled? is there a limit on spouses? what is it? is that limit based off one’s ability to financially support a family of that size? etc, etc) before it could be realistically enacted.

  46. Barry,

    I think your credibility is the one lacking here. Black people most did definitely focus on their own to a large extent. If your talking about non-black supporters for civil rights for blacks, that is another matter. You said:

    It’s pretty simple to attack your position .Americans of all colors and all races and all religions fough tin the civil rights movement of the 60s. Remember the white boys killed in Mississippi as just one notorious example? Ever see the mass demonstrations, the arrests? See the non-black faces? See the non-Baptists? Jewish people were very much involved in that movement. Heck, go back to the Underground railroad. Why even go into this? It’s safe to say that African Americans and other minorities might still be in the post-Civil War era w/out the aid of many others different from them.

    Its equally easy to attack yours. Take away the word black and colored and replace them with gay and you have the present day gay rights movement. see the non-gay faces at marches and demonstrations for gay people? See the non-Gay people, the Jewish people are very much involved in gay rights, as are Christians, Muslims, black people, people of Spanish descent, etc all involved in supporting their gay neighbor and working to help them attain equal rights.

    What you did was try to confuse the issue.

    So, it looks and sounds really bad of you, very hypocritical, to sugget that blacks were responsible for getting their own civil rights. That would mean all citizens had no responsiblity for insuring the rights of others. Yet, that’s the very thing that angers you about married straights-they have theirs and don’t care about you.

    Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said that blacks were reponsible for getting their own civil rights, I’m saying you don’t ask of black people what you are asking of gay people. You ask gay people to support polygamy, why aren’t you critical of black people for bringing gays aboard during their march for civil rights? Why not be critical of women working for their civil rights, specifically their right to vote, and not including blacks? Honestly, I’m sure some blacks did feel that gays deserved equal rights and I’m sure some suffragists believed that blacks deserved equal rights, but that’s not my point.

    You said gay people should not just be fighting for themselves, unlike African Americans did in the 60’s, and instead embrace all minority groups. Its not fair or decent of you to apply this to gay people and not apply it to so many other groups who have gone before gay people.

  47. How about we just legalize Lesbian marriage? Female-female couplings are the most monogamous and least STD-risky/ridden couplings. People claim men “need” a woman to “hold him back” from being adulterous, but women are good enough on their own.

    Plus, men aren’t threatened by the idea and are indeed many times “turned on” by it. And with two women involved, the doubled maternal instinct would surely help with raising young ones!

    Let’s see: Lesbian marriage would bring with it

    – monogamy, to the point of stereotype (“first date U-Haul” jokes, anyone?)

    – very low STD transmission rate

    – double the maternal instinct.

  48. And who here has ever used “inborn immutability” as an argument for supporting gay marriage?

    I don’t remember doing this. There is no proof for the inborn immutability of heterosexuality either, yet there are no groups calling for the end to opposite sex marriage based on this fact. Therefore, I think inborn immutability would be a poor argument to use.

  49. Barry,

    Are you saying that blacks should have been arguing for equal rights for gay people when they sought civil rights? Should the people who wanted to change the definition of marriage to include interracial couples have argued for gay marriage? I’m trying to understand why you feel gay people are responsible for the emancipation of all minority groups, yet you don’t seem to lay that responsibility at the feat of civil rights pioneers before gay people. I simply don’t understand your point

  50. I do find this an interesting tactic though. When all other arguments against gay marriage fail, talk about what “might be” if other marriages are allowed.

  51. Ann, though you may not intend to, in this posting you present gay people as though they are teenagers disagreeing with Mom and Dad and throwing fits when they don’t get their way. But “Yeah but they get to get married, you’re no fair, I hate you” is not our position. Gay people are not childlike, incapable of integrating rational thought.

    Timothy,

    It is interesting that you perceived it this way, especially, with all your own additional comments and examples. I kind of thought you weren’t going to do that anymore. Sometimes I think you see things cynically rather than how it really is.

    Everyone,

    I think I have said just about everything that I thought was important to share, especially my concerns about the nuances of this topic. Thank you for all your responses. I will be hoping for the best for the institution of marriage.

  52. Rather than going around about fidelity in gay relationships (marriage or no), perhaps we can at least agree that there is a troubling undercurrent in the gay community, the same as there is a troubling undercurrent among those organized to uphold traditional marriage, to wit, their tendency toward infidelity and weak marriages themselves.

    No. Why on earth would I agree with that?

    I have no evidence that being gay or being an anti-gay activist correlates with infidelity or weak marriages. And I’ll not make such broad assumptions.

    (and, by the way, I did notice that you made a broad swipe at ALL gay people but only a subset of non-gay people)

  53. Otherwise they wouldn’t use such belabored and mangled terms as “reclaiming what was rightfully theirs in the beginning.” They could just use “straight.”

  54. Barry,

    The bottom line remains the same–changing a definition that has historical weight for all of recorded history (let us not forget also that polygamy has common historical weight as a social institution as well, while homosexual marriage does not) is tantamount to inviting all kinds of changes to the concept/definition.

    What is your point here? Each group traditionally takes care of its own. If polygamists want and are able to make a solid argument for polygamy then they are free to do this, but please don’t lay the responsibility for this in the laps of gay people who are merely arguing for their own, in the same way blacks did and do.

    Change is not a bad thing. Marriage, its meaning and purpose, has changed greatly throughout time. The definition of marriage has never been static, There actually is evidence for gay marriage in the distant past mind you, but that should be for another thread.

  55. Debbie,

    It wouldn’t matter, Jayhuck. I’ve presented my case already. You’ll have to take it or leave it.

    If I remember your arguments correctly Debbie, none have been fair, or just or reasonable. Like I said, the courts seem to see such arguments in the same way, lacking!

  56. I’ve presented my case already. You’ll have to take it or leave it.

    huh, too bad she wasn’t with the opposing counsel on the prop 8 case, maybe they wouldn’t have been so thoroughly trounced.

  57. Debbie Thurman# ~ Feb 17, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    “The whole argument for gay marriage stems from the premise that homosexuality is something desirable that ought not be tampered with.”

    No, the argument for gay marriage that in order to deny the right of marriage to a class of citizens the government must have a sufficient reason for doing so, and not liking gays is not a sufficient reason.

  58. What I find laughable about this whole call to rational debate, is that after a great deal of back and forth in the courtroom and thoughtful arguments being made by both sides, when judges affirm the arguments supporting gay marriage, the other side, the anti-gay side resorts to calling judges names, like Activist, even if they were appointed by conservative folk. Instead of looking at the arguments pro and con made in the courtroom and discussing them, judges are simply called names.

  59. Emily,

    Jayhuck, they couldn’t present one at the Prop 8 trial, what makes you think anybody can present one now?

    I know, and I find this interesting. There have been several trials where the religious conservatives have had ample opportunity to have their best and brightest present these rational arguments against gay marriage and in almost all cases, the arguments have failed. I wonder why? The rational and supposedly logical arguments have played out plenty of times in the court system. I think if we want to look at the pro and con arguments, maybe we should look there

  60. BeyondMarriage.org is a group of only 20 people – they speak mostly for themselves!

    In April 2006 a diverse group of nearly twenty LGBT and queer activists – some organizers, some scholars and educators, some funders, some writers and cultural workers – came together to discuss marriage and family politics as they exist in the United States today.

    We met over the course of two days for lively conversations in which there was often spirited disagreement. However, we do all stand in agreement with the statement entitled “Beyond Same Sex Marriage”.

    We offer this statement as a way to challenge ourselves and our allies working across race, class, gender and issue lines to frame and broaden community dialogues, to shape alternative policy solutions and to inform organizing strategies around marriage politics to include the broadest definitions of relationship and family.

  61. Considering that the marriage benefits so coveted by gays are bestowed by the federal government, I am wondering how having 50 possible definitions of marriage will ever work.

    We only have one definition of married, but we currently have 50 different sets of criteria. The eligibility age, closeness of relationship, paperwork, blood testing, etc. are all different, but it’s all marriage and it’s all agreed that one state will recognize the decisions of the other and that the Feds will let states decide.

    With one exception. There is only one group of married people that the Feds refuse to recognize. Gee, what could that exception be?

    I get so weary of special exceptions made to exclude me from the fabric of life. It’s all so very Christian… and nothing at all like Christ.

  62. Polygamy, et al can be discussed in a separate discussion.

    Emily,

    Are you a moderator on this blog now? I thought you were a visitor like the rest of us without the ability to determine what can and cannot be discussed.

  63. Debbie,

    Not. You say rational, I say irrational. And vice versa. No rational reason to be opposed to gay marriage will ever be accepted as such. I used hyperbole, not a straw man, in direct response to Ken. And the “gay marriage” movement is multi-faceted.

    If there is a good, logical reason to object to gay marriage, then please present us with one. I have heard the what I think are most of the one’s being touted as logical or rational or reasonable, almost always by conservative religious folk interestingly, and none have passed muster. I am willing to dialogue and debate in a civil manner if someone wants to present such an argument, but to date, I have seen none. I have seen people try to tie gay marriage to social ills in other countries only to find out those “ills” existed before the advent of gay marriage. I’ve seen people try to tie gay marriage to the loss of religious freedoms, but those issues have to do with hate crimes laws and the events themselves are debatable as to whether they are really about the loss of freedoms or about equal treatment for all. It is easy to write laws that protect both conservative religious freedoms and gay people, and those laws are being written now. You have to expect some problems with the system while things are being fleshed out.

    Please, enlighten us on any logical, rational or reasonable argument against gay marriage and perhaps we can debate it here.

  64. “That all men are created equal” was a self-evident truth that this country chose to ignore for the many years it supported slavery.

    Interesting comment.

    Actually, those who supported slavery found consistency with that principle by defining “all men” in a way that excluded non-Europeans. They could then look at each other and declare that yes, all of us men are created equal and entitled to equal treatment under the law.

    Africans were not really men. They were childlike and ignorant, you see. Their relationships had higher levels of infidelity, so there was no need to recognize their marriages. God had ordained that they be different and the Bible itself declared that these sons of Cain should be slaves.

    So yeah, equality. Yeah, American values. As long as Africans were, well, not quite human then there’s no contradiction.

    This too worked for excluding women. All MEN are equal, you see. Gender is very important, you know. Women were childlike, they were subject to passions. A woman had to be watched and protected because they were capable of infidelity. These daughters of Eve were not really to be trusted – God said so.

    So yeah, equality. Yeah, American values. As long as women were, well, not in the category of “all men.”

    Can we think of any group that we consider to not be among “all men” today?

  65. It still does not go far enough in explaining why homosexuality, which has always been in existence, has not been recognized until fairly recently as an alternative underpinning for marriage.

    We are not requesting now that homosexuality be recognized as an alternative underpinning for marriage. That is a nonsense argument.

    We are, however, arguing that excluding homosexual persons has no rational basis. This is a completely different argument.

    Imputing motivations may work well while within anti-gay circles, but it is of not much use when seeking discourse with those who actually are gay.

  66. I believe the opinions expressed in those statements are not just those of a fringe element of the gay community. You disagree.

    My opinions are based on experience.

    Yours are based on something else.

    We will not get anywhere if we continue to debate it.

    I suspect that this is correct. No matter of actual experience, facts, honest evidence, or much else is likely to impact what is believed.

  67. Debbie,

    I walked away from depression. Since 1991, I’ve had none. After many years of same-sex attractions, I walked away from those. Is there a correlation?

    What would you say about a man, in an opposite sex marriage for years, who suffered from depression, when he finally left that marriage and accepted the fact he was gay he was able to overcome his depression? I’ve known two such men. Is there a correlation?

  68. What would you say about a man, in an opposite sex marriage for years, who suffered from depression, when he finally left that marriage and accepted the fact he was gay he was able to overcome his depression? I’ve known two such men. Is there a correlation?

    I guess it depends on the origins of his depression — whether or not he was genetically predisposed (clinical) or felt trapped in an unhappy life (situational).

  69. But it does seem to be that you are suggesting that John believes that sexual orientation is akin to alcoholism and is a negative thing. That would be very dishonest of you, Debbie. It hints at animus and contempt as its motivators, rather than a desire for intellectual discourse.

    And as for your other unattributed random statements… they add no value. I doubt many here agree entirely with any of them; but more importantly, they are irrelevant.

    This posting of yours trotted off the marriage discussion and back into the familiar territory of “gays are awful people”.

    I don’t think I veered off in that way. Sorry it appears so to you. John appears to be saying it doesn’t matter what the origins of sexual orientation are. It stands to reason, then, that the inborn immutability question cannot be the basis for supporting same-sex marriage. I didn’t make the comparison to alcoholism, he did. He’s a philosopher, remember.

    I have often gone back to my own life experiences. It is clear, from looking at my family history, that I have a genetic predisposition to depression. I know God did not expect me to embrace that as my identity. I languished in it for a decade, however. The world has acted as an enabler toward the depressive. Depression is “the common cold of mental illness.” That leads us to reckon we’ll all have it at some point. The pharmaceutical industry develops and markets more drugs aimed at it than any other illness. Some to counter side effects of others. It has become accepted as a “brain disease” that one may well have for life. After many, many major depressive episodes, I walked away from depression. Since 1991, I’ve had none. After many years of same-sex attractions, I walked away from those. Is there a correlation?

    One could say the same for how much of the world views gays.

  70. BeyondMarriage.org features a pledge with troublesome elements (I highlighted a few) signed by hundreds of activists, academics, etc. What are folks to think about such things?

    That a few hundred of the country’s roughly 15 million gay people agree with them.

    Are we to disregard them as legitimate because you say they are or because you don’t like what they represent?

    Nope. Because even the most casual glance at any gay organization or gay newsource or gay organization or really pretty much anyone other than BeyondMarriage will quickly illustrate them to be expressing views that are inconsistent with most gay people.

    Or are they an inconvenient truth?

    Yeah, that’s it, Debbie.

    And Bryan Fischer speaks for you but you deny it because he is an inconvenient truth. Geeeez.

  71. Debbie,

    I don’t know who’s pretending any of that stuff, but while were at it, let’s also not pretend that 31 states don’t have traditional marriage amendments.

    Amendments were made to be broken Debbie. 10 years ago gay marriage wasn’t allowed in any state. I think if you take a look at the states that have the amendments you will see a strong, heavily financed religious group in the background who don’t care about rational discussions but about using sound bites to instill fear in people

  72. Do you think some of the comments on this thread, from gay people who think others, who do not fit their definitiion of eligibility of marriage, fit into this category you describe as Restrictives?

    Ann,

    Can you rephrase this? I can’t figure out what you are asking.

  73. I cannot remember how many times I have asked this question, however, I will ask it again.

    If the current marriage laws are determined to be discriminating, and if it is re-defined, what would that look like? What would the eligibility be for anyone who wants the equal right to be married?

    I have a personal request. If possible, please answer in a thoughtful and sincere manner without sarcasm or the use of caps and lose any narcissistic, self centeredness, realizing this isn’t about you, rather, the entire population who want the same rights as everyone.

  74. Ann,

    I don’t know that gay people feel any sense of entitlement, they are asking merely to be treated equally. And its not uncommon for groups to fight for their own – just as black people did during the civil rights era. I personally have no real problem with polygamy, but its also something I don’t know anything about and I don’t know what the impacts are on children. All I can speak about genuinely are gay people. I don’t do that to the exclusion of other possibly good families, or to prevent others from fighting for marriage, I do this because this is what I know 🙂

  75. I am curious as to what the reaction here would be to these statements made by prominent gays:

    Same-sex unions often incorporate the virtues of friendship more effectively than traditional marriages; and at times, among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds… [T]here is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman… [S]omething of the gay relationship’s necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.

    Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality, pp. 202–03

    Same-sex couples should “demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.” Same-sex couples should “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, because the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake … is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.”

    Michelangelo Signorile, “Bridal Wave,” Out, Dec.–Jan. 1994

    The fact is that there are plenty of genetically influenced traits that are nevertheless undesirable. Alcoholism may have a genetic basis, but it doesn’t follow that alcoholics ought to drink excessively. Some people may have a genetic predisposition to violence, but they have no more right to attack their neighbors than anyone else. Persons with such tendencies cannot say, “God made me this way,” as an excuse for acting on their dispositions.

    John Corvino, “Nature? Nurture? It Doesn’t Matter,” INDEPENDENT GAY FORUM (Aug. 12, 2004)

    Also, do the pro-gay-marriage advocates here agree with these statements?

    Fulfillment is impossible without regular outlets for sexual release.

    Meaningful intimacy is impossible without sex.

    Fulfilling relationships are impossible without legal recognition.

    Homosexual orientation is a basic human identity, such that any state that doesn’t actively accommodate it necessarily harms or disregards a class of human beings.

  76. If I remember your arguments correctly Debbie, none have been fair, or just or reasonable.

    As I said, my views are DOA, regardless of how reasonable they may be.

  77. Jayhuck,

    As you know, I have a personal belief about marriage, however, that belief does not extend to preventing anyone else from getting married. I do not want to deny anyone an equal right. My point has been the hypocrisy and sense of entitlement I have heard from those who say they are being discriminated against and holding themselves above others who do not fit the traditional definition of marriage. I find the insensitivity stunning. Gay people think their reasoning for excluding others from marriage eligibility is justified. I submit that it is subjective just as when others exclude gay people from marriage eligibility. I cannot say I personally agree with every reason someone wants to get married, however, if exceptions are to be made for one group, then everyone else have to be considered, lest they consider themselves discriminated against. I still think Mary Jo LeTourneau and Villie should have been able to get married instead of her going to jail while their two children were raised by a grandmother until she got out. They are together now as a family. There are many productive families who practice polygamy who face going to jail if they live the way they want to and have multiple marriages. If marriage is to be re-defined, who gets in and who doesn’t and what is it based on, if not discrimination?

  78. Ann# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 11:35 am

    “There are many productive families who practice polygamy who face going to jail if they live the way they want to and have multiple marriages.”

    Unless they got multiple CIVIL marriages I fail to see what crime they would be charged with.

    Ann# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 11:51 am

    “If the current marriage laws are determined to be discriminating, and if it is re-defined, what would that look like? ”

    Exactly like it is now except the restriction that one spouse be male and one female is removed. Everything else is the same.

    “What would the eligibility be for anyone who wants the equal right to be married?”

    You cannot ask this question in a void. The issue is whether the government has a justifiable reason for denying the marriage. Therefore, the “who” matters. Ex. when you talked about polygamy I was able to give you justifications why it is not allowed.

  79. As for here in the US a couple of reasons. Until the last few decades being gay was considered a disorder and there were laws against gays. Aside from that, previously, the laws regarding marriage treated the husband and wife differently. Thus there needed to be a definitive husband and wife in order to know how to apply the law. However, TODAY, marriage has evolved into an equal partnership, such that the gender of the partners is irrelevant under the law.

    That’s actually an honest and thoughtful answer. Thanks. It still does not go far enough in explaining why homosexuality, which has always been in existence, has not been recognized until fairly recently as an alternative underpinning for marriage. But I accept that as the best probably answer. What I am getting at is that we have to ask ourselves, has society evolved this much, or do you think the legitimacy of same-sex unions has always been a self-evident but overlooked truth? “That all men are created equal” was a self-evident truth that this country chose to ignore for the many years it supported slavery. Is there such a self-evident thing as marriage equality?

  80. Who does BeyondMarriage.org speak for when they put forward these desired definitions of marriage?

    Are they a fringe organization?

    Yes.

    Which is why appealing to BeyondMarriage is no more convincing to us than trying to equate your views with those of the Phelps Family.

  81. Debbie,

    Let me just say that I find it irritating when people bring up the statements of a few, and by few I mean few, gay people who talk about marriage in this way. How would you feel if I put up quotes by HETEROSEXUALS who talk about getting rid of marriage entirely, or who don’t believe in marriage, or who think government-sponsored marriage needs to be done away with, or heterosexuals who support open marriages or the Swinging lifestyle within marriage? Really? There is a reason these arguments shouldn’t be made a part of reasonable and rational debate. That said, lets tackle these:

    Same-sex unions often incorporate the virtues of friendship more effectively than traditional marriages; and at times, among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds… [T]here is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman… [S]omething of the gay relationship’s necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.

    Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality, pp. 202–03

    One man’s opinion, first of all! What do you want me to say to this? Should I put up heterosexual quotes supporting open marriages?

    Same-sex couples should “demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.” Same-sex couples should “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, because the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake … is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.”

    Michelangelo Signorile, “Bridal Wave,” Out, Dec.–Jan. 1994

    Again, one person’s opinion. This person doesn’t speak for the vast majority of gay people and it would be a shame to think he does. Second, I would ask, what does he mean? He makes alot of vague statements. What does he mean by transform the family? As a gay man Debbie, I can honestly say I’ve never read more than a few sound bites by this guy. I don’t think we know enough about what he is saying to really talk about it here yet, and its a mistake to think he speaks for all or even most gay people.

    The fact is that there are plenty of genetically influenced traits that are nevertheless undesirable. Alcoholism may have a genetic basis, but it doesn’t follow that alcoholics ought to drink excessively. Some people may have a genetic predisposition to violence, but they have no more right to attack their neighbors than anyone else. Persons with such tendencies cannot say, “God made me this way,” as an excuse for acting on their dispositions.

    John Corvino, “Nature? Nurture? It Doesn’t Matter,” INDEPENDENT GAY FORUM (Aug. 12, 2004)

    Oy – tying being gay to alcoholism AGAIN. You think we would be beyond this at this point. Ok Debbie, FYI, alcoholism is a disease, being gay is not. Want to continue to go down this road?

    Also, do the pro-gay-marriage advocates here agree with these statements?

    Fulfillment is impossible without regular outlets for sexual release.

    Meaningful intimacy is impossible without sex.

    Fulfilling relationships are impossible without legal recognition.

    Homosexual orientation is a basic human identity, such that any state that doesn’t actively accommodate it necessarily harms or disregards a class of human beings.

    I can’t speak for all pro-gay marriage advocates, but what is meant by words like “fulfillment” and “meaningful intimacy”? Fulfilling relationships are possible without legal recognition if we are talking about friendships, of course! And I also think fulfilling relationships of the romantic kind are also possible without legal recognition, but that isn’t what gay marriage is all about. I would have to agree completely with the last statement.

  82. Debbie Thurman# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 11:44 am

    “I am curious as to what the reaction here would be to these statements made by prominent gays:”

    1st, everyone is entitled to their opinions. As for my opinion on the issues they raised.

    Sullivan:

    I tend to agree with his statement although I don’t know how many gay couples it would apply to. I don’t have a problem with open marriages/relationships. For some people they work for others they don’t.

    Signorile:

    Don’t really agree with his statement. Certainly, the concept of what makes a family is different than from 50 years ago, but that is happening with or without gay marriage.

    Corvino:

    Don’t really agree with the sentiment of his statement: gays shouldn’t act on their feelings or that being gay is undesirable.

    As for your random statements:

    “Fulfillment is impossible without regular outlets for sexual release.”

    disagree.

    “Meaningful intimacy is impossible without sex.”

    disagree

    “Fulfilling relationships are impossible without legal recognition.”

    disagree

    “Homosexual orientation is a basic human identity,”

    I agree with this part.

    “Homosexual orientation is a basic human identity, such that any state that doesn’t actively accommodate it necessarily harms or disregards a class of human beings.”

    I think I agree with this, but not really sure what is meant by “actively accommodate” means hence the qualification.

  83. I would have to agree completely with the last statement.

    Fair enough, but that still leaves open the question of those who have rejected their formerly gay identities. If some strongly desire to and (even only a few) are able to jettison homosexuality, this has to call into question the “suspect class” designation of homosexuality. And it is why the miscegenation comparisons are not valid. Not even one black man or woman has ever managed to convert to white or any other race.

    I honestly don’t know what those three gay icons (far from just isolated voices) think today about these statements they made earlier. The only one I’ve ever talked to is Corvino. He’s not unreasonable. I do know that The New York Times featured a story last year about a study purporting that gay marriages are more open than they are touted to be. BeyondMarriage.org features a pledge with troublesome elements (I highlighted a few) signed by hundreds of activists, academics, etc. What are folks to think about such things? Are we to disregard them as legitimate because you say they are or because you don’t like what they represent? Or are they an inconvenient truth?

  84. No rational reason to be opposed to gay marriage will ever be accepted as such.

    Although I’m sure you won’t see this, such statements are nothing but bigotry. You are saying, in short, that gay people are incapable of rational discussion and cannot argue the merits of arguments. We are, you indicate, unable to accept the logic or consistency of a rational argument.

    It’s rather ironic. Because those of us here who do not believe that gay people should be excluded from civil equality are appealing to logic, to thought, to rational discourse.

    You are appealing to religious faith. I know that some religions believe that their doctrines are, ipso facto, rational (often couched in terms of “natural law”), but appeals to the subjective (and all faith is subjective) are not appeals to rational thought.

    “My deity wants” or “my church teaches” are not rational arguments.

  85. Signorille had a portion of an article from 1994 snipped out. Since then, he has continued to write tons of material and hosted a daily talk show that’s been going on for at least five years straight. How much has his opinion and his perspective changed since 1994?

    Earlier this year, some people took a speech that my friend Andrew made to a youth pastor leadership group back in 2008 and used it against him now, even those he’s written and said much more since then that has nuanced his belief system. It was fair then. It’s not fair here to toss in random quotes from whenever without context or linkage and ask for reaction.

    It might be helpful if you can show us how their perspectives have changed, then.

  86. Debbie Thurman# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    “If some strongly desire to and (even only a few) are able to jettison homosexuality, this has to call into question the “suspect class” designation of homosexuality. ”

    No it doesn’t. “suspect classification” does not require immutability. Religion is a suspect class and it certainly isn’t immutable.

  87. Ok, do you think other people who want to get married ,and do not fit your definition of eligiblilty, find your opinion discriminating? It is like how you feel when someone discriminates against you because your situation does not fit their definition of marriage.

    This reminds me that there are two basic approaches to civil life: restrictive and free.

    Those who have a restrictive mindset believe that the world should be viewed from the perspective that nothing should be allowed unless it can prove itself worthy. The natural response to anything at all should be to stop it or restrict it.

    The free mindset, on the other hand, believes that something should only be stopped if it can be proven to be unworthy.

    It’s all about who has the burden of proof. Restrictives think that those who want freedom or inclusion or respect must be required to meet the burden of proof to their (ever changing) level of satisfaction. Free minded think that harm must be demonstrated in order to restrict the rights of others.

  88. Seriously, how many times does it have to be answered?

    Jon,

    Ok, what am I missing – I have not seen it – if you have time, please point me to the comments that address what the proposed new eligibilities are for marriage.

  89. but I would point out again your religion is not mine and the discussion is about CIVIL marriage not religious marriage.

    The discussion, in case you hadn’t noticed, has turned to civil marriage. Why haven’t we had it for centuries, if its benefits are so obvious? Is anthropology that short-sighted?

  90. Signorille had a portion of an article from 1994 snipped out. Since then, he has continued to write tons of material and hosted a daily talk show that’s been going on for at least five years straight. How much has his opinion and his perspective changed since 1994?

    Earlier this year, some people took a speech that my friend Andrew made to a youth pastor leadership group back in 2008 and used it against him now, even those he’s written and said much more since then that has nuanced his belief system. It was fair then. It’s not fair here to toss in random quotes from whenever without context or linkage and ask for reaction.

  91. Debbie: I’m not a big fan of random, disconnected statements lumped together from various sources.

    But you do have an opinion about the statements. They are neither random nor disconnected, but are germane to the topic at hand. Are they representative of the gay community or not?

  92. Earlier this year, some people took a speech that my friend Andrew made to a youth pastor leadership group back in 2008 and used it against him now, even though he’s written and said much more since then that has nuanced his belief system. It was not fair then. It’s not fair here to toss in random quotes from whenever without context or linkage and ask for reaction.

  93. Here’s one – Do these people speak for all heterosexuals?

    The Case Against Marriage

    They speak for a surprising number of folks. Consider the number of couples that are cohabiting today. Marriage is not the panacea it once was considered to be in the minds of many.

  94. Debbie Thurman# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 9:21 am

    “Who gets to define “rational,” Ken?”

    Ultimately the courts. However, reasonable people can generally debate the issues and come to an understanding of what is (and is not) rational. A simple test I like to use is “how does the argument sound when applied to another group?” Ex: what if you take an argument against gay marriage and use it as an argument against inter-racial marriage, does it still seem rational or fair?

    but I would point out again your religion is not mine and the discussion is about CIVIL marriage not religious marriage. so what Jesus, Mohammad, Jehovah, Vishnu, Buddha, Hera or any other religious figure would think about gay marriage it not relevant to the discussion.

  95. If God does not bless a couple with children, should they question His wisdom?

    Follow that bizarre line of thought to it’s logical conclusion and see where you land.

  96. Debbie:

    I am just trying to wrap my head around your logic. I apparently cannot, we live in different worlds. I do not believe in your ‘God’.

  97. They have an origin and His name is God.

    There we have the problem. There is no middle ground. There is no appeal to reason. There is no logic. There is only faith. Which is a gift. Which I am prepared to honor. But which was never meant to be taken literally.

  98. Debbie:

    When someone says ‘raise important ethical and moral questions’ then it implies that something is wrong with the status quo and would require law changes. You then bring your faith’s deity into the matter as well, which has no part of Law. Why should I care what you deity thinks of someone’s inability to have children?

    When does THAT stop by the way? The questioning of wisdom? Why do we question God’s wisdom in people who are born blind? Are we throwing aside his wisdom when medicine cures that condition? What about being born with a cleft pallet? Why do we question his wisdom there? How do you determine what was His Will and what was not?

  99. Marriage laws aren’t totally uniform here in the states. For example, there’s a sizable minority that allow first cousins to marry. Those marriages are still recognized by the federal government and are recognized by other states where they aren’t otherwise allowed.

    Jon Trouten,

    I did not know this. Do you know what the exception is based on? Interesting as well because in another post Ken, who is for gay marriage, said the two things he did not think qualified someone for marriage was a young age and first cousins. This is what I meant when I said it was inevitable that those who felt discriminated against, would eventually discriminate against others as well. If exceptions are made, It is impossible to leave anyone out without them feeling discriminated against.

  100. Debbie Thurman# ~ Feb 17, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    “I don’t know who is claiming that those homes are devoid of love. That’s not what this discussion is about. It’s a straw man.”

    Emily didn’t claim people where saying gay parents where devoid of love. She said people where denigrating those families. Ex. claiming gay parents are selfish.

  101. If there is a good, logical reason to object to gay marriage, then please present us with one. I have heard the what I think are most of the one’s being touted as logical or rational or reasonable, almost always by conservative religious folk interestingly, and none have passed muster.

    It wouldn’t matter, Jayhuck. I’ve presented my case already. You’ll have to take it or leave it.

  102. Re: Polygamy –

    Well, unlike same sex marriage, there are certainly plenty of examples of polygamy in the Bible: King David, King Solomon, etc… There are actually no verses in the New Testament or Old Testament that forbid polygamy! So from a Christian perspective, what do we make of this?

  103. To be clear I do not determine who does or does not get married. Nor have I ever claimed to have that authority, thus I am not cable of discriminating against people in their ability to marry.

    Ken,

    Ok, I guess you are unwilling to see the hypocrisy. You have an opinion about who can or cannot get married, as long as it accommodates you. People who have a different definition of marriage than you are anti-gay and/or discriminating. Someone else who does not fit your definition of marriage does not deserve to get married. Your situation is the exception. Ok, I get it.

  104. Tim, Barry, et al

    No one is punting. No one is lacking credibility. Gay people need not solve Darfor or achieve world piece or address polygamy.

    We need only provide evidence that the discrimination against gay people is not founded in rational basis and therefor invalid.

    Thank you Tim! Very well put.

  105. Tim,

    You are correct, Coretta Scott King, the wife of Martin Luther King Jr was very much supportive of gay rights. A fact I never get tired of repeating 🙂 Thank you for reminding me.

    Honestly, my point though isn’t that there were no blacks who supported gay rights, rather that Barry is being hypocritical in what he demands of gay people as opposed to groups who went before.

  106. I’m curious. Have polygamous marriage advocates been reaching out to gay marriage organizations like One Iowa or One Colorado or Lambda Legal or even just the ACLU seeking partnerships with those organizations?

    Are there any active plural marriage lawsuits and lobbyist out there? I’m serious. What’s the status of this group’s efforts? Do they want the assistance of GLBT supporters?

  107. If the polyamorists want some legal love, more power to them 🙂 They should fight for it. Goodness knows they have the backing of the Bible on their side.

  108. DAvid,

    Ann is obviously being disingenuous here and that is why your debate is going nowhere. She is simply trying to turn the tables so that you will hopefully parrot the anti-marriage equality crowd’s arguments in response to her hypothetical. This allows her to assault you with faux pro-marriage equality arguments and thus illustrate the same old talking point “if we can’t prevent gays from marrying, then we can’t prevent someone from marrying their sibling, or Great Dane, or what have you.

    Man, you guys are something. Dense or defensive or …..I don’t even know what word to describe you when it comes to this issue, but for the life of me I wish you knew just how it was hurting your cause.

  109. Barry,

    Tim is absolutely correct:

    Barry!

    You are just setting up arbitrary milestones. In order for gay people to champion their own equality they have to ___________ (fill in the blank).

    No one is punting. No one is lacking credibility. Gay people need not solve Darfor or achieve world piece or address polygamy.

    We need only provide evidence that the discrimination against gay people is not founded in rational basis and therefor invalid.

  110. Jayhuck

    I’m trying to understand why you feel gay people are responsible for the emancipation of all minority groups, yet you don’t seem to lay that responsibility at the feat of civil rights pioneers before gay people. I simply don’t understand your point

    Of course you understand my point: that you, a person arguing passionately for the changing of the definition of marriage by using a CIVIL RIGHTS argument, is saying that civil rights are only supposed to be extended to people who fight for them.

    A civil right by definition, Jayhuck, is something that a person is born with, not something that is only extended to those who picket, who donate money to a cause, who lobby, who this, who that.

    So, using your argument, only those blacks who actually risked their lives should have been given voting protections.

    The definition of marriage and civil rights. That’s what you have been talking about. But in a display that shows you have a very self-centered, limited and , I guess, convenient view of “civil rights,” you said above,

    Each group traditionally takes care of its own.

    This means one of two things to me–

    1.) either that you really don’t understand what civil rights are and you use the term carelessly

    or

    2.) you really don’t believe the fight for marriage rights and the redefining of marriage ought to extend to anyone except gays marrying monogamously and you have used “civil right” not because you really believe it but because you think it carries some weight in arguing

    I just believe you can find a more consistent argument.

    I

  111. Timothy said,

    Africans were not really men. They were childlike and ignorant, you see. Their relationships had higher levels of infidelity, so there was no need to recognize their marriages.

    Just a point of addition–the other reason slaves were not counted as men was because the powerful interests from the northern states didn’t want the southern states to have the extra representation in the House that counting slaves would result in. It wasn’t just personal beliefs that resulted in the lack of counting slaves as men, but a political one as well. Big surprise, huh, that politics played a big part ?

  112. Barry,

    The definition of marriage and civil rights. That’s what you have been talking about. But in a display that shows you have a very self-centered, limited and , I guess, convenient view of “civil rights,” you said above,

    Oh Barry, I could say the same thing of you – LOL. You seem to have a very self-centered and limited and I guess convenient for your view of civil rights. That must make you feel better, right?

  113. Barry,

    By the way,

    I have no idea why you decided to block-quote all the verse you did above. Perhaps you could enlighten me 🙂

  114. Good Lord, Debbie, I see the reason for your comments now.

    Outsmarting Depression:

    Surviving the Crossfire of the Mental Health Wars

    by Debbie Thurman 12.95 (used for .78 cents)

    Outsmarting Depression examines the inherent weaknesses in the reigning medical paradigm for recognizing and treating the “common cold of mental illness” and offers strategies that work. This book will show you:

    • How to distinguish biological from emotional/spiritual depression

    • Why psychiatric drugs are not as effective as we are told they are

    • How to activate the mind?s and body?s unique healing system

    • How to avoid being caught between warring practitioners

    • What leading professionals really think about depression treatments

    God Bless America, where anyone can be an expert on anything. You would fit right in with Scientology on this one. With two Amazon reviews in 7 years, at least most people must be checking your credentials before taking medical advice from you.

  115. Barry,

    Just a point of addition–the other reason slaves were not counted as men was because the powerful interests from the northern states didn’t want the southern states to have the extra representation in the House that counting slaves would result in. It wasn’t just personal beliefs that resulted in the lack of counting slaves as men, but a political one as well. Big surprise, huh, that politics played a big part ?

    LOL – I’m just having fun now, What does this have to do with gay marriage? Nothing actually, but Barry might try and make you believe it does – LOL

  116. Barry,

    You should probably pay more attention to Tim – something you don’t seem to be able to up until now:

    Barry!

    You are just setting up arbitrary milestones. In order for gay people to champion their own equality they have to ___________ (fill in the blank).

    No one is punting. No one is lacking credibility. Gay people need not solve Darfor or achieve world piece or address polygamy.

    We need only provide evidence that the discrimination against gay people is not founded in rational basis and therefor invalid.

  117. Barry,

    1.) either that you really don’t understand what civil rights are and you use the term carelessly

    You apparently don’t really understand what civil rights are or you wouldn’t make th demands of African Americans that your logic seems to make.

    or

    2.) you really don’t believe the fight for marriage rights and the redefining of marriage ought to extend to anyone except gays marrying monogamously and you have used “civil right” not because you really believe it but because you think it carries some weight in arguing

    You seem to be so limited in your understanding of what other people are fighting for. I understand why, but its unfortunate. You don’t seem to think any minority group except gays should be the ones to carry the torch for all minority groups when it comes to gay marriage. You don’t think blacks should have done more or women should have done more, only that gay people somehow fail – LOL

    Anyone with a brain can see through your desperate attempts to discredit gay people Barry! But keep on keepinon – you are entertaining 🙂

  118. Barry,

    FYi, I will keep reposting Tim’s wise words until you are able to successfully address them, which I’m guessing , sadly, will be never 🙂

  119. ONe last concise statement to Ken and Jayhuck–

    When a guy like MLK argued for civil rights, did you think he confined himself to the rights of blacks only?

    Gee, seems to me I heard him talk about a lot of groups.

  120. Who in their right mind would build an identity based on the fact that they are depressed? Being depressed is a psychologically harmful condition that can be treated with therapy and medication. I mean, I guess you can choose to take pride in anything – but depression interferes with one’s life no matter what.

    Some poets and artists do.

    People can choose not to say they’re gay; they can abstain from sexual activity; they can make themselves numb to the point of losing all attraction to anybody – but they can’t switch their core orientation to heterosexuality

    .

    Maybe they can and maybe they can’t. Or maybe they are merely reclaiming what was rightfully theirs in the beginning.

  121. Debbie,

    Some poets and artists do.

    I’m not clear what you seem to be suggesting here. Are poets and artists poets and artists because they are depressed? Are they depressed because they are poets and artists? Or, is it simply possible, that art is one way of expressing one’s feeling, whether it be through music, or dance or poetry or painting?

  122. barry

    As the laws are now written, yes, but new social orders (polygamy, homosexual marriage) would have new laws written to deal with legal issues that would arise from them.

    So, I think your argument that homosexual marriage can be better handled by the legal system than other marriage arrangments is a non-starter.

    This is not actually a matter of speculation. Rather it is a matter of observation. Same-sex marriage exists in 12 nations and in the US in 5 states and DC. We need not guess.

    So far, there has been no need for peculiar legal structuring, but rather simply the application of current law to all married couples.

    think of all the legal problems that are now about to arise over custody claims of offspring of gay marriages.

    Courts have already address this issue. Parents have equal legal standing, just as they do in heterosexual cases. The interest of the child is given priority.

    Imagining scary possibilities ceases to be convincing in the light of increasingly common real life situation.

  123. Whatever the state says their reasons for exclusion are, it will be met with those that are being excluded feeling discriminated against, just like gay people do now.

    Ann, though you may not intend to, in this posting you present gay people as though they are teenagers disagreeing with Mom and Dad and throwing fits when they don’t get their way. But “Yeah but they get to get married, you’re no fair, I hate you” is not our position. Gay people are not childlike, incapable of integrating rational thought.

    When the states present their arguments for excluding gay people from the laws that govern citizens, we counter by proving such arguments to be false or based in animus. We don’t whine that we feel discriminated against, we prove that such discrimination is in evidence and that it is without rational basis.

    And if, indeed, truly rational arguments convinced us that marriage equality would cause great social harm, I can state with certainty that gay people would abandon that cause immediately. This is our society as well and we are not so selfish or foolish as to destroy it. We’ve just seen nothing at all that supports the fears of those who make predictions of dire consequences.

    How do the states decide the eligibility requirements for marriage?

    Actually the states decide the ineligibility requirements (check out the way that the laws are written). The presumption is that all marriages are legitimate unless otherwise excluded.

    The sole question – the only valid question – is whether the exclusion is fair, reasonable, necessary, and not based in animus. We argue that in the case of same-sex couples, the exclusion is neither fair, reasonable, or necessary and is to a large extent based in animus.

    Others who are excluded can state their own legal position, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with us.

    As for your other proposals about divorce, each is worthy of consideration. But they do not address the question as to whether laws that exclude gay persons from equal access are rationally defensible.

  124. Throbert McGee# ~ Feb 21, 2011 at 1:28 am

    “Thus, if gays and lesbians had gone the route of trying to modify and expand “adult adoption” laws, it would’ve necessarily involved some “redefining of the word adoption.” But to the extent that the gay community hasn’t gone this route, and we aren’t trying to “redefine adoption,” then we ARE, ipso facto, trying to “redefine marriage”! ”

    And why would redefining civil marriage to include gay couples be a problem?

    Was the re-definition of marriage in the Loving case a problem?

  125. Throbert,

    Thus, if gays and lesbians had gone the route of trying to modify and expand “adult adoption” laws, it would’ve necessarily involved some “redefining of the word adoption.” But to the extent that the gay community hasn’t gone this route, and we aren’t trying to “redefine adoption,” then we ARE, ipso facto, trying to “redefine marriage”!

    FYI, Its already been re-defined!

  126. Barry,

    They are people who don’t want the def. of marriage tampered with at all.

    Then these people obviously don’t understand that the definition of marriage has changed greatly throughout time.

  127. On the question of “redefining the word marriage,” I would point out that one theoretical way for same-sex couples to protect their relationships and establish themselves as legal kin would’ve been to push for expansion of “adult adoption” laws. At present, only a few states even allow an adult to adopt another adult, and in those states that do allow this, the adoption is NOT symmetrical and reciprocal — one adult is the adoptive guardian and the other is the adoptee, but they don’t adopt each other. (In practice, adult adoption is likely to be a recourse when one adult is the caregiver for an unrelated adult with Down Syndrome or some other significant cognitive disability, but there’s been at least one American case that I know of where a lesbian “adult-adopted” her non-disabled partner so that they would be legal next-of-kin, in lieu of marriage.)

    So as it currently stands, such laws aren’t an adequate solution for same-sex couples, but hypothetically they COULD be a solution if we persuaded the legislatures to modify the adult-adoption laws in the few states where they exist, and to pass such laws in the 40+ other states where they don’t exist.

    Thus, if gays and lesbians had gone the route of trying to modify and expand “adult adoption” laws, it would’ve necessarily involved some “redefining of the word adoption.” But to the extent that the gay community hasn’t gone this route, and we aren’t trying to “redefine adoption,” then we ARE, ipso facto, trying to “redefine marriage”!

  128. Barry,

    I can counter by saying that children of a gay marriage (adopted or otherwise) are vulnerable in a union that lacks a mother or father in the home, and social science data from research over the last 50 years backs that up time and time again.

    Actually, no you can’t Barry, because the most recent data shows that kids who grow up in same sex households are no better, and no worse than kids who grow up in opposite sex households. So this thing you think you can counter with is null and void.

    You seem to think that marriage has somehow remained un-re-defined through time, but you would be wrong. Marriage, the idea of marriage and who can marry has been different throughout time and culture. Whoever fed you the idea that there is or was somehow one definition of marriage was lying to you.

    So yes, in a sense, gay marriage might be re-defining marriage, yet again. Actually, I suppose its a little late to talk about how it MIGHT redefine marriage since several states and foreign countries have already made same sex marriage legal

  129. Now I have repeatedly asked you to state your opinions about these other marriages, so that I can get a better understanding of why you making the statements and questions you are.

    Ken,

    Any personal opinion I have regarding the circumstances of other marriages, outside the current definition, would not add to or take away from the issue of equal rights, by law, if the definition of marriage changes. When I say equal rights, that means the opportunity to be considered for marriage, which right now is not an option to most outside the current definition. The law clearly states the requirements. Some agree with it and some do not. If that definition changes, and others are still excluded, then I foresee cases for discrimination.

  130. barry# ~ Feb 20, 2011 at 3:43 am

    “Re-read your statements. You contradict yourself. I did try to answer your few questions. You didn’t ask me to address a myriad of anything.”

    I know what I wrote barry, I’ve written about this topic many times (despite your inaccurate claim that I was avoiding the issue):

    ken# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 11:25 am

    That said if someone smarter than me can propose a fair, workable solution I would certainly be willing to consider it. However, until I actually see such a solution, then I believe the government is justified in denying polygamous marriages.

    ken# ~ Feb 19, 2011 at 10:56 am

    to date NO ONE has even attempted my challenge to present a fair, workable scheme for polygamous marriages. However, many (yourself included) have claimed without proof that it can be done.

    Maybe you just need to read what I write a bit more carefully. Further if you do plan on responding about what I said, I suggest you re-read the ENTIRE posts I’m quoting.

    “was trying to get a couple of you to actually see that you over-react to those who bring up multiple spouse marriages. Gays who respond in the way you do always seem to think that people who bring up that issue are simply against gay marriage alone and are using polygamy as an ace- in- the- hole argument against gay marriage.”

    That’s because most of the time they also bring up bestiality, incest, pedophilia etc usually in an ignorant attempt to denigrate gays and avoid any honest debate on the issues of gay marriage.

    “He and his two partners (law partners) seem to think that multiple spouse marriage possibilties, particularly ones that involve three people, do not have to be complex at all.”

    Great, have them post here with their solution to the problems of polygamous marriage (which isn’t limited to just 3 people btw). I have a few questions I’d like to ask them.

    “I was trying (and I failed) to get you to understand that people are pretty smart–they see the hypocrisy in your argument. ”

    Really, cause what I’m seeing is someone who has no response the arguments in favor of gay marriage, so he attacks the proponents by calling them hypocrites and deflecting the argument away from the issue of gay marriage.

    Where the supporters of inter-racial marriage hypocrites barry? Do you support inter-racial marriage barry? If so, are you a hypocrite for not supporting ALL types of marriage?

    “I can counter by saying that children of a gay marriage (adopted or otherwise) are vulnerable in a union that lacks a mother or father in the home, and social science data from research over the last 50 years backs that up time and time again.”

    No you can’t say that. ALL of the research into gay parenting has shown children raised by gay parents are just as well adjusted as children raised by straight parents. What you are doing is mis-representing the research. The research “over the last 50 years” was comparing 2 parent (mother/father) homes to SINGLE parent homes, not same-gender parent homes.

    “Thus, w/out telling you what my position actually is on gay marriage, I was hoping to at least give you pause in fighting the multiple spouse argument with those who argue against gay marriage.”

    And you have yet to give a SINGLE legal impediment to gay marriage (like I did for polygamous marriage). What you are trying do do is say that apples are round and oranges are round therefore apples and oranges are the same thing. Further you are ignoring all of my reasons for liking apples but not oranges (and calling me a hypocrite for not eating both) even those those reasons have nothing to do with roundness.

    “I’d like you to be more intellectually honest and state that gay marriage does indeed mean re-defining marriage, ”

    Sure if it makes you happy it is a re-definition of marriage. However, so was allowing inter-racial marriage, or letting women be equal partners in marriage.

    “and yes, any re-defining of an institution as old and ingrained as marriage does indeed open up the strong possibility and indeed the likelihood of other concepts of marriage being adopted by the courts because to do otherwise would be hypocritical and intolerant.’

    No, it doesn’t. Marriage is a right, in order for the state to deny that right to any citizen, the State must provide a “compelling state interest” (ask your lawyer friends what that means) in order to deny that right. Every citizen (or group) has the same right to challenge the states justification in denying marriage. Unless there is overlap in the state’s interest in denying for 2 classes of people, a ruling for one class will not help the other class. In the case of gay marriage and polygamous marriage there is no such overlap (except maybe animus of the population towards both groups, but animus has never been a compelling state interest).

  131. Marriage, the idea of marriage and who can marry has been different throughout time and culture.

    Jayhuck,

    Do you see this continuing when new ideas of marriage and who can marry change over time in the future? I do.

  132. Man, you guys are something. Dense or defensive or …..I don’t even know what word to describe you when it comes to this issue, but for the life of me I wish you knew just how it was hurting your cause.

    “You guys?” I’m one person, Barry. Or was that the equivalent of “you people?” While I’m sure you have nothing but the success of “my cause” in mind, I can’t give your advice much weight.

    I originally commented because I felt Debbie’s statements on depression were dangerous and required correction. I didn’t mean to get sucked into the rest. I’ll happily bow out.

  133. Debbie Thurman quotes Andrew Sullivan:

    [T]here is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman… [S]omething of the gay relationship’s necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.

    Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality, pp. 202–03

    This is why I, as a man who’s been openly homosexual for almost 20 years, favor the “Separate But Equal” route of having some legally-recognized institution called Quarriage, or whatever, rather than “Same-Sex Marriage.”

    While it’s in our interests as gay men and lesbian women to have legal recognition and protection for our long-term committed relationships, and while we have every right as taxpayers to demand that the government accommodate us by establish such recognition and protection in some form, I’m not sure that it’s necessarily in our own best interests to try to develop this kludgy variant of a heterosexual tradition and then say, “Oh, we absolutely insist that everyone else call our relationships ‘marriages,’ although we reserve the right to have open or polyamorous relationships if we happen to feel like it.”

    (Admittedly, the problem with “Quarriage” is that the logical verb form would be spelled “to quarry” but pronounced to rhyme with “Harry,” not “worry.” But LGBT people just seem to have this thing about words starting with “Q”…)

  134. Ken,

    Well, at least you tried Barry, but what you failed to do was actually address the myriad issues of polygamy. All you did was try to answer the few questions I gave, which where not intended to be a complete list of the problems of polygamy (I thought I was clear about that)

    Huh?

    What I ” failed to do was actually address the MYRIAD ISSUES [caps mine] of polygamy”. Instead “all” I “did was try to answer the few questions” you gave?????

    Re-read your statements. You contradict yourself. I did try to answer your few questions. You didn’t ask me to address a myriad of anything. Of course neither you nor I can deal with all the multiple scenarios of a legally binding document. Wow.

    If you really want to fight for polygamous marriage, feel free. But I can tell you, the “solution” you gave won’t even come close to dealing with the legal problems it presents. In fact, your response indicates you don’t completely understand the issues regarding current marriages. And if you really want to discuss polygamy I will, but I don’t think you really care. I think you are just trying to belittle people who support gay marriage, because you don’t have any real response to the arguments in support of gay marriage.

    I was trying to get a couple of you to actually see that you over-react to those who bring up multiple spouse marriages. Gays who respond in the way you do always seem to think that people who bring up that issue are simply against gay marriage alone and are using polygamy as an ace- in- the- hole argument against gay marriage. ( BTW, I have a really close attorney friend who is quite knowledgeable on the issue of marriage being gay and married himself–took advantage of the period in CA to marry. He and his two partners (law partners) seem to think that multiple spouse marriage possibilties, particularly ones that involve three people, do not have to be complex at all.

    Anyway, most people opposed right now to gay marriage are not using the polygamy issue simply to obstruct gay marriage. They are people who don’t want the def. of marriage tampered with at all. If gays never, ever had brought up the same-sex marriage issue and polyamorists instead were the ones who were doing it, these people would be just as adamant in their belief that one man-one woman marriage must be the only def. allowed. You couldn’t scream “homophobes” at them when they tried to prevent multiple-spouse marriages or when they voted “Yes on 8 to prevent polygamy.” There are some gay haters, of course, but most of the people I know are not. Many gay-friendly people are opposed to any change in the def. of marriage.

    I was trying (and I failed) to get you to understand that people are pretty smart–they see the hypocrisy in your argument. Maybe you believe what you have told me in your contrasting of gay marriage and polygamy, maybe you don’t, but it’s clear that as an intelligent guy, you have to know that polygamy has indeed worked in many societies, and you have to know that legal contracts can be worked out. You also seem to be the kind of guy who believes in a philosophy of “if it doesn’t hurt others, then why restrict people?’ and so if there are those who want polygamy, I have to believe you really have magnified and stretched and readied arguments against polygamy for fear it will hurt the gay marriage cause.

    I see great hypocrisy in that. One of your arguments was to say that women are vulnerable in a polygamous arrangement. Whether I concur or not is irrelevant. I can counter by saying that children of a gay marriage (adopted or otherwise) are vulnerable in a union that lacks a mother or father in the home, and social science data from research over the last 50 years backs that up time and time again. Tit for tat, tit for tat. That’s my point–for every reason you give that gay marriage is this or that, I or someone else can give reasons that opposite marriage is this or that and multiple spouse marriage is this or that and children raised in this or that kind of family are this or that. That stuff gets us nowhere. Tit for tat.

    Thus, w/out telling you what my position actually is on gay marriage, I was hoping to at least give you pause in fighting the multiple spouse argument with those who argue against gay marriage.

    I’d like you to be more intellectually honest and state that gay marriage does indeed mean re-defining marriage, and yes, any re-defining of an institution as old and ingrained as marriage does indeed open up the strong possibility and indeed the likelihood of other concepts of marriage being adopted by the courts because to do otherwise would be hypocritical and intolerant. After all, that is the way the courts have traditionally behaved the last 50+years.

    Ken, I intended to make fun of no one, for what it’s worth. I simply think clarity and honesty are lacking. Whether it’s because it’s willful or because it hurts to see it or because it’s painful to state the truth even when you know it, I just don’t know.

  135. David Roberts# ~ Feb 23, 2011 at 10:01 pm

    “The idea that Marriage Equality requires a “redefinition of marriage” is, in the end, more tactic than truth.”

    I agree. That’s my why response to such claims is basically: “so what if it is?”

  136. But that’s not nearly as melodramatic, Jon 😉

    If the meaning of “person” was truly redefined by the 13th or 14th Amendment, then perhaps one could say that marriage is redefined by Loving v. Virginia, or the current Marriage Equality movement. I personally believe this is more an argument of semantics, and that the deeper definition of both remains the same.

    No one was ever really only three-fifths of a person and marriage of a couple of differing races (or faiths, etc) or of the same sex, is no less a marriage than that of two opposite-sex WASPs.

    The idea that Marriage Equality requires a “redefinition of marriage” is, in the end, more tactic than truth.

  137. David Roberts# ~ Feb 23, 2011 at 10:01 pm

    “The idea that Marriage Equality requires a “redefinition of marriage” is, in the end, more tactic than truth.”

    I agree. That’s my why response to such claims is basically: “so what if it is?”

  138. But that’s not nearly as melodramatic, Jon 😉

    If the meaning of “person” was truly redefined by the 13th or 14th Amendment, then perhaps one could say that marriage is redefined by Loving v. Virginia, or the current Marriage Equality movement. I personally believe this is more an argument of semantics, and that the deeper definition of both remains the same.

    No one was ever really only three-fifths of a person and marriage of a couple of differing races (or faiths, etc) or of the same sex, is no less a marriage than that of two opposite-sex WASPs.

    The idea that Marriage Equality requires a “redefinition of marriage” is, in the end, more tactic than truth.

  139. Barak Obama just ended the court defense of marriage act.

    Not quite. They stopped defending certain sections of Federal DOMA in one federal court case. It’s unclear to me whether this even effects married folks like me here in Iowa. The case mostly affects those of us who are married under state law, but whose marriages aren’t recognized under Federal law.

    There’s a good summary of the lawsuit here: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/08/24154

  140. from the news

    A key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutionally biased and will no longer be defended in court by Justice Department attorneys, Attorney General Eric Holder announced Wednesday.

    But he assured members of Congress that the Clinton-era federal statute, which defines marriage as between only a “man and a woman” as “husband and wife,” will continue to be enforced by the executive branch until it is either repealed by legislators or definitely voided by the courts. Section 3 of the statute, which limits the definition of marriage to opposite sex couples, precludes spouses in same-sex marriages from receiving certain federal benefits to which spouses in traditional marriages are entitled.

  141. Throbert,

    Thus, if gays and lesbians had gone the route of trying to modify and expand “adult adoption” laws, it would’ve necessarily involved some “redefining of the word adoption.” But to the extent that the gay community hasn’t gone this route, and we aren’t trying to “redefine adoption,” then we ARE, ipso facto, trying to “redefine marriage”!

    FYI, Its already been re-defined!

  142. Throbert McGee# ~ Feb 21, 2011 at 1:28 am

    “Thus, if gays and lesbians had gone the route of trying to modify and expand “adult adoption” laws, it would’ve necessarily involved some “redefining of the word adoption.” But to the extent that the gay community hasn’t gone this route, and we aren’t trying to “redefine adoption,” then we ARE, ipso facto, trying to “redefine marriage”! ”

    And why would redefining civil marriage to include gay couples be a problem?

    Was the re-definition of marriage in the Loving case a problem?

  143. Throbert McGee,

    I appreciate your comments and agree with most of what you said. You offered some very interesting perspectives and alternatives that make sense.

  144. Jayhuck,

    I will certainly be interesting to see how it unfolds. I will be hoping for the best.

    Barry,

    I am not sure if you are still checking in, but if you are, I wanted to clarify my 12/20 comment @12:17 to you. Just wanted to make sure you understood that I was in agreement with your observation and that my comments were to address how I came about the same observation.

  145. from the news

    A key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutionally biased and will no longer be defended in court by Justice Department attorneys, Attorney General Eric Holder announced Wednesday.

    But he assured members of Congress that the Clinton-era federal statute, which defines marriage as between only a “man and a woman” as “husband and wife,” will continue to be enforced by the executive branch until it is either repealed by legislators or definitely voided by the courts. Section 3 of the statute, which limits the definition of marriage to opposite sex couples, precludes spouses in same-sex marriages from receiving certain federal benefits to which spouses in traditional marriages are entitled.

  146. Throbert McGee,

    I appreciate your comments and agree with most of what you said. You offered some very interesting perspectives and alternatives that make sense.

  147. Jayhuck,

    I will certainly be interesting to see how it unfolds. I will be hoping for the best.

    Barry,

    I am not sure if you are still checking in, but if you are, I wanted to clarify my 12/20 comment @12:17 to you. Just wanted to make sure you understood that I was in agreement with your observation and that my comments were to address how I came about the same observation.

  148. Ann,

    I do too – and I don’t see this as a bad thing. I think we have to be careful, and monitor it, but changing the definition of marriage is not something that started with gay marriage

  149. Ann,

    I do too – and I don’t see this as a bad thing. I think we have to be careful, and monitor it, but changing the definition of marriage is not something that started with gay marriage

  150. Marriage, the idea of marriage and who can marry has been different throughout time and culture.

    Jayhuck,

    Do you see this continuing when new ideas of marriage and who can marry change over time in the future? I do.

  151. Barry,

    I can counter by saying that children of a gay marriage (adopted or otherwise) are vulnerable in a union that lacks a mother or father in the home, and social science data from research over the last 50 years backs that up time and time again.

    Actually, no you can’t Barry, because the most recent data shows that kids who grow up in same sex households are no better, and no worse than kids who grow up in opposite sex households. So this thing you think you can counter with is null and void.

    You seem to think that marriage has somehow remained un-re-defined through time, but you would be wrong. Marriage, the idea of marriage and who can marry has been different throughout time and culture. Whoever fed you the idea that there is or was somehow one definition of marriage was lying to you.

    So yes, in a sense, gay marriage might be re-defining marriage, yet again. Actually, I suppose its a little late to talk about how it MIGHT redefine marriage since several states and foreign countries have already made same sex marriage legal

  152. Barry,

    They are people who don’t want the def. of marriage tampered with at all.

    Then these people obviously don’t understand that the definition of marriage has changed greatly throughout time.

  153. On the question of “redefining the word marriage,” I would point out that one theoretical way for same-sex couples to protect their relationships and establish themselves as legal kin would’ve been to push for expansion of “adult adoption” laws. At present, only a few states even allow an adult to adopt another adult, and in those states that do allow this, the adoption is NOT symmetrical and reciprocal — one adult is the adoptive guardian and the other is the adoptee, but they don’t adopt each other. (In practice, adult adoption is likely to be a recourse when one adult is the caregiver for an unrelated adult with Down Syndrome or some other significant cognitive disability, but there’s been at least one American case that I know of where a lesbian “adult-adopted” her non-disabled partner so that they would be legal next-of-kin, in lieu of marriage.)

    So as it currently stands, such laws aren’t an adequate solution for same-sex couples, but hypothetically they COULD be a solution if we persuaded the legislatures to modify the adult-adoption laws in the few states where they exist, and to pass such laws in the 40+ other states where they don’t exist.

    Thus, if gays and lesbians had gone the route of trying to modify and expand “adult adoption” laws, it would’ve necessarily involved some “redefining of the word adoption.” But to the extent that the gay community hasn’t gone this route, and we aren’t trying to “redefine adoption,” then we ARE, ipso facto, trying to “redefine marriage”!

  154. Debbie Thurman quotes Andrew Sullivan:

    [T]here is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman… [S]omething of the gay relationship’s necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.

    Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality, pp. 202–03

    This is why I, as a man who’s been openly homosexual for almost 20 years, favor the “Separate But Equal” route of having some legally-recognized institution called Quarriage, or whatever, rather than “Same-Sex Marriage.”

    While it’s in our interests as gay men and lesbian women to have legal recognition and protection for our long-term committed relationships, and while we have every right as taxpayers to demand that the government accommodate us by establish such recognition and protection in some form, I’m not sure that it’s necessarily in our own best interests to try to develop this kludgy variant of a heterosexual tradition and then say, “Oh, we absolutely insist that everyone else call our relationships ‘marriages,’ although we reserve the right to have open or polyamorous relationships if we happen to feel like it.”

    (Admittedly, the problem with “Quarriage” is that the logical verb form would be spelled “to quarry” but pronounced to rhyme with “Harry,” not “worry.” But LGBT people just seem to have this thing about words starting with “Q”…)

  155. Now I have repeatedly asked you to state your opinions about these other marriages, so that I can get a better understanding of why you making the statements and questions you are.

    Ken,

    Any personal opinion I have regarding the circumstances of other marriages, outside the current definition, would not add to or take away from the issue of equal rights, by law, if the definition of marriage changes. When I say equal rights, that means the opportunity to be considered for marriage, which right now is not an option to most outside the current definition. The law clearly states the requirements. Some agree with it and some do not. If that definition changes, and others are still excluded, then I foresee cases for discrimination.

  156. Man, you guys are something. Dense or defensive or …..I don’t even know what word to describe you when it comes to this issue, but for the life of me I wish you knew just how it was hurting your cause.

    “You guys?” I’m one person, Barry. Or was that the equivalent of “you people?” While I’m sure you have nothing but the success of “my cause” in mind, I can’t give your advice much weight.

    I originally commented because I felt Debbie’s statements on depression were dangerous and required correction. I didn’t mean to get sucked into the rest. I’ll happily bow out.

  157. Ann# ~ Feb 20, 2011 at 11:46 am

    “You are incorrectly attaching this comment to me – I never said this”

    No Ann, I made that statement (and all you had to do was go look it up to see that). I was pointing out that I had previously given those combinations, which you claimed I was “discriminating” because I hadn’t.

    Now I have repeatedly asked you to state your opinions about these other marriages, so that I can get a better understanding of why you making the statements and questions you are. And you have ignored and refused to answer them. Essentially, the same questions you asked me (which I did answer).

    And I’m forced to conclude you aren’t interested in honest debate. You are just looking for ammunition to justify calling me a hypocrite, or say that I’m discriminating, or just a bad person in general or other such ad hominem attacks because you can’t get me to agree with you on whatever it is you are arguing about.

    Until you demonstrate you are willing to engage in an honest debate of the issues, I will no longer engage you.

    Note, I will still correct any mis-leading or false statements you make.

  158. I’d like you to be more intellectually honest and state that gay marriage does indeed mean re-defining marriage, and yes, any re-defining of an institution as old and ingrained as marriage does indeed open up the strong possibility and indeed the likelihood of other concepts of marriage being adopted by the courts because to do otherwise would be hypocritical and intolerant.

    Thank you Barry – you articulated this much better than I have.

  159. Sure if it makes you happy it is a re-definition of marriage. However, so was allowing inter-racial marriage, or letting women be equal partners in marriage.

    Ken,

    I know this was comment is addressed to Barry, however, it also speaks to the point I was making about re-definition. These examples you cite are inclusionary. Are there any other examples that law makers should anticipate and/or consider for inclusion now or in the future?

  160. but for the life of me I wish you knew just how it was hurting your cause.

    Barry,

    Your observation has not gone unnoticed by most people. Attitude is something we choose. Presenting oneself as a perpetual victim is also a choice. So is superior posturing. Lying about others and /or spinning their words around is also a choice. Responding to others with contemptuous comments is also a choice. Attacking someone personally is also a choice. As far as I know these things have nothing to do with being gay or straight – it has to do with character, or lack of it. When I see that someone has a propensity to make these choices, when they could also make the choice not to, then what they say holds no value to me.

  161. ken# ~ Feb 11, 2011 at 9:06 pm

    Nor do I think brother and sisters (or brother and brother or sister and sister etc) should marry. Again do you?

    Ken,

    You are incorrectly attaching this comment to me – I never said this.

    I appreciate you pointing to where I asked who would be excluded. It was on another thread and that is why I could not find it. In this particular thread, my original question and subsequent comments were about inclusion. We already know what and who the law excludes. If an exception is made to include more people into the right to marry, then who else might be eligible for consideration when the laws are changed?

    Ultimately, this will be a bigger question than I am asking here on a blog.

  162. barry# ~ Feb 20, 2011 at 3:43 am

    “Re-read your statements. You contradict yourself. I did try to answer your few questions. You didn’t ask me to address a myriad of anything.”

    I know what I wrote barry, I’ve written about this topic many times (despite your inaccurate claim that I was avoiding the issue):

    ken# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 11:25 am

    That said if someone smarter than me can propose a fair, workable solution I would certainly be willing to consider it. However, until I actually see such a solution, then I believe the government is justified in denying polygamous marriages.

    ken# ~ Feb 19, 2011 at 10:56 am

    to date NO ONE has even attempted my challenge to present a fair, workable scheme for polygamous marriages. However, many (yourself included) have claimed without proof that it can be done.

    Maybe you just need to read what I write a bit more carefully. Further if you do plan on responding about what I said, I suggest you re-read the ENTIRE posts I’m quoting.

    “was trying to get a couple of you to actually see that you over-react to those who bring up multiple spouse marriages. Gays who respond in the way you do always seem to think that people who bring up that issue are simply against gay marriage alone and are using polygamy as an ace- in- the- hole argument against gay marriage.”

    That’s because most of the time they also bring up bestiality, incest, pedophilia etc usually in an ignorant attempt to denigrate gays and avoid any honest debate on the issues of gay marriage.

    “He and his two partners (law partners) seem to think that multiple spouse marriage possibilties, particularly ones that involve three people, do not have to be complex at all.”

    Great, have them post here with their solution to the problems of polygamous marriage (which isn’t limited to just 3 people btw). I have a few questions I’d like to ask them.

    “I was trying (and I failed) to get you to understand that people are pretty smart–they see the hypocrisy in your argument. ”

    Really, cause what I’m seeing is someone who has no response the arguments in favor of gay marriage, so he attacks the proponents by calling them hypocrites and deflecting the argument away from the issue of gay marriage.

    Where the supporters of inter-racial marriage hypocrites barry? Do you support inter-racial marriage barry? If so, are you a hypocrite for not supporting ALL types of marriage?

    “I can counter by saying that children of a gay marriage (adopted or otherwise) are vulnerable in a union that lacks a mother or father in the home, and social science data from research over the last 50 years backs that up time and time again.”

    No you can’t say that. ALL of the research into gay parenting has shown children raised by gay parents are just as well adjusted as children raised by straight parents. What you are doing is mis-representing the research. The research “over the last 50 years” was comparing 2 parent (mother/father) homes to SINGLE parent homes, not same-gender parent homes.

    “Thus, w/out telling you what my position actually is on gay marriage, I was hoping to at least give you pause in fighting the multiple spouse argument with those who argue against gay marriage.”

    And you have yet to give a SINGLE legal impediment to gay marriage (like I did for polygamous marriage). What you are trying do do is say that apples are round and oranges are round therefore apples and oranges are the same thing. Further you are ignoring all of my reasons for liking apples but not oranges (and calling me a hypocrite for not eating both) even those those reasons have nothing to do with roundness.

    “I’d like you to be more intellectually honest and state that gay marriage does indeed mean re-defining marriage, ”

    Sure if it makes you happy it is a re-definition of marriage. However, so was allowing inter-racial marriage, or letting women be equal partners in marriage.

    “and yes, any re-defining of an institution as old and ingrained as marriage does indeed open up the strong possibility and indeed the likelihood of other concepts of marriage being adopted by the courts because to do otherwise would be hypocritical and intolerant.’

    No, it doesn’t. Marriage is a right, in order for the state to deny that right to any citizen, the State must provide a “compelling state interest” (ask your lawyer friends what that means) in order to deny that right. Every citizen (or group) has the same right to challenge the states justification in denying marriage. Unless there is overlap in the state’s interest in denying for 2 classes of people, a ruling for one class will not help the other class. In the case of gay marriage and polygamous marriage there is no such overlap (except maybe animus of the population towards both groups, but animus has never been a compelling state interest).

  163. Ann# ~ Feb 20, 2011 at 11:46 am

    “You are incorrectly attaching this comment to me – I never said this”

    No Ann, I made that statement (and all you had to do was go look it up to see that). I was pointing out that I had previously given those combinations, which you claimed I was “discriminating” because I hadn’t.

    Now I have repeatedly asked you to state your opinions about these other marriages, so that I can get a better understanding of why you making the statements and questions you are. And you have ignored and refused to answer them. Essentially, the same questions you asked me (which I did answer).

    And I’m forced to conclude you aren’t interested in honest debate. You are just looking for ammunition to justify calling me a hypocrite, or say that I’m discriminating, or just a bad person in general or other such ad hominem attacks because you can’t get me to agree with you on whatever it is you are arguing about.

    Until you demonstrate you are willing to engage in an honest debate of the issues, I will no longer engage you.

    Note, I will still correct any mis-leading or false statements you make.

  164. I’d like you to be more intellectually honest and state that gay marriage does indeed mean re-defining marriage, and yes, any re-defining of an institution as old and ingrained as marriage does indeed open up the strong possibility and indeed the likelihood of other concepts of marriage being adopted by the courts because to do otherwise would be hypocritical and intolerant.

    Thank you Barry – you articulated this much better than I have.

  165. Sure if it makes you happy it is a re-definition of marriage. However, so was allowing inter-racial marriage, or letting women be equal partners in marriage.

    Ken,

    I know this was comment is addressed to Barry, however, it also speaks to the point I was making about re-definition. These examples you cite are inclusionary. Are there any other examples that law makers should anticipate and/or consider for inclusion now or in the future?

  166. but for the life of me I wish you knew just how it was hurting your cause.

    Barry,

    Your observation has not gone unnoticed by most people. Attitude is something we choose. Presenting oneself as a perpetual victim is also a choice. So is superior posturing. Lying about others and /or spinning their words around is also a choice. Responding to others with contemptuous comments is also a choice. Attacking someone personally is also a choice. As far as I know these things have nothing to do with being gay or straight – it has to do with character, or lack of it. When I see that someone has a propensity to make these choices, when they could also make the choice not to, then what they say holds no value to me.

  167. ken# ~ Feb 11, 2011 at 9:06 pm

    Nor do I think brother and sisters (or brother and brother or sister and sister etc) should marry. Again do you?

    Ken,

    You are incorrectly attaching this comment to me – I never said this.

    I appreciate you pointing to where I asked who would be excluded. It was on another thread and that is why I could not find it. In this particular thread, my original question and subsequent comments were about inclusion. We already know what and who the law excludes. If an exception is made to include more people into the right to marry, then who else might be eligible for consideration when the laws are changed?

    Ultimately, this will be a bigger question than I am asking here on a blog.

  168. DAvid,

    Ann is obviously being disingenuous here and that is why your debate is going nowhere. She is simply trying to turn the tables so that you will hopefully parrot the anti-marriage equality crowd’s arguments in response to her hypothetical. This allows her to assault you with faux pro-marriage equality arguments and thus illustrate the same old talking point “if we can’t prevent gays from marrying, then we can’t prevent someone from marrying their sibling, or Great Dane, or what have you.

    Man, you guys are something. Dense or defensive or …..I don’t even know what word to describe you when it comes to this issue, but for the life of me I wish you knew just how it was hurting your cause.

  169. Ken,

    Well, at least you tried Barry, but what you failed to do was actually address the myriad issues of polygamy. All you did was try to answer the few questions I gave, which where not intended to be a complete list of the problems of polygamy (I thought I was clear about that)

    Huh?

    What I ” failed to do was actually address the MYRIAD ISSUES [caps mine] of polygamy”. Instead “all” I “did was try to answer the few questions” you gave?????

    Re-read your statements. You contradict yourself. I did try to answer your few questions. You didn’t ask me to address a myriad of anything. Of course neither you nor I can deal with all the multiple scenarios of a legally binding document. Wow.

    If you really want to fight for polygamous marriage, feel free. But I can tell you, the “solution” you gave won’t even come close to dealing with the legal problems it presents. In fact, your response indicates you don’t completely understand the issues regarding current marriages. And if you really want to discuss polygamy I will, but I don’t think you really care. I think you are just trying to belittle people who support gay marriage, because you don’t have any real response to the arguments in support of gay marriage.

    I was trying to get a couple of you to actually see that you over-react to those who bring up multiple spouse marriages. Gays who respond in the way you do always seem to think that people who bring up that issue are simply against gay marriage alone and are using polygamy as an ace- in- the- hole argument against gay marriage. ( BTW, I have a really close attorney friend who is quite knowledgeable on the issue of marriage being gay and married himself–took advantage of the period in CA to marry. He and his two partners (law partners) seem to think that multiple spouse marriage possibilties, particularly ones that involve three people, do not have to be complex at all.

    Anyway, most people opposed right now to gay marriage are not using the polygamy issue simply to obstruct gay marriage. They are people who don’t want the def. of marriage tampered with at all. If gays never, ever had brought up the same-sex marriage issue and polyamorists instead were the ones who were doing it, these people would be just as adamant in their belief that one man-one woman marriage must be the only def. allowed. You couldn’t scream “homophobes” at them when they tried to prevent multiple-spouse marriages or when they voted “Yes on 8 to prevent polygamy.” There are some gay haters, of course, but most of the people I know are not. Many gay-friendly people are opposed to any change in the def. of marriage.

    I was trying (and I failed) to get you to understand that people are pretty smart–they see the hypocrisy in your argument. Maybe you believe what you have told me in your contrasting of gay marriage and polygamy, maybe you don’t, but it’s clear that as an intelligent guy, you have to know that polygamy has indeed worked in many societies, and you have to know that legal contracts can be worked out. You also seem to be the kind of guy who believes in a philosophy of “if it doesn’t hurt others, then why restrict people?’ and so if there are those who want polygamy, I have to believe you really have magnified and stretched and readied arguments against polygamy for fear it will hurt the gay marriage cause.

    I see great hypocrisy in that. One of your arguments was to say that women are vulnerable in a polygamous arrangement. Whether I concur or not is irrelevant. I can counter by saying that children of a gay marriage (adopted or otherwise) are vulnerable in a union that lacks a mother or father in the home, and social science data from research over the last 50 years backs that up time and time again. Tit for tat, tit for tat. That’s my point–for every reason you give that gay marriage is this or that, I or someone else can give reasons that opposite marriage is this or that and multiple spouse marriage is this or that and children raised in this or that kind of family are this or that. That stuff gets us nowhere. Tit for tat.

    Thus, w/out telling you what my position actually is on gay marriage, I was hoping to at least give you pause in fighting the multiple spouse argument with those who argue against gay marriage.

    I’d like you to be more intellectually honest and state that gay marriage does indeed mean re-defining marriage, and yes, any re-defining of an institution as old and ingrained as marriage does indeed open up the strong possibility and indeed the likelihood of other concepts of marriage being adopted by the courts because to do otherwise would be hypocritical and intolerant. After all, that is the way the courts have traditionally behaved the last 50+years.

    Ken, I intended to make fun of no one, for what it’s worth. I simply think clarity and honesty are lacking. Whether it’s because it’s willful or because it hurts to see it or because it’s painful to state the truth even when you know it, I just don’t know.

  170. Ann is obviously being disingenuous here and that is why your debate is going nowhere. She is simply trying to turn the tables so that you will hopefully parrot the anti-marriage equality crowd’s arguments in response to her hypothetical. This allows her to assault you with faux pro-marriage equality arguments and thus illustrate the same old talking point “if we can’t prevent gays from marrying, then we can’t prevent someone from marrying their sibling, or Great Dane, or what have you.

    Notice that she includes the canard about marriage equality requiring a redefinition of marriage, which is a tell. It’s just her luck that you didn’t fall for it and now she has to play it through with a straight face (no pun intended). What does any of this have to do with the topic of the post anyway?

  171. Ann# ~ Feb 20, 2011 at 12:58 am

    “Ummmm….. don’t think I ever asked you who should be excluded.”

    You asked in the “1984 Press Conference: Ronald Reagan opposed discrimination against gays” thread:

    Ann# ~ Feb 11, 2011 at 7:26 pm

    Ken,

    I was asking for your opinion about what you think the qualifications are, if any, for anyone and everyone to be eligible for a civil marriage, recognized by law with all the benefits of it.

    To which I responded with “everyone except…”

    Further in the same thread you asked:

    Ann# ~ Feb 11, 2011 at 9:20 pm

    I am trying to discern from you (and anyone else) what the requirements are to make anyone or everyone eligible for a civil marriage or to exclude them from civil marriage. (emphasis added)

    So you did ask about excluding people.

    And also from that thread:

    ken# ~ Feb 11, 2011 at 9:06 pm

    Nor do I think brother and sisters (or brother and brother or sister and sister etc) should marry. Again do you?

  172. I was simply and honestly responding to a question YOU asked me.

    Ummmm….. don’t think I ever asked you who should be excluded. That was something you volunteered. It is not me putting words in your mouth – think you are doing that to me.

  173. Ann# ~ Feb 19, 2011 at 10:58 pm

    Are you saying you believe brothers and sisters should be allowed to marry? Or young children?

    “It does not matter what I say.”

    I’m asking you what you believe Ann. Because rather than just make assumptions about what you believe, I thought it best to ask you. And I find your refusal to answer a simple question somewhat suspicious.

    “My point, oy, is that I do not see any remedy to the re-defination of marriage to accommodate one group of people, while excluding others, lest they would feel discriminated against.”

    IT HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT WHETHER PEOPLE FEEL DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ANN! Prisons a full of people who feel discriminated against, does the mean the government can’t lock them up?

    “My original question way back on this thread was what would work and be acceptable regarding the eligibility of marriage, not what should be excluded. For some reason, that has never been answered.”

    Allowing everyone to marry whomever they wish EXCEPT those the government has a compelling state interest to exclude.

    “What is it about others being married that threatens your marriage? What is the fear? How will they interfere with your marriage?”

    I already answered this question in the post you responded to. But I’ll state it again:

    I’m not “threatened” by others marrying, but I recognize that the government does have a justification for denying marriage rights in some cases. Do you?

    “The question is why you oppose others getting married. ”

    What others Ann? Do YOU oppose any marriages at all?(incestous, polygamous, 8 year olds? anything?) If so why?

    “You have explicitly said certain people are ineligible for marriage”

    As do the marriage laws Ann.

    “and have repeated the brother/sister example many times now. Some would say you are discriminating because you did not say sister/sister or brother/brother. ”

    Because under the law now, brother/brother and sister/sister wouldn’t be allowed because same gender marriages aren’t allowed. I’ve said I am opposed to incestuous marriages, which does include those combinations.

    “You have indicated that first cousins should not marry as well. It seems like their coupling is distasteful to you as you do not think they are adequate to meet marriage eligible as you think you are. ”

    Never said anything about distasteful Ann, that’s you inappropriately putting words in my mouth. I was simply and honestly responding to a question YOU asked me. A courtesy you seem unwilling to extend to me. And I don’t understand what you are trying to say in the last part of that sentence.

    “This has been my entire point throughout all these comments.’

    Then you’ve done a poor job conveying it. Because it seemed you where trying to say anyone who supported gay marriage but didn’t support marriage for all was a hypocrite.

  174. Are you saying you believe brothers and sisters should be allowed to marry? Or young children?

    It does not matter what I say. The examples you mention are not the issue. My point, oy, is that I do not see any remedy to the re-defination of marriage to accommodate one group of people, while excluding others, lest they would feel discriminated against. Some people question whether gay people should be allowed to marry and you question whether others should. My original question way back on this thread was what would work and be acceptable regarding the eligibility of marriage, not what should be excluded. For some reason, that has never been answered. I keep reading about who should be excluded – that is not the issue. If they cannot be included, like you will be, then they will feel discriminated against. What is it about others being married that threatens your marriage? What is the fear? How will they interfere with your marriage?

    Or are you saying you oppose gay marriage because of this slippery slope argument (if we let gays marry then we have to let everybody marry)?

    Oy (again), please point me to any comment where I have said that I am opposed to gay marriage. The question is why you oppose others getting married. The theme of my posts have been inclusion and your’s have been to exclude.

    You have no idea what my standards are, nor do I think may standards should be law.

    Right – I am just going by what you write. You have explicitly said certain people are ineligible for marriage and have repeated the brother/sister example many times now. Some would say you are discriminating because you did not say sister/sister or brother/brother. You have indicated that first cousins should not marry as well. It seems like their coupling is distasteful to you as you do not think they are adequate to meet marriage eligible as you think you are.

    ” The important thing to remember is they have the right to make that case.”

    On this statement we agree.

    This has been my entire point throughout all these comments.

  175. Ann# ~ Feb 19, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    “My entire point from the very beginning was this – if the current definition of marriage is to be changed to fit or accommodate gay couples, then it should be open for everyone else who, heretofore, does not fit the current eligibility requirements. ”

    Are you saying you believe brothers and sisters should be allowed to marry? Or young children?

    Or are you saying you oppose gay marriage because of this slippery slope argument (if we let gays marry then we have to let everybody marry)?

    If the latter, then do you believe the courts where wrong in allowing inter-racial couples to marry? The same argument could be used (and I believe was) in that case: “If we let inter-racial couples marry then we have to let everybody marry”

    “I am not suggesting that gay people do not have the right to get married – I am presenting the inconvenient fact that if an exception be made for gay people, then other people are going to want the same privilege”

    1st, marriage is not a PRIVILEGE it is a RIGHT (there is a big difference in these 2 things). 2nd, you are using a false criteria (if we let gays we have to let everybody). In order to justify denying a right, the government must provide a justification (“compelling state interest”), now everyone denied marriage has the same right to challenge the governments justification. However because one case is not justified doesn’t mean ALL cases are not justified..

    “There lives might not fit your standards,”

    You have no idea what my standards are, nor do I think may standards should be law.

    ” however, that should not preclude them from having the same privilege of marriage as you would if the current definition is changed. How would them being married threaten you or your marriage? ”

    I’m not “threatened” by others marrying, but I recognize that the government does have a justification for denying marriage rights in some cases. Do you?

    “Should that law change, the green light is on for them to make their case for marriage, lest they have a case for discrimination.”

    Regardless of whether gay marriage happens, others are still free to make their own case.

    ” The important thing to remember is they have the right to make that case.”

    On this statement we agree.

  176. Ann is obviously being disingenuous here and that is why your debate is going nowhere. She is simply trying to turn the tables so that you will hopefully parrot the anti-marriage equality crowd’s arguments in response to her hypothetical. This allows her to assault you with faux pro-marriage equality arguments and thus illustrate the same old talking point “if we can’t prevent gays from marrying, then we can’t prevent someone from marrying their sibling, or Great Dane, or what have you.

    Notice that she includes the canard about marriage equality requiring a redefinition of marriage, which is a tell. It’s just her luck that you didn’t fall for it and now she has to play it through with a straight face (no pun intended). What does any of this have to do with the topic of the post anyway?

  177. Ann# ~ Feb 20, 2011 at 12:58 am

    “Ummmm….. don’t think I ever asked you who should be excluded.”

    You asked in the “1984 Press Conference: Ronald Reagan opposed discrimination against gays” thread:

    Ann# ~ Feb 11, 2011 at 7:26 pm

    Ken,

    I was asking for your opinion about what you think the qualifications are, if any, for anyone and everyone to be eligible for a civil marriage, recognized by law with all the benefits of it.

    To which I responded with “everyone except…”

    Further in the same thread you asked:

    Ann# ~ Feb 11, 2011 at 9:20 pm

    I am trying to discern from you (and anyone else) what the requirements are to make anyone or everyone eligible for a civil marriage or to exclude them from civil marriage. (emphasis added)

    So you did ask about excluding people.

    And also from that thread:

    ken# ~ Feb 11, 2011 at 9:06 pm

    Nor do I think brother and sisters (or brother and brother or sister and sister etc) should marry. Again do you?

  178. barry# ~ Feb 19, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    Well, at least you tried Barry, but what you failed to do was actually address the myriad issues of polygamy. All you did was try to answer the few questions I gave, which where not intended to be a complete list of the problems of polygamy (I thought I was clear about that) . If you really want to fight for polygamous marriage, feel free. But I can tell you, the “solution” you gave won’t even come close to dealing with the legal problems it presents. In fact, your response indicates you don’t completely understand the issues regarding current marriages. And if you really want to discuss polygamy I will, but I don’t think you really care. I think you are just trying to belittle people who support gay marriage, because you don’t have any real response to the arguments in support of gay marriage.

    “What you are really saying is that our culture has not approved of polygamy as a social institution,”

    No what I’m saying is that the issues regarding gay marriage and polygamous marriage are very different. Please do not claim I said things I didn’t. If you are unsure of what I meant feel free to ask. I will be happy to clarify.

    “Anthropologists might disagree with you.”

    Really who? Which anthropologists claim women were better off under polygamous marriage than they are under today’s marriage system?

    “A pretty weak argument, one that treats a gay male as a child. Same as your argument.”

    No, my argument was about how women are treated unfairly in polygamous marriages I am aware of (ex: in the middle east, parts of africa, fundamentalist morman churches) and I would never support a type of marriage that re-regulates women to 2nd class status.

  179. I was simply and honestly responding to a question YOU asked me.

    Ummmm….. don’t think I ever asked you who should be excluded. That was something you volunteered. It is not me putting words in your mouth – think you are doing that to me.

  180. Ann# ~ Feb 19, 2011 at 10:58 pm

    Are you saying you believe brothers and sisters should be allowed to marry? Or young children?

    “It does not matter what I say.”

    I’m asking you what you believe Ann. Because rather than just make assumptions about what you believe, I thought it best to ask you. And I find your refusal to answer a simple question somewhat suspicious.

    “My point, oy, is that I do not see any remedy to the re-defination of marriage to accommodate one group of people, while excluding others, lest they would feel discriminated against.”

    IT HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT WHETHER PEOPLE FEEL DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ANN! Prisons a full of people who feel discriminated against, does the mean the government can’t lock them up?

    “My original question way back on this thread was what would work and be acceptable regarding the eligibility of marriage, not what should be excluded. For some reason, that has never been answered.”

    Allowing everyone to marry whomever they wish EXCEPT those the government has a compelling state interest to exclude.

    “What is it about others being married that threatens your marriage? What is the fear? How will they interfere with your marriage?”

    I already answered this question in the post you responded to. But I’ll state it again:

    I’m not “threatened” by others marrying, but I recognize that the government does have a justification for denying marriage rights in some cases. Do you?

    “The question is why you oppose others getting married. ”

    What others Ann? Do YOU oppose any marriages at all?(incestous, polygamous, 8 year olds? anything?) If so why?

    “You have explicitly said certain people are ineligible for marriage”

    As do the marriage laws Ann.

    “and have repeated the brother/sister example many times now. Some would say you are discriminating because you did not say sister/sister or brother/brother. ”

    Because under the law now, brother/brother and sister/sister wouldn’t be allowed because same gender marriages aren’t allowed. I’ve said I am opposed to incestuous marriages, which does include those combinations.

    “You have indicated that first cousins should not marry as well. It seems like their coupling is distasteful to you as you do not think they are adequate to meet marriage eligible as you think you are. ”

    Never said anything about distasteful Ann, that’s you inappropriately putting words in my mouth. I was simply and honestly responding to a question YOU asked me. A courtesy you seem unwilling to extend to me. And I don’t understand what you are trying to say in the last part of that sentence.

    “This has been my entire point throughout all these comments.’

    Then you’ve done a poor job conveying it. Because it seemed you where trying to say anyone who supported gay marriage but didn’t support marriage for all was a hypocrite.

  181. Are you saying you believe brothers and sisters should be allowed to marry? Or young children?

    It does not matter what I say. The examples you mention are not the issue. My point, oy, is that I do not see any remedy to the re-defination of marriage to accommodate one group of people, while excluding others, lest they would feel discriminated against. Some people question whether gay people should be allowed to marry and you question whether others should. My original question way back on this thread was what would work and be acceptable regarding the eligibility of marriage, not what should be excluded. For some reason, that has never been answered. I keep reading about who should be excluded – that is not the issue. If they cannot be included, like you will be, then they will feel discriminated against. What is it about others being married that threatens your marriage? What is the fear? How will they interfere with your marriage?

    Or are you saying you oppose gay marriage because of this slippery slope argument (if we let gays marry then we have to let everybody marry)?

    Oy (again), please point me to any comment where I have said that I am opposed to gay marriage. The question is why you oppose others getting married. The theme of my posts have been inclusion and your’s have been to exclude.

    You have no idea what my standards are, nor do I think may standards should be law.

    Right – I am just going by what you write. You have explicitly said certain people are ineligible for marriage and have repeated the brother/sister example many times now. Some would say you are discriminating because you did not say sister/sister or brother/brother. You have indicated that first cousins should not marry as well. It seems like their coupling is distasteful to you as you do not think they are adequate to meet marriage eligible as you think you are.

    ” The important thing to remember is they have the right to make that case.”

    On this statement we agree.

    This has been my entire point throughout all these comments.

  182. Ooops – my apologies. Despite my earlier threat, I did not mean to repost Tim’s comments again. Apparently I cannot multitask 😉

  183. Ann# ~ Feb 19, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    “My entire point from the very beginning was this – if the current definition of marriage is to be changed to fit or accommodate gay couples, then it should be open for everyone else who, heretofore, does not fit the current eligibility requirements. ”

    Are you saying you believe brothers and sisters should be allowed to marry? Or young children?

    Or are you saying you oppose gay marriage because of this slippery slope argument (if we let gays marry then we have to let everybody marry)?

    If the latter, then do you believe the courts where wrong in allowing inter-racial couples to marry? The same argument could be used (and I believe was) in that case: “If we let inter-racial couples marry then we have to let everybody marry”

    “I am not suggesting that gay people do not have the right to get married – I am presenting the inconvenient fact that if an exception be made for gay people, then other people are going to want the same privilege”

    1st, marriage is not a PRIVILEGE it is a RIGHT (there is a big difference in these 2 things). 2nd, you are using a false criteria (if we let gays we have to let everybody). In order to justify denying a right, the government must provide a justification (“compelling state interest”), now everyone denied marriage has the same right to challenge the governments justification. However because one case is not justified doesn’t mean ALL cases are not justified..

    “There lives might not fit your standards,”

    You have no idea what my standards are, nor do I think may standards should be law.

    ” however, that should not preclude them from having the same privilege of marriage as you would if the current definition is changed. How would them being married threaten you or your marriage? ”

    I’m not “threatened” by others marrying, but I recognize that the government does have a justification for denying marriage rights in some cases. Do you?

    “Should that law change, the green light is on for them to make their case for marriage, lest they have a case for discrimination.”

    Regardless of whether gay marriage happens, others are still free to make their own case.

    ” The important thing to remember is they have the right to make that case.”

    On this statement we agree.

  184. Barry,

    You are just setting up arbitrary milestones. In order for gay people to champion their own equality they have to ___________ (fill in the blank).

    No one is punting. No one is lacking credibility. Gay people need not solve Darfor or achieve world piece or address polygamy.

    We need only provide evidence that the discrimination against gay people is not founded in rational basis and therefor invalid.

  185. Interesting. Ann supports statutory rape and child sexual abuse of students by their teachers. Very interesting…

    Ann supports you and your family.

  186. Except the difference is I actually gave examples (and could give many more) of why polygamous marriage won’t work in our legal system and to date NO ONE has even attempted my challenge to present a fair, workable scheme for polygamous marriages. However, many (yourself included) have claimed without proof that it can be done.

    Ken,

    I cannot think of anything else (right now) that I can add of value to this thread. I do want to clarify something though that seems to have been missed or I could have done better in articulating,

    My entire point from the very beginning was this – if the current definition of marriage is to be changed to fit or accommodate gay couples, then it should be open for everyone else who, heretofore, does not fit the current eligibility requirements. Gay couples, in my opinion, are not superior to any other person who is desirous of marriage – everyone has the same right to present their case of discrimination just the same as gay people do. I am not suggesting that gay people do not have the right to get married – I am presenting the inconvenient fact that if an exception be made for gay people, then other people are going to want the same privilege, as they should, regardless if it is right or wrong according to you or anyone else. I, nor anyone else, have to justify my reasons to you, nor do you to me. Many, right now, think it is wrong for a gay couple to get married – you think it is wrong for a productive, loving polygamist family to be married, someone else thinks it is wrong for first cousins (think it was you) to marry, the judge put Mary Kay LeTourneau in jail while she was pregnant instead of letting her and her boyfriend get married. The point is not what is right or wrong, rather, the restrictive measures you are suggesting for others who are different from you. There lives might not fit your standards, however, that should not preclude them from having the same privilege of marriage as you would if the current definition is changed. How would them being married threaten you or your marriage? You need not elevate yourself above others to get what you deserve. No one has to come up with examples for you to opine on as to whether they fit your criteria for marriage. I think most people outside the current marriage definition have accepted the law and live their life anyway. Should that law change, the green light is on for them to make their case for marriage, lest they have a case for discrimination. The important thing to remember is they have the right to make that case.

  187. RE: polygamy and legal structure

    What is the legal relationship between A and B? If the husband dies is there any legal relationship between them?

    Under the present system of state-recognized marriage, that would depend on whether or not the trio (if there were three) entered into a marriage in which they had decided before the marriage that they were both married to only the same person or that all were married to all. (After all, bisexual attractions have to be accounted for. It could be that in a polygamous marriage we are dealing with not only opposite-sex consumations and but also bisexul ones.) That’s no biggie. It’s a choice made before the marriage. A check in a box. Signatures. the legal applications for this already exist in our body of laws. True, they don’t presently exist in the marriage contract but accomodating them is no big deal from a legal standpoint.

    Bottom line–a body of law in this country is already quite specific regarding partnerships and differing types of partnerships. The state could offer a form that provided choices of types–partners check it off, sign. That’s it. Upon death, upon divorce, the partners are held by that choice they made.

    Property settlements that occur because of divorce or death would be based on the agreements signed beforehand. If you want to do the simplest thing, in the case of a trio, if person A dies, his or her property would be divided among the other two spouses just as today in a mongamous relationship the property transfers to the one spouse unless there has been a pre-nup or is challegened by offspring or other relatives, and we all know the problems that pre-nups are intended to avoid.

    Ken, even in monogamous marriages, pre-nups are challenged and depending on the judge and the lawyers, pre-nups have been voided in courts, or amended by judges. In addition, in monogamous marriages, offspring are always challenging the line of inheritance that goes from marriage partner to spouse. The legal system already faces problems regarding the kinds of questions you pose.

    In short, even in our present two-person marriage system, in which the body of law is intended to transfer to the single spouse all property and wealth upon death (unless there is a pre-nup), challenges are allowed and decisions rendered which negate the initial transfer of property and wealth upon death.

    When it comes to divorce, there really is no such thing as easy divisions of wealth and property and child custody and visitation, even in a monogamous marriage. While many states give automatic joint custody in a legal sense, the actual practice of jointly sharing living arrangements with a child and jointly sharing decisions regarding that child don’t really exist. For most, joint custody is a meaningless term , a ” paper term.”

    What if the husband is incapacitated, who makes medical/legal decisions for him

    A or B? What if they disagree, who decides?

    Again, this could be agreed to before the final marriage doc is signed, but I fail to see how this is any different from the problems incurred in many monogamous arrangements. Think of all the times that two parents disagree about the medical treatment their child should receive. How does that work when a mom and a dad disagree about the treatment of a child? If they can’t reach a mutual decision, they go to court. How about when offspring challenge what parent A wants to do regarding the medical treatment of parent B? While the law states that the spouse has legal standing, all the offspring have to do is get a lawyer, fast. Again, we have a body of law that would apply no differently. Even in monogamous marriages, challenges occur all the time to the legal standing of a spouse regarding medical decisions.

    If the husband and A want a divorce does B have any legal standing to contest it?

    See above.

    If A does divorce, how much of the property is she entitled to? 1/2? 1/3? 1/4?

    And if you go beyond 3 people the problems get even worse.

    No it wouldn’t. See above. You could have a simple law saying 3 people divide it three ways, 4 divide it 4 ways–no different than saying 2 people divide it 2 ways as the law now states.

    If you want to be more accomodating, then you do what I said above–partners go to a lawyer; they draw up a contract that is the marriage contract; they sign it; they go to the state’s representative with it; they present it; it gets stamped by the county recorder of vital statistics; voila, they are now married.

    This is just a small sample why our legal system can’t handle polygamous marriage.

    Oh, come on, man. That’s just not true. From a legal standpoint, this is a piece of cake. You sound like a bright guy stretching for a reason to deny that changing the definition of marriage to allow gay marriage is wayyyyyyyy different from changing it to accomodate other concepts of marriage.

    What you are really saying is that our culture has not approved of polygamy as a social institution, but you are loathe to argue that social approval of the institution of marriage is important because you fear that others can use that same argument against gay marriage.

    Further, all schemes I’ve seen that deal with polygamous marriage unfairly regulate women to a subservient role in marriage. I do not think there is a fair, workable solution to the problems of polygamous marriage. That is why I

    believe thee government is justified in not allowing polygamous marriages>That said if someone smarter than me can propose a fair, workable solution I would certainly be willing to consider it. However, until I actually see such a

    solution, then I believe the government is justified in denying polygamous marriages.

    Anthropologists might disagree with you. Women who are poor, women who are not smart, women who cannot provide for themselves well have done very well in some systems of polygamy. You seem to be saying women, adult women of age, are not capable of making up their own minds about whether or not they want to enter into such an arrangement and not capable of dissolving such an arrangement when they so chose. Funny. They used to say that about all women–that they needed a man to take care of them, that they couldn’t make good decisions about the big things in life, that they had to be protected by the men in their lives, that they would always be at risk unless men took care of them.

    You sound like those people who argue against gay marriage by saying that gays are flighty and unserious and incapable of being monogamous for any great length and time and that we need to protect them and society from themselves so you are arguing that women need to be protected from what you feel would be a risky choice.

    How do you feel about this as an argument against gay marriage (male, that is): “Oh, it’s highly unlikely that two men will ever last long in their monogamy–at least one of them will stray and do so fairly quickly, and often, and that will leave the other vulnerable. Also, many gay couples have an age difference and an economic difference that makes one partner more dependent and vulnerable than the other. Therefore, we should not allow gay male marriage.”

    A pretty weak argument, one that treats a gay male as a child. Same as your argument.

  188. barry# ~ Feb 19, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    Well, at least you tried Barry, but what you failed to do was actually address the myriad issues of polygamy. All you did was try to answer the few questions I gave, which where not intended to be a complete list of the problems of polygamy (I thought I was clear about that) . If you really want to fight for polygamous marriage, feel free. But I can tell you, the “solution” you gave won’t even come close to dealing with the legal problems it presents. In fact, your response indicates you don’t completely understand the issues regarding current marriages. And if you really want to discuss polygamy I will, but I don’t think you really care. I think you are just trying to belittle people who support gay marriage, because you don’t have any real response to the arguments in support of gay marriage.

    “What you are really saying is that our culture has not approved of polygamy as a social institution,”

    No what I’m saying is that the issues regarding gay marriage and polygamous marriage are very different. Please do not claim I said things I didn’t. If you are unsure of what I meant feel free to ask. I will be happy to clarify.

    “Anthropologists might disagree with you.”

    Really who? Which anthropologists claim women were better off under polygamous marriage than they are under today’s marriage system?

    “A pretty weak argument, one that treats a gay male as a child. Same as your argument.”

    No, my argument was about how women are treated unfairly in polygamous marriages I am aware of (ex: in the middle east, parts of africa, fundamentalist morman churches) and I would never support a type of marriage that re-regulates women to 2nd class status.

  189. Ooops – my apologies. Despite my earlier threat, I did not mean to repost Tim’s comments again. Apparently I cannot multitask 😉

  190. Barry,

    You are just setting up arbitrary milestones. In order for gay people to champion their own equality they have to ___________ (fill in the blank).

    No one is punting. No one is lacking credibility. Gay people need not solve Darfor or achieve world piece or address polygamy.

    We need only provide evidence that the discrimination against gay people is not founded in rational basis and therefor invalid.

  191. Interesting. Ann supports statutory rape and child sexual abuse of students by their teachers. Very interesting…

    Ann supports you and your family.

  192. Except the difference is I actually gave examples (and could give many more) of why polygamous marriage won’t work in our legal system and to date NO ONE has even attempted my challenge to present a fair, workable scheme for polygamous marriages. However, many (yourself included) have claimed without proof that it can be done.

    Ken,

    I cannot think of anything else (right now) that I can add of value to this thread. I do want to clarify something though that seems to have been missed or I could have done better in articulating,

    My entire point from the very beginning was this – if the current definition of marriage is to be changed to fit or accommodate gay couples, then it should be open for everyone else who, heretofore, does not fit the current eligibility requirements. Gay couples, in my opinion, are not superior to any other person who is desirous of marriage – everyone has the same right to present their case of discrimination just the same as gay people do. I am not suggesting that gay people do not have the right to get married – I am presenting the inconvenient fact that if an exception be made for gay people, then other people are going to want the same privilege, as they should, regardless if it is right or wrong according to you or anyone else. I, nor anyone else, have to justify my reasons to you, nor do you to me. Many, right now, think it is wrong for a gay couple to get married – you think it is wrong for a productive, loving polygamist family to be married, someone else thinks it is wrong for first cousins (think it was you) to marry, the judge put Mary Kay LeTourneau in jail while she was pregnant instead of letting her and her boyfriend get married. The point is not what is right or wrong, rather, the restrictive measures you are suggesting for others who are different from you. There lives might not fit your standards, however, that should not preclude them from having the same privilege of marriage as you would if the current definition is changed. How would them being married threaten you or your marriage? You need not elevate yourself above others to get what you deserve. No one has to come up with examples for you to opine on as to whether they fit your criteria for marriage. I think most people outside the current marriage definition have accepted the law and live their life anyway. Should that law change, the green light is on for them to make their case for marriage, lest they have a case for discrimination. The important thing to remember is they have the right to make that case.

  193. RE: polygamy and legal structure

    What is the legal relationship between A and B? If the husband dies is there any legal relationship between them?

    Under the present system of state-recognized marriage, that would depend on whether or not the trio (if there were three) entered into a marriage in which they had decided before the marriage that they were both married to only the same person or that all were married to all. (After all, bisexual attractions have to be accounted for. It could be that in a polygamous marriage we are dealing with not only opposite-sex consumations and but also bisexul ones.) That’s no biggie. It’s a choice made before the marriage. A check in a box. Signatures. the legal applications for this already exist in our body of laws. True, they don’t presently exist in the marriage contract but accomodating them is no big deal from a legal standpoint.

    Bottom line–a body of law in this country is already quite specific regarding partnerships and differing types of partnerships. The state could offer a form that provided choices of types–partners check it off, sign. That’s it. Upon death, upon divorce, the partners are held by that choice they made.

    Property settlements that occur because of divorce or death would be based on the agreements signed beforehand. If you want to do the simplest thing, in the case of a trio, if person A dies, his or her property would be divided among the other two spouses just as today in a mongamous relationship the property transfers to the one spouse unless there has been a pre-nup or is challegened by offspring or other relatives, and we all know the problems that pre-nups are intended to avoid.

    Ken, even in monogamous marriages, pre-nups are challenged and depending on the judge and the lawyers, pre-nups have been voided in courts, or amended by judges. In addition, in monogamous marriages, offspring are always challenging the line of inheritance that goes from marriage partner to spouse. The legal system already faces problems regarding the kinds of questions you pose.

    In short, even in our present two-person marriage system, in which the body of law is intended to transfer to the single spouse all property and wealth upon death (unless there is a pre-nup), challenges are allowed and decisions rendered which negate the initial transfer of property and wealth upon death.

    When it comes to divorce, there really is no such thing as easy divisions of wealth and property and child custody and visitation, even in a monogamous marriage. While many states give automatic joint custody in a legal sense, the actual practice of jointly sharing living arrangements with a child and jointly sharing decisions regarding that child don’t really exist. For most, joint custody is a meaningless term , a ” paper term.”

    What if the husband is incapacitated, who makes medical/legal decisions for him

    A or B? What if they disagree, who decides?

    Again, this could be agreed to before the final marriage doc is signed, but I fail to see how this is any different from the problems incurred in many monogamous arrangements. Think of all the times that two parents disagree about the medical treatment their child should receive. How does that work when a mom and a dad disagree about the treatment of a child? If they can’t reach a mutual decision, they go to court. How about when offspring challenge what parent A wants to do regarding the medical treatment of parent B? While the law states that the spouse has legal standing, all the offspring have to do is get a lawyer, fast. Again, we have a body of law that would apply no differently. Even in monogamous marriages, challenges occur all the time to the legal standing of a spouse regarding medical decisions.

    If the husband and A want a divorce does B have any legal standing to contest it?

    See above.

    If A does divorce, how much of the property is she entitled to? 1/2? 1/3? 1/4?

    And if you go beyond 3 people the problems get even worse.

    No it wouldn’t. See above. You could have a simple law saying 3 people divide it three ways, 4 divide it 4 ways–no different than saying 2 people divide it 2 ways as the law now states.

    If you want to be more accomodating, then you do what I said above–partners go to a lawyer; they draw up a contract that is the marriage contract; they sign it; they go to the state’s representative with it; they present it; it gets stamped by the county recorder of vital statistics; voila, they are now married.

    This is just a small sample why our legal system can’t handle polygamous marriage.

    Oh, come on, man. That’s just not true. From a legal standpoint, this is a piece of cake. You sound like a bright guy stretching for a reason to deny that changing the definition of marriage to allow gay marriage is wayyyyyyyy different from changing it to accomodate other concepts of marriage.

    What you are really saying is that our culture has not approved of polygamy as a social institution, but you are loathe to argue that social approval of the institution of marriage is important because you fear that others can use that same argument against gay marriage.

    Further, all schemes I’ve seen that deal with polygamous marriage unfairly regulate women to a subservient role in marriage. I do not think there is a fair, workable solution to the problems of polygamous marriage. That is why I

    believe thee government is justified in not allowing polygamous marriages>That said if someone smarter than me can propose a fair, workable solution I would certainly be willing to consider it. However, until I actually see such a

    solution, then I believe the government is justified in denying polygamous marriages.

    Anthropologists might disagree with you. Women who are poor, women who are not smart, women who cannot provide for themselves well have done very well in some systems of polygamy. You seem to be saying women, adult women of age, are not capable of making up their own minds about whether or not they want to enter into such an arrangement and not capable of dissolving such an arrangement when they so chose. Funny. They used to say that about all women–that they needed a man to take care of them, that they couldn’t make good decisions about the big things in life, that they had to be protected by the men in their lives, that they would always be at risk unless men took care of them.

    You sound like those people who argue against gay marriage by saying that gays are flighty and unserious and incapable of being monogamous for any great length and time and that we need to protect them and society from themselves so you are arguing that women need to be protected from what you feel would be a risky choice.

    How do you feel about this as an argument against gay marriage (male, that is): “Oh, it’s highly unlikely that two men will ever last long in their monogamy–at least one of them will stray and do so fairly quickly, and often, and that will leave the other vulnerable. Also, many gay couples have an age difference and an economic difference that makes one partner more dependent and vulnerable than the other. Therefore, we should not allow gay male marriage.”

    A pretty weak argument, one that treats a gay male as a child. Same as your argument.

  194. barry# ~ Feb 19, 2011 at 12:47 am

    “My point was that people COULD argue this–that these added complexities of gay marriage add legal challenges that seem to them just as insurmountable as Ken’s reservations about polygamous marriages and the legal challenges they present.”

    Except the difference is I actually gave examples (and could give many more) of why polygamous marriage won’t work in our legal system and to date NO ONE has even attempted my challenge to present a fair, workable scheme for polygamous marriages. However, many (yourself included) have claimed without proof that it can be done.

    And with regards to gay marriage, NO ONE has shown how the GENDER of the couple (m-f, m-m, f-f) would effect the legal system at all. Your arguments about child custody don’t apply because:

    a) custody and marriage are separate issues and the courts are already dealing with custody issues outside of marriage for gay and straight couples (and have been for years)

    b) all the the custody issues involving gays can (and sometimes have) been applied to straight couples. (i.e. the gender of the couple involved is irrelevant to the case).

  195. barry# ~ Feb 19, 2011 at 12:15 am

    “You were very obvious in avoiding even mentioning the multiple partner marriage scenario.”

    No, I’ve never avoided the polygamous marriage argument. In fact I have a file with the counter examples to polygamous marriage because I’ve argued it so many times (including previously in this blog). I don’t believe ANYONE should be allowed to marry (as Ann’s argument was trying to get me to agree to). However, the arguments why incestuous marriage shouldn’t be allowed are different from why polygamous marriages shouldn’t. So I couldn’t tell her WHY I disagreed without knowing WHO she was talking about.

    “Only when I specified it did you offer specific counter-arguments and none of those arguements addressed civil rights.”

    I wasn’t talking about civil rights. The issue in denying the right of marriage is whether or not there is a “compelling state interest.” I gave what I believe that justification is in the case of polygamy, none of which apply to gay marriage.

    Now the reason civil rights get brought up in gay rights issues (and not just marriage) is because in most of the cases I (and I suspect others) have seen is that the reasons people oppose gay rights tend to be based on animus and ignorance about gays, just as much of the opposition to the rights of minorities was based on animus and ignorance about minorities.

  196. According to her online CV she is a realtor in CA with a minor degree in English from some provincial college which did not teach her how to understand Shakespeare’s works.

    I see I need to come here to learn things about myself, like I was a realtor in California. Or that I give medical advice, unlicensed. Or that I am a minister. Debbie: The Missing Years.

    I do observe life. Always have. And I listen. I have encountered too many recurrent themes. But please. Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments. Go on with your entertaining prattle.

  197. Barry,

    FYi, I will keep reposting Tim’s wise words until you are able to successfully address them, which I’m guessing , sadly, will be never 🙂

  198. Barry,

    Tim is absolutely correct:

    Barry!

    You are just setting up arbitrary milestones. In order for gay people to champion their own equality they have to ___________ (fill in the blank).

    No one is punting. No one is lacking credibility. Gay people need not solve Darfor or achieve world piece or address polygamy.

    We need only provide evidence that the discrimination against gay people is not founded in rational basis and therefor invalid.

  199. Barry,

    1.) either that you really don’t understand what civil rights are and you use the term carelessly

    You apparently don’t really understand what civil rights are or you wouldn’t make th demands of African Americans that your logic seems to make.

    or

    2.) you really don’t believe the fight for marriage rights and the redefining of marriage ought to extend to anyone except gays marrying monogamously and you have used “civil right” not because you really believe it but because you think it carries some weight in arguing

    You seem to be so limited in your understanding of what other people are fighting for. I understand why, but its unfortunate. You don’t seem to think any minority group except gays should be the ones to carry the torch for all minority groups when it comes to gay marriage. You don’t think blacks should have done more or women should have done more, only that gay people somehow fail – LOL

    Anyone with a brain can see through your desperate attempts to discredit gay people Barry! But keep on keepinon – you are entertaining 🙂

  200. Barry,

    The definition of marriage and civil rights. That’s what you have been talking about. But in a display that shows you have a very self-centered, limited and , I guess, convenient view of “civil rights,” you said above,

    Oh Barry, I could say the same thing of you – LOL. You seem to have a very self-centered and limited and I guess convenient for your view of civil rights. That must make you feel better, right?

  201. Barry,

    Just a point of addition–the other reason slaves were not counted as men was because the powerful interests from the northern states didn’t want the southern states to have the extra representation in the House that counting slaves would result in. It wasn’t just personal beliefs that resulted in the lack of counting slaves as men, but a political one as well. Big surprise, huh, that politics played a big part ?

    LOL – I’m just having fun now, What does this have to do with gay marriage? Nothing actually, but Barry might try and make you believe it does – LOL

  202. Barry,

    By the way,

    I have no idea why you decided to block-quote all the verse you did above. Perhaps you could enlighten me 🙂

  203. Barry,

    You should probably pay more attention to Tim – something you don’t seem to be able to up until now:

    Barry!

    You are just setting up arbitrary milestones. In order for gay people to champion their own equality they have to ___________ (fill in the blank).

    No one is punting. No one is lacking credibility. Gay people need not solve Darfor or achieve world piece or address polygamy.

    We need only provide evidence that the discrimination against gay people is not founded in rational basis and therefor invalid.

  204. barry# ~ Feb 19, 2011 at 12:47 am

    “My point was that people COULD argue this–that these added complexities of gay marriage add legal challenges that seem to them just as insurmountable as Ken’s reservations about polygamous marriages and the legal challenges they present.”

    Except the difference is I actually gave examples (and could give many more) of why polygamous marriage won’t work in our legal system and to date NO ONE has even attempted my challenge to present a fair, workable scheme for polygamous marriages. However, many (yourself included) have claimed without proof that it can be done.

    And with regards to gay marriage, NO ONE has shown how the GENDER of the couple (m-f, m-m, f-f) would effect the legal system at all. Your arguments about child custody don’t apply because:

    a) custody and marriage are separate issues and the courts are already dealing with custody issues outside of marriage for gay and straight couples (and have been for years)

    b) all the the custody issues involving gays can (and sometimes have) been applied to straight couples. (i.e. the gender of the couple involved is irrelevant to the case).

  205. barry# ~ Feb 19, 2011 at 12:15 am

    “You were very obvious in avoiding even mentioning the multiple partner marriage scenario.”

    No, I’ve never avoided the polygamous marriage argument. In fact I have a file with the counter examples to polygamous marriage because I’ve argued it so many times (including previously in this blog). I don’t believe ANYONE should be allowed to marry (as Ann’s argument was trying to get me to agree to). However, the arguments why incestuous marriage shouldn’t be allowed are different from why polygamous marriages shouldn’t. So I couldn’t tell her WHY I disagreed without knowing WHO she was talking about.

    “Only when I specified it did you offer specific counter-arguments and none of those arguements addressed civil rights.”

    I wasn’t talking about civil rights. The issue in denying the right of marriage is whether or not there is a “compelling state interest.” I gave what I believe that justification is in the case of polygamy, none of which apply to gay marriage.

    Now the reason civil rights get brought up in gay rights issues (and not just marriage) is because in most of the cases I (and I suspect others) have seen is that the reasons people oppose gay rights tend to be based on animus and ignorance about gays, just as much of the opposition to the rights of minorities was based on animus and ignorance about minorities.

  206. Timothy said,

    Africans were not really men. They were childlike and ignorant, you see. Their relationships had higher levels of infidelity, so there was no need to recognize their marriages.

    Just a point of addition–the other reason slaves were not counted as men was because the powerful interests from the northern states didn’t want the southern states to have the extra representation in the House that counting slaves would result in. It wasn’t just personal beliefs that resulted in the lack of counting slaves as men, but a political one as well. Big surprise, huh, that politics played a big part ?

  207. According to her online CV she is a realtor in CA with a minor degree in English from some provincial college which did not teach her how to understand Shakespeare’s works.

    I see I need to come here to learn things about myself, like I was a realtor in California. Or that I give medical advice, unlicensed. Or that I am a minister. Debbie: The Missing Years.

    I do observe life. Always have. And I listen. I have encountered too many recurrent themes. But please. Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments. Go on with your entertaining prattle.

  208. Good Lord, Debbie, I see the reason for your comments now.

    Outsmarting Depression:

    Surviving the Crossfire of the Mental Health Wars

    by Debbie Thurman 12.95 (used for .78 cents)

    Outsmarting Depression examines the inherent weaknesses in the reigning medical paradigm for recognizing and treating the “common cold of mental illness” and offers strategies that work. This book will show you:

    • How to distinguish biological from emotional/spiritual depression

    • Why psychiatric drugs are not as effective as we are told they are

    • How to activate the mind?s and body?s unique healing system

    • How to avoid being caught between warring practitioners

    • What leading professionals really think about depression treatments

    God Bless America, where anyone can be an expert on anything. You would fit right in with Scientology on this one. With two Amazon reviews in 7 years, at least most people must be checking your credentials before taking medical advice from you.

  209. Jayhuck

    I’m trying to understand why you feel gay people are responsible for the emancipation of all minority groups, yet you don’t seem to lay that responsibility at the feat of civil rights pioneers before gay people. I simply don’t understand your point

    Of course you understand my point: that you, a person arguing passionately for the changing of the definition of marriage by using a CIVIL RIGHTS argument, is saying that civil rights are only supposed to be extended to people who fight for them.

    A civil right by definition, Jayhuck, is something that a person is born with, not something that is only extended to those who picket, who donate money to a cause, who lobby, who this, who that.

    So, using your argument, only those blacks who actually risked their lives should have been given voting protections.

    The definition of marriage and civil rights. That’s what you have been talking about. But in a display that shows you have a very self-centered, limited and , I guess, convenient view of “civil rights,” you said above,

    Each group traditionally takes care of its own.

    This means one of two things to me–

    1.) either that you really don’t understand what civil rights are and you use the term carelessly

    or

    2.) you really don’t believe the fight for marriage rights and the redefining of marriage ought to extend to anyone except gays marrying monogamously and you have used “civil right” not because you really believe it but because you think it carries some weight in arguing

    I just believe you can find a more consistent argument.

    I

  210. Depression is not always a disorder, either. It, too, is part of the fallen world. In that sense, we are all “disordered.” In seeking to medicate our useful pain away (not that it is all useful), we fail to learn what we ought to from it.

    I truly hope that no one ever takes you seriously enough that they end up driving into a concrete wall while enduring the depression you consider nothing more than a learning experience. I really wish you would hold back on this irresponsible talk. Rationalizing a painful experience in hindsight as a learning experience, or even sincerely believing it so in your own life, is a far cry from suggesting that one should leave depression untreated.

    I can only pray that you never convey these ideas to someone in a weakened state of mind who, God forbid, might seek your counsel. The “fallen state” excuse for everything bad is not particularly useful in the here and now. Even if true, what good is the knowledge when trying to heal the sick, or feed the hungry, or anything else of this nature? It’s a doctrine, not a substitute for learning the causes of disease, mental or otherwise, and providing relief.

    Again, your world view is just too skewed for rational discussion. You have your own rules which you assign to God. What can one do with that? And you have weaved not uncommon events in your life into a miraculous narrative. People do get over depression and female sexuality is at times quite fluid, yet to realize this would remove what seems to be a pillar of your faith. So not only is it important to you, but you imprint it on others. This does not reflect a search for the truth.

  211. Timothy, this is what I said to Ken

    So, I think your argument that homosexual marriage can be better handled by the legal system than other marriage arrangments is a non-starter. Opponents of gay marriage can make the same claim you just made–think of all the legal problems that are now about to arise over custody claims of offspring of gay marriages. There can never be biological children of both parents of a gay marriage. The law will have to deal with that and it’s likely the states will have differing practices (as they do now in awarding custody to heterosexual parents) only the problem will be complicated by the lack of biological parentage by both gay parents.

    I don’t think your argument about new laws helps your case at all.

    I said his argument that gay marriage could better be handled by the legal system than could other arrangements was weak, a non-starter. The history of judicial attitudes and practices regarding child custody is riddled with changes of course. It’s fair to say that same sex marriages involving custody battles offer the judge more complex choices than do hetero marriages, what with biological parents versus non-biological parent, what with surrogate parents and all.

    My point was that people COULD argue this–that these added complexities of gay marriage add legal challenges that seem to them just as insurmountable as Ken’s reservations about polygamous marriages and the legal challenges they present.

    Thus, in your response, you actually made my point better than I did –that if the legal system can adjust to one, it can be argued it can adjust to the other, and if it can’t adjust to one, it can be argued that it probably can’t adjust to another.

  212. Mrs Thurman is an entrepreneurial ‘minister’ who lacks any religious education or qualifications and who self-publishes her books. According to her online CV she is a realtor in CA with a minor degree in English from some provincial college which did not teach her how to understand Shakespeare’s works. She has taken it upon herself to pretend to be a psychologist. Her ‘ministry’ is all about praying away the gay. Is any of this surprising? The real question is why does she come here to post nonsense among men and women of real intelligence? BTW, I wonder the same about myself. But I’ve read some really informed and interesting comments here that have taught me what I did not know. Regan du Casse springs to mind. And though I have come to believe that there is no bridging the gap between American fundies and the real world I am open to read comments here from people of faith that I find interesting.

    Mrs. Thurman is the American version of Maazi. Cramped and sterile, inhuman and self-righteous. But that’s all right. She can be herself. She can think me a foolish fag engaged in an hominem attack on a virtuous ex-gay woman of faith. I don’t care.

    The battle lines are drawn. Not by us. All we want is a space to breathe. I won’t live in her world. But she is of the past. Her time is over, she lives in the afterglow. The world moves on. We are the future.

  213. Ken

    I didn’t punt. I simply refused to say marriage should be open to anyone at all. I recognize that the state does have some legitimate reasons for denying marriage. And when Ann (and you) finally named a specific group, I told you why I agree with the state in denying those marriages.

    You carried on a back and forth with Ann when she asked you what you’d do for others with different of marriage. You were very obvious in avoiding even mentioning the multiple partner marriage scenario. I believe it’s because you know you are being inconsistent here in your civil rights argument and so were trying to avoid addressing it .

    Only when I specified it did you offer specific counter-arguments and none of those arguements addressed civil rights.

    The definition of marriage has changed through out history.

    The definition of marriage has indeed varied depending on era and culture. Modern Western marriage has been opposite sex and monogamous (with some sub cultures trying to gain sanction for polygamy). One can never say with certainty that “x” hasn’t existed at some time and some place since pre-history is pretty unknowable and some very small and isolated cultures are not open to us (a tribe in the Amazon, for example) but it is fair to say that same-sex marriage is not among the models that diverse cultures have practiced. (This is, however, far from my original point and not either supportive or non-supportive of my point about civil rights and marriage.)

  214. I’ll be charitable and pretend that what you meant was that for you, you were looking for the perfect relationship, the one that will make life worth living but that you, of course, are not pretending to speak for the 15 million or so gay people who find life well worth living,

    I may have had the same kinds of fantasies others do, but I had chosen another path already. So, you are quite sure those 15 million gay people are that happy, eh?

  215. Comorbidity does not make two experiences analogous in any meaningful way.

    I merely observed that the two were often comorbid, not that comorbidity made them analogous. I believe homosexuality is one of the manifestations of our fallen nature and not a disorder. Depression is not always a disorder, either. It, too, is part of the fallen world. In that sense, we are all “disordered.” In seeking to medicate our useful pain away (not that it is all useful), we fail to learn what we ought to from it.

  216. People also get over same-sex attractions, David. I did. But you must go through all sorts of contortions to “prove” I didn’t.

    As you are the SOLE person I’ve interacted with who ever made this claim, let’s not pretend that we are discussing some significant percentage of same sex attracted persons. Let’s, for the sake of argument, say “a very small number of persons also have reported getting over same-sex attractions.”

    Which is interesting, but not much of a basis for public policy.

    For people with same-sex attractions, the “pill” is looking for that perfect relationship, the one that will make life worth living.

    What a colossal pile of steaming arrogance and presumption. I’ve seldom seen a statement with more contempt, self-righteousness, and hostility.

    I’ll be charitable and pretend that what you meant was that for you, you were looking for the perfect relationship, the one that will make life worth living but that you, of course, are not pretending to speak for the 15 million or so gay people who find life well worth living, including those millions who are delighting in their connubial bliss with the love of their lives.

    Do you realize how insulting it is for you to speak of my “idea of God”? As if I have invented some illusion of Him?

    I too know God. But I seldom recognize Him when you are discussing Him.

    We all see through a glass darkly, we all have our illusions of God, none of us know Him in his entirety. My understanding of God has changed so very very much from when I was a child. As I matured, I came to put away childish things – the things that bound God into a rigid box, that required that He assure me constantly that I was better than others, the necessity to be constantly told what was right and wrong, the need to believe that I was “the good child.”

    But I will never ever truly know God on this plane. it’s hard enough to truly know a human, a limited being, how could my puny mind wrap itself around divinity?

  217. Depression is not always a disorder, either. It, too, is part of the fallen world. In that sense, we are all “disordered.” In seeking to medicate our useful pain away (not that it is all useful), we fail to learn what we ought to from it.

    I truly hope that no one ever takes you seriously enough that they end up driving into a concrete wall while enduring the depression you consider nothing more than a learning experience. I really wish you would hold back on this irresponsible talk. Rationalizing a painful experience in hindsight as a learning experience, or even sincerely believing it so in your own life, is a far cry from suggesting that one should leave depression untreated.

    I can only pray that you never convey these ideas to someone in a weakened state of mind who, God forbid, might seek your counsel. The “fallen state” excuse for everything bad is not particularly useful in the here and now. Even if true, what good is the knowledge when trying to heal the sick, or feed the hungry, or anything else of this nature? It’s a doctrine, not a substitute for learning the causes of disease, mental or otherwise, and providing relief.

    Again, your world view is just too skewed for rational discussion. You have your own rules which you assign to God. What can one do with that? And you have weaved not uncommon events in your life into a miraculous narrative. People do get over depression and female sexuality is at times quite fluid, yet to realize this would remove what seems to be a pillar of your faith. So not only is it important to you, but you imprint it on others. This does not reflect a search for the truth.

  218. Timothy, this is what I said to Ken

    So, I think your argument that homosexual marriage can be better handled by the legal system than other marriage arrangments is a non-starter. Opponents of gay marriage can make the same claim you just made–think of all the legal problems that are now about to arise over custody claims of offspring of gay marriages. There can never be biological children of both parents of a gay marriage. The law will have to deal with that and it’s likely the states will have differing practices (as they do now in awarding custody to heterosexual parents) only the problem will be complicated by the lack of biological parentage by both gay parents.

    I don’t think your argument about new laws helps your case at all.

    I said his argument that gay marriage could better be handled by the legal system than could other arrangements was weak, a non-starter. The history of judicial attitudes and practices regarding child custody is riddled with changes of course. It’s fair to say that same sex marriages involving custody battles offer the judge more complex choices than do hetero marriages, what with biological parents versus non-biological parent, what with surrogate parents and all.

    My point was that people COULD argue this–that these added complexities of gay marriage add legal challenges that seem to them just as insurmountable as Ken’s reservations about polygamous marriages and the legal challenges they present.

    Thus, in your response, you actually made my point better than I did –that if the legal system can adjust to one, it can be argued it can adjust to the other, and if it can’t adjust to one, it can be argued that it probably can’t adjust to another.

  219. Ken

    I didn’t punt. I simply refused to say marriage should be open to anyone at all. I recognize that the state does have some legitimate reasons for denying marriage. And when Ann (and you) finally named a specific group, I told you why I agree with the state in denying those marriages.

    You carried on a back and forth with Ann when she asked you what you’d do for others with different of marriage. You were very obvious in avoiding even mentioning the multiple partner marriage scenario. I believe it’s because you know you are being inconsistent here in your civil rights argument and so were trying to avoid addressing it .

    Only when I specified it did you offer specific counter-arguments and none of those arguements addressed civil rights.

    The definition of marriage has changed through out history.

    The definition of marriage has indeed varied depending on era and culture. Modern Western marriage has been opposite sex and monogamous (with some sub cultures trying to gain sanction for polygamy). One can never say with certainty that “x” hasn’t existed at some time and some place since pre-history is pretty unknowable and some very small and isolated cultures are not open to us (a tribe in the Amazon, for example) but it is fair to say that same-sex marriage is not among the models that diverse cultures have practiced. (This is, however, far from my original point and not either supportive or non-supportive of my point about civil rights and marriage.)

  220. It’s not an insult to speak of our “idea” of God. That’s all we can claim to have –our own relationship, our own experience, our own idea of God as He reveals himself in our lives. We may be wrong in our understanding of Him and, if we let it, our faith tends to develop as we live. Faith is dynamic. The “idea” changes. Our understanding changes. God does not.

  221. Debbie,

    Do you realize how insulting it is for you to speak of my “idea of God”? As if I have invented some illusion of Him? He is not “my God.” He is God, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. I am created in His image, not the other way around.

    I really do apologize if I was insulting. I am created in his image as well, we all are, and I agree with all of your statement above. It just seems, at times, that we understand God differently, not that he changes.

  222. I’m sorry Debbie, but your world view clashes too much with reality for me to be able to take you seriously. Where it and the facts diverge, you simply plug in God and expect everyone else to accept that. I don’t see how that does a service to anyone.

  223. I’ll be charitable and pretend that what you meant was that for you, you were looking for the perfect relationship, the one that will make life worth living but that you, of course, are not pretending to speak for the 15 million or so gay people who find life well worth living,

    I may have had the same kinds of fantasies others do, but I had chosen another path already. So, you are quite sure those 15 million gay people are that happy, eh?

  224. Comorbidity does not make two experiences analogous in any meaningful way. One may be attracted to the same sex and have the flu at the same time, but one would not develop a meaningful analogy from this observation.

    Debbie, you want to consider SSA to be a disorder of some kind but that is not how it manifests or is experienced by the majority of people who experience it. I recognize that it was all jumbled up for you but it is not the same for most others.

    Personal experience aside, basic attractions for most people are independent of disease processes. Straight people get depressed and have the flu and so do people who are basically attracted to the same sex.

  225. Male sexual attractions are much more enduring and do not alter much with mood (go back and forth between SS and OS), they don’t remit and then return. They are not debilitating on the whole, and generally they are because the person has religious objections or social stigma to contend with. Male sexual attractions have not responded to much of any kind of intervention or change in religious views. Behavioral control is possible but let’s please be clear about what that change is.

    Very well said! Depression is an illness and is always deibilitating. Treatment for depression is often very effective and has strong scientific support — unlike Sexual Orientation Change Efforts. Homosexuality is not an illness and gay love is not a “pill” — even though Debbie seems concvinced that it is. Perhaps it was for her. She should not make generalizations about how others experience it.

  226. “Over-socialized homosexuality”? What the heck is that?

    We have made it the social cause celebre. It has been idealized, romanticized.

  227. Sexual attractions and depression are not analogous experiences. I recognize that you believe they are or at least were for you. But in 30 years of clinical experience dealing mostly with depression and then in the last 13 years more extensively with sexual identity conflicts, I don’t see an analogy.

    Not only can they be analogous experiences, but sometimes they are comorbid. We have “over-medicalized” depression and “over-socialized” homosexuality. I don’t believe either was ever meant to be a normal way of life.

  228. Ken,

    When a guy like MLK argued for civil rights, did you think he confined himself to the rights of blacks only?”

    With all due respect, that was not my point, nor is that what I was trying to say. Just reread my above post to Barry! Hopefully it will make sense, although I wander at times 🙂

  229. Sexual attractions and depression are not analogous experiences. I recognize that you believe they are or at least were for you. But in 30 years of clinical experience dealing mostly with depression and then in the last 13 years more extensively with sexual identity conflicts, I don’t see an analogy.

    Depression is always debilitating and fluctuates episodically. For most people, it does respond to medication and/or therapy. The minority don’t get a good response and those can have negative reactions to meds or therapy. Some never remit at all, however, most do.

    Male sexual attractions are much more enduring and do not alter much with mood (go back and forth between SS and OS), they don’t remit and then return. They are not debilitating on the whole, and generally they are because the person has religious objections or social stigma to contend with. Male sexual attractions have not responded to much of any kind of intervention or change in religious views. Behavioral control is possible but let’s please be clear about what that change is.

    For women, context seems to matter more. Some women do experience fluctuations in attractions but do not of necessity find these fluctuations traumatic. Confusing maybe, but not necessarily bad. Women also seem more responsive on average to their deep emotional attachments. These women may change more easily. However, one may not reliably extrapolate from the experience of one woman to all other women and certainly not to men.

  230. What are you saying? That all gay people are looking for a perfect relationship that they can never find? That’s bull! I lived happily as a single person for 10 years, not looking for a relationship. Rather, the perfect, human, relationship found me. I didn’t give up my relationship with God, or Christ, when I entered into that relationship. Of course God is in the equation, for all people, just maybe not your idea of God.

    Some people successfully medicate their depression, and move beyond it, and even the need for medication. Some people find happy gay relationships. Some don’t. Not everybody is looking for their own “nirvana.”

    Do you realize how insulting it is for you to speak of my “idea of God”? As if I have invented some illusion of Him? He is not “my God.” He is God, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. I am created in His image, not the other way around.

  231. They are laying low until the gay marriage battle is won, or so the founders of the Unitarian Universalists’ Polyamory movement told Bi magazine back in 2003. Meanwhile, they still have annual conventions.

    Which is fine. They would, and should, have their day in court although I’m sure they would eventually whether or not gay people were part of the picture.

  232. Debbie,

    I don’t know that any of us have to go through any “contortions” to prove you got “over same sex attractions”. The problem is, what does it mean that you got over this? There are hundreds of answers to that question.

    For people with same-sex attractions, the “pill” is looking for that perfect relationship, the one that will make life worth living. The only perfect relationship in the universe is the one with Christ awaiting us. We don’t have to go turning over stones looking for it.

    God is very much in the equation. Support from other people is, as well, along with a person’s self-determination. When somebody wants something as badly as they need the next breath of air, they unleash forces that are beyond their understanding.

    What are you saying? That all gay people are looking for a perfect relationship that they can never find? That’s bull! I lived happily as a single person for 10 years, not looking for a relationship. Rather, the perfect, human, relationship found me. I didn’t give up my relationship with God, or Christ, when I entered into that relationship. Of course God is in the equation, for all people, just maybe not your idea of God.

  233. Debbie,

    I don’t know that any of us have to go through any “contortions” to prove you got “over same sex attractions”. The problem is, what does it mean that you got over this? There are hundreds of answers to that question.

    For people with same-sex attractions, the “pill” is looking for that perfect relationship, the one that will make life worth living. The only perfect relationship in the universe is the one with Christ awaiting us. We don’t have to go turning over stones looking for it.

    God is very much in the equation. Support from other people is, as well, along with a person’s self-determination. When somebody wants something as badly as they need the next breath of air, they unleash forces that are beyond their understanding.

  234. People do get over depressive episodes, Debbie. If you want to attribute this to God, have at it.

    People also get over same-sex attractions, David. I did. But you must go through all sorts of contortions to “prove” I didn’t.

    Both good and bad have come from the depression public awareness campaign. Yes, people have learned not to suffer in silence. Lives have no doubt been saved. Mine was one of them. But the downside is people have become convinced that some magic pill is going to be their answer. And with all those medications, more and more people are depressed. I have watched too many languish in a drug stupor, gaining weight and acquiring all those attendant health problems, and losing their will to do anything but pop that pill to deal with their problems.

    For people with same-sex attractions, the “pill” is looking for that perfect relationship, the one that will make life worth living. The only perfect relationship in the universe is the one with Christ awaiting us. We don’t have to go turning over stones looking for it.

    God is very much in the equation. Support from other people is, as well, along with a person’s self-determination. When somebody wants something as badly as they need the next breath of air, they unleash forces that are beyond their understanding.

  235. barry# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    “ONe last concise statement to Ken and Jayhuck–

    When a guy like MLK argued for civil rights, did you think he confined himself to the rights of blacks only?”

    No I don’t. and neither do I.

    “Gee, seems to me I heard him talk about a lot of groups.”

    As do I. I believe the requirement that the government have a valid justification (“compelling state interest”) in order to deny rights applies to everyone.

    To be clear, I’m not claiming to be in the same league as MLK, just pointing out Barry has been making quite a few incorrect assumptions about me.

  236. barry# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    “The point I was making to Ken is simple–he has argued that not allowing gays to marry is a violation of civil rights and when she asked him about other people who want the definition of marriage to accomodate their needs and desires, he punted.”

    I didn’t punt. I simply refused to say marriage should be open to anyone at all. I recognize that the state does have some legitimate reasons for denying marriage. And when Ann (and you) finally named a specific group, I told you why I agree with the state in denying those marriages.

    “I mean this: people who are genuinely concerned that their fellow citizens’ civil rights are being violated do not limit their activism or just their comments on a blog, to their own.”

    And I don’t (btw, you have no idea what “my own” is). If you were to read ALL my comments here (and in other places) you will find I have supported the rights of muslims (and other non-christians in the US), immigrants, racial minorities and others.

    “yet faced with the opportunity to argue your principle for all people, you ignore them?”

    I wasn’t ignoring anyone. I believe the principles should apply to everyone. Perhaps you missed this from my original counter argument on polygamy:

    That said if someone smarter than me can propose a fair, workable solution I would certainly be willing to consider it.

    “if you really believed this was a civil rights argument, and if you really had given it serious thought, and weren’t being hypocritical, you’d be arguing for doing away with marriage as a state or federal issue as others have suggested. You’d be arguing for all marriages to be private and not in need of federal or state sanctions. ”

    Marriages ARE personal contracts, recognized by the government with a variety of rights, benefits, and responsibilities. And it is a civil rights argument because the government is DENYING the right of marriage to a group without just cause.

    “I am saying you have a serious credibility problem when you say you are only fighting for civil rights when you obviously are avoiding doing the same for others. It hurts your cause.’

    Again, what others?

  237. As I noted before, plural relationships are a lot more complicated. Even if allowed, I’m not sure how many people will actually want to enter into them. And the various practical questions will need to be figured out (do all spouses need to consent? how is divorce handled? is there a limit on spouses? what is it? is that limit based off one’s ability to financially support a family of that size? etc, etc) before it could be realistically enacted.

  238. And, BTW, that article was from 2004… they aren’t exactly clamoring very loudly or consistently

    They are laying low until the gay marriage battle is won, or so the founders of the Unitarian Universalists’ Polyamory movement told Bi magazine back in 2003. Meanwhile, they still have annual conventions.

  239. I have often gone back to my own life experiences. It is clear, from looking at my family history, that I have a genetic predisposition to depression. I know God did not expect me to embrace that as my identity. I languished in it for a decade, however. The world has acted as an enabler toward the depressive. Depression is “the common cold of mental illness.” That leads us to reckon we’ll all have it at some point. The pharmaceutical industry develops and markets more drugs aimed at it than any other illness. Some to counter side effects of others. It has become accepted as a “brain disease” that one may well have for life. After many, many major depressive episodes, I walked away from depression. Since 1991, I’ve had none.

    I would rather have a tooth filled as to comment again but I think it important to point out the negative effect this claptrap could have if you keep repeating it. I’m not sure I understand your need to relate everything in your life to God. Some seem to have faith based on all sorts of magical things they can relate as proof of God’s existence, like saying you “walked away from depression.” What the heck does that even mean?

    People do get over depressive episodes, Debbie. If you want to attribute this to God, have at it. But to belittle the facts concerning depressive disorder and ridicule the use of medications by those who suffer from it is simply irresponsible. And please don’t exclaim that you did not do that.

    There was a time when people suffering from depression suffered in silence (even now, some still do), not understanding what was going on. Some, many even, took their own lives because there was nothing available for them. This has changed greatly because we now understand the disorder better and how it works. That has led to medications which save lives. People are encouraged to seek help and awareness of the problem is countering misinformation. Yet you mock that same push for awareness. Should we just tell them all to “pray the depression away?” Is that your point?

    You could simply have said that you used to suffer from depression, that you realize it is understood much better than it once was, and thank God you don’t suffer from it any longer. It’s a horrible thing and no one should have to live with that. Wouldn’t that have been a lot more responsible — and honest?

  240. If the polyamorists want some legal love, more power to them 🙂 They should fight for it. Goodness knows they have the backing of the Bible on their side.

  241. barry# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    “You see, it’s your particular point of bias that says our legal framework ” cannot handle polygamy.” As the laws are now written, yes, but new social orders (polygamy, homosexual marriage) would have new laws written to deal with legal issues that would arise from them. ”

    What “new laws” would need to be written to support gay marriage (other than changes in the forms (i.e. removing references to gender)? What legal impediments are there to gay marriage (i.e. what legal issues would arise from gay marriage?)

    “Opponents of gay marriage can make the same claim you just made–think of all the legal problems that are now about to arise over custody claims of offspring of gay marriages”

    And how are these claims any different that the custody claims of straight married couples for whom only one (or neither) parent is the biological parent of the children?

    Further, the courts are already dealing with custody issues and gay parents.

    Custody issues and marriage issues are 2 separate things.

    Here is a challenge for you, find me any legal issue (such as I did with polygamous marriages) that arises from gay marriage that our current legal system cannot handle (or that I can’t show applies to straight marriage as well).

    “The bottom line remains the same–changing a definition that has historical weight for all of recorded history (let us not forget also that polygamy has common historical weight as a social institution as well, while homosexual marriage does not) is tantamount to inviting all kinds of changes to the concept/definition.”

    Which definition are you referring to? one man and one woman? one man and one woman of the same race? one white man and one white woman? one man and many women?

    The definition of marriage has changed through out history.

    “Your civil rights argument may (or may not, I am not a constitutional expert) be your strongest argument, but if you argue that, then you have to argue it for others as well.”

    Again what others? I explained why I think the government is justified in denying polygamous marriages (none of which apply to 2 person – gay or straight – marriages). You didn’t address a single one of the issues I raised (merely make an unsubstantiated claim that they could be solved).

  242. Jon T

    Do they want the assistance of GLBT supporters?

    As they’re almost inevitably fundamentalist Mormons the answer would be no.

    In the US, polygamy is a RELIGIOUS form of marriage based on the OT. It has nothing to do with a civil marriage between two men or two women. This nonsense invariably comes up to smear us with being intolerant or hypocritical. It also usually ends up with a man and a dog on a slippery slope.

    The Wyoming senate just made clear the unreasoning animus against gay men and women by voting to block any recognition of a legal marriage or civil union entered into in any other state or country. They tacked on an amendment giving civil unions access to the courts. One more state I won’t visit again.

  243. Tim, Barry, et al

    No one is punting. No one is lacking credibility. Gay people need not solve Darfor or achieve world piece or address polygamy.

    We need only provide evidence that the discrimination against gay people is not founded in rational basis and therefor invalid.

    Thank you Tim! Very well put.

  244. I’m curious. Have polygamous marriage advocates been reaching out to gay marriage organizations like One Iowa or One Colorado or Lambda Legal or even just the ACLU seeking partnerships with those organizations?

    Are there any active plural marriage lawsuits and lobbyist out there? I’m serious. What’s the status of this group’s efforts? Do they want the assistance of GLBT supporters?

  245. Tim,

    You are correct, Coretta Scott King, the wife of Martin Luther King Jr was very much supportive of gay rights. A fact I never get tired of repeating 🙂 Thank you for reminding me.

    Honestly, my point though isn’t that there were no blacks who supported gay rights, rather that Barry is being hypocritical in what he demands of gay people as opposed to groups who went before.

  246. barry,

    You are just setting up arbitrary milestones. In order for gay people to champion their own equality they have to ___________ (fill in the blank).

    No one is punting. No one is lacking credibility. Gay people need not solve Darfor or achieve world piece or address polygamy.

    We need only provide evidence that the discrimination against gay people is not founded in rational basis and therefor invalid.

  247. Barry,

    I think your credibility is the one lacking here. Black people most did definitely focus on their own to a large extent. If your talking about non-black supporters for civil rights for blacks, that is another matter. You said:

    It’s pretty simple to attack your position .Americans of all colors and all races and all religions fough tin the civil rights movement of the 60s. Remember the white boys killed in Mississippi as just one notorious example? Ever see the mass demonstrations, the arrests? See the non-black faces? See the non-Baptists? Jewish people were very much involved in that movement. Heck, go back to the Underground railroad. Why even go into this? It’s safe to say that African Americans and other minorities might still be in the post-Civil War era w/out the aid of many others different from them.

    Its equally easy to attack yours. Take away the word black and colored and replace them with gay and you have the present day gay rights movement. see the non-gay faces at marches and demonstrations for gay people? See the non-Gay people, the Jewish people are very much involved in gay rights, as are Christians, Muslims, black people, people of Spanish descent, etc all involved in supporting their gay neighbor and working to help them attain equal rights.

    What you did was try to confuse the issue.

    So, it looks and sounds really bad of you, very hypocritical, to sugget that blacks were responsible for getting their own civil rights. That would mean all citizens had no responsiblity for insuring the rights of others. Yet, that’s the very thing that angers you about married straights-they have theirs and don’t care about you.

    Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said that blacks were reponsible for getting their own civil rights, I’m saying you don’t ask of black people what you are asking of gay people. You ask gay people to support polygamy, why aren’t you critical of black people for bringing gays aboard during their march for civil rights? Why not be critical of women working for their civil rights, specifically their right to vote, and not including blacks? Honestly, I’m sure some blacks did feel that gays deserved equal rights and I’m sure some suffragists believed that blacks deserved equal rights, but that’s not my point.

    You said gay people should not just be fighting for themselves, unlike African Americans did in the 60’s, and instead embrace all minority groups. Its not fair or decent of you to apply this to gay people and not apply it to so many other groups who have gone before gay people.

  248. Otherwise they wouldn’t use such belabored and mangled terms as “reclaiming what was rightfully theirs in the beginning.” They could just use “straight.”

  249. Are you saying that blacks should have been arguing for equal rights for gay people when they sought civil rights?

    Interestingly… some did see the fight as the same. Mildred Loving, for example, spoke out for same-sex marriage, as does Coretta Scott King (who says that her husband would be a gay rights supporter if alive today). Perhaps those who actually fought in the trenches against bigotry are a bit more adept at recognizing it than are those who claim their heritage but never fought for it.

  250. Debbie,

    Some poets and artists do.

    I’m not clear what you seem to be suggesting here. Are poets and artists poets and artists because they are depressed? Are they depressed because they are poets and artists? Or, is it simply possible, that art is one way of expressing one’s feeling, whether it be through music, or dance or poetry or painting?

  251. ONe last concise statement to Ken and Jayhuck–

    When a guy like MLK argued for civil rights, did you think he confined himself to the rights of blacks only?

    Gee, seems to me I heard him talk about a lot of groups.

  252. barry

    As the laws are now written, yes, but new social orders (polygamy, homosexual marriage) would have new laws written to deal with legal issues that would arise from them.

    So, I think your argument that homosexual marriage can be better handled by the legal system than other marriage arrangments is a non-starter.

    This is not actually a matter of speculation. Rather it is a matter of observation. Same-sex marriage exists in 12 nations and in the US in 5 states and DC. We need not guess.

    So far, there has been no need for peculiar legal structuring, but rather simply the application of current law to all married couples.

    think of all the legal problems that are now about to arise over custody claims of offspring of gay marriages.

    Courts have already address this issue. Parents have equal legal standing, just as they do in heterosexual cases. The interest of the child is given priority.

    Imagining scary possibilities ceases to be convincing in the light of increasingly common real life situation.

  253. To Jayhuck

    What is your point here?

    The point I was making to Ken is simple–he has argued that not allowing gays to marry is a violation of civil rights and when she asked him about other people who want the definition of marriage to accomodate their needs and desires, he punted.

    You are parroting what he said when you say,

    Each group traditionally takes care of its own. If polygamists want and are able to make a solid argument for polygamy then they are free to do this, but please don’t lay the responsibility for this in the laps of gay people who are merely arguing for their own, in the same way blacks did and do.

    You sound as suspect as he does. That hurts your credibility and lacking credibility hurts all your arguments is all I’m saying.

    I mean this: people who are genuinely concerned that their fellow citizens’ civil rights are being violated do not limit their activism or just their comments on a blog, to their own. If they truly believe civil rights are being violated, they don’t just argue for their own.

    You don’t find it ironic and not the least bit suspect that the two of you are criticizing a law for being “discriminatory” and restrictive, yet faced with the opportunity to argue your principle for all people, you ignore them? You should be arguing for the changing of the definition of marriage by saying that anyone of legal age ought to be able to go to a lawyer and arrange a marriage with a contract.

    if you really believed this was a civil rights argument, and if you really had given it serious thought, and weren’t being hypocritical, you’d be arguing for doing away with marriage as a state or federal issue as others have suggested. You’d be arguing for all marriages to be private and not in need of federal or state sanctions. They’d be personal contracts the way all other contracts are and they’d be drawn up the way all other contracts are–by legal experts and those involved, whether those involved are two straights, two gays, or multiple combos.

    It’s pretty simple to attack your position .Americans of all colors and all races and all religions fough tin the civil rights movement of the 60s. Remember the white boys killed in Mississippi as just one notorious example? Ever see the mass demonstrations, the arrests? See the non-black faces? See the non-Baptists? Jewish people were very much involved in that movement. Heck, go back to the Underground railroad. Why even go into this? It’s safe to say that African Americans and other minorities might still be in the post-Civil War era w/out the aid of many others different from them.

    You know that civil rights movements of all types heavily involve people who are not part of the group that is being discriminated against. You know that straights in NYC and LA are largely responsible for the advances in gay liberation. Without the work of straights on your side, you’d (not maybe you specifically, but many gays) would still be in the closet most likely.

    I am sure you are grateful for their help and their collaboration in gaining your civil rights.

    I am saying you have a serious credibility problem when you say you are only fighting for civil rights when you obviously are avoiding doing the same for others. It hurts your cause.

    In the short term it certainly will hurt your personal cause to admit that changing and broadening the defintion of marriage will have to accomodate those who have even another definition, but in the long term, at least you will have been sincere and honest. In the long term, you have to ask yourself if you really do want to deal with the consequences of the first step in broadening the definition of marriage, because if that does happen, you will be happy, but your happiness will be short-lived (maybe, I don’t know your views on polygamy or other forms of marriage) if you find out down the road that some judge somewhere broadens the term to the point you yourself do not like it.

    So, it looks and sounds really bad of you, very hypocritical, to sugget that blacks were responsible for getting their own civil rights. That would mean all citizens had no responsiblity for insuring the rights of others. Yet, that’s the very thing that angers you about married straights-they have theirs and don’t care about you.

    In short-you don’t sound like someone who is serious about the issue of civil rights.

    I think that in order to make your argument and remain true to what you say is your real concern-civil rights, fairness–you should argue that ” marriage” be privatized. Any other argument leaves you looking foolish in claiming concern for rights.

  254. Who in their right mind would build an identity based on the fact that they are depressed? Being depressed is a psychologically harmful condition that can be treated with therapy and medication. I mean, I guess you can choose to take pride in anything – but depression interferes with one’s life no matter what.

    Some poets and artists do.

    People can choose not to say they’re gay; they can abstain from sexual activity; they can make themselves numb to the point of losing all attraction to anybody – but they can’t switch their core orientation to heterosexuality

    .

    Maybe they can and maybe they can’t. Or maybe they are merely reclaiming what was rightfully theirs in the beginning.

  255. (and, by the way, I did notice that you made a broad swipe at ALL gay people but only a subset of non-gay people)

    Gee, make it the whole hetero community, then. I only meant to point out the hypocrisy in those most vocally opposed to gay marriage. And I was implying that that subset of the gay community was also involved in the marriage debate. That’s all.

  256. I have often gone back to my own life experiences. It is clear, from looking at my family history, that I have a genetic predisposition to depression. I know God did not expect me to embrace that as my identity.

    Who in their right mind would build an identity based on the fact that they are depressed? Being depressed is a psychologically harmful condition that can be treated with therapy and medication. I mean, I guess you can choose to take pride in anything – but depression interferes with one’s life no matter what.

    homosexuality is a naturally occurring sexual variation that encompasses a very core part of humanity – romantic and sexual attraction. The only way it is “interference” in any way is if people hate the fact that they possess this trait. otherwise, it’s not a problem.

    People can choose not to say they’re gay; they can abstain from sexual activity; they can make themselves numb to the point of losing all attraction to anybody – but they can’t switch their core orientation to heterosexuality. It’s even an open secret among ex-gay circles. Otherwise they wouldn’t use such belabored and mangled terms as “Christian on a post-gay journey.” They could just use “straight.”

  257. How about we just legalize Lesbian marriage? Female-female couplings are the most monogamous and least STD-risky/ridden couplings. People claim men “need” a woman to “hold him back” from being adulterous, but women are good enough on their own.

    Plus, men aren’t threatened by the idea and are indeed many times “turned on” by it. And with two women involved, the doubled maternal instinct would surely help with raising young ones!

    Let’s see: Lesbian marriage would bring with it

    – monogamy, to the point of stereotype (“first date U-Haul” jokes, anyone?)

    – very low STD transmission rate

    – double the maternal instinct.

  258. Ann, though you may not intend to, in this posting you present gay people as though they are teenagers disagreeing with Mom and Dad and throwing fits when they don’t get their way. But “Yeah but they get to get married, you’re no fair, I hate you” is not our position. Gay people are not childlike, incapable of integrating rational thought.

    Timothy,

    It is interesting that you perceived it this way, especially, with all your own additional comments and examples. I kind of thought you weren’t going to do that anymore. Sometimes I think you see things cynically rather than how it really is.

    Everyone,

    I think I have said just about everything that I thought was important to share, especially my concerns about the nuances of this topic. Thank you for all your responses. I will be hoping for the best for the institution of marriage.

  259. I do find this an interesting tactic though. When all other arguments against gay marriage fail, talk about what “might be” if other marriages are allowed.

  260. Barry,

    Are you saying that blacks should have been arguing for equal rights for gay people when they sought civil rights? Should the people who wanted to change the definition of marriage to include interracial couples have argued for gay marriage? I’m trying to understand why you feel gay people are responsible for the emancipation of all minority groups, yet you don’t seem to lay that responsibility at the feat of civil rights pioneers before gay people. I simply don’t understand your point

  261. Barry,

    The bottom line remains the same–changing a definition that has historical weight for all of recorded history (let us not forget also that polygamy has common historical weight as a social institution as well, while homosexual marriage does not) is tantamount to inviting all kinds of changes to the concept/definition.

    What is your point here? Each group traditionally takes care of its own. If polygamists want and are able to make a solid argument for polygamy then they are free to do this, but please don’t lay the responsibility for this in the laps of gay people who are merely arguing for their own, in the same way blacks did and do.

    Change is not a bad thing. Marriage, its meaning and purpose, has changed greatly throughout time. The definition of marriage has never been static, There actually is evidence for gay marriage in the distant past mind you, but that should be for another thread.

  262. Ann# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    “The justification will be that other exceptions were made so why can’t the same be done for them. I am not suggesting exceptions should or should not be made, my point is what will happen when and if they are made. ”

    If these “others” can show that state has no justification (“compelling state interest”) then they should be allowed to marry.

    “How do the states decide the eligibility requirements for marriage? ”

    By only restricting marriage for whom the State has a good reason to do so.

    Do you believe the SCOTUS was wrong in the Loving v. Virginia ruling?

    If not, then why is “others might feel discriminated against” a valid reason to deny gay marriage but not inter-racial marriage?

  263. from Ken–

    Our legal framework cannot handle polygamy. Nor do I think it is capable of

    it. Lets take the simplest example of one man with 2 wives (A and B):

    You see, it’s your particular point of bias that says our legal framework ” cannot handle polygamy.” As the laws are now written, yes, but new social orders (polygamy, homosexual marriage) would have new laws written to deal with legal issues that would arise from them. That the way things work. Changes in the social order= changes in the laws.

    For example, when divorce became easier in the different states, the laws about custody changed. Most states grant joint custody. That has had social consequences that weren’t intended in that many kids spend one week or month living with one parent followed by the same time period with the other parents. Even when the parents live in different towns. So, laws will be made which address the social changes. Of course, often the new laws do indeed create new problems. I, for one, do not think people understood when joint custody became common, that judges would allow for such crazy circumstances that allow for the circumstance I describe above where kids go from parent to parent like a ping pong ball, missing school and the like.

    So, I think your argument that homosexual marriage can be better handled by the legal system than other marriage arrangments is a non-starter. Opponents of gay marriage can make the same claim you just made–think of all the legal problems that are now about to arise over custody claims of offspring of gay marriages. There can never be biological children of both parents of a gay marriage. The law will have to deal with that and it’s likely the states will have differing practices (as they do now in awarding custody to heterosexual parents) only the problem will be complicated by the lack of biological parentage by both gay parents.

    I don’t think your argument about new laws helps your case at all.

    The bottom line remains the same–changing a definition that has historical weight for all of recorded history (let us not forget also that polygamy has common historical weight as a social institution as well, while homosexual marriage does not) is tantamount to inviting all kinds of changes to the concept/definition.

    Your argument about legal issues that will arise leaves your position open up to the same argument.

    Your civil rights argument may (or may not, I am not a constitutional expert) be your strongest argument, but if you argue that, then you have to argue it for others as well.

  264. Whatever the state says their reasons for exclusion are, it will be met with those that are being excluded feeling discriminated against, just like gay people do now.

    Ann, though you may not intend to, in this posting you present gay people as though they are teenagers disagreeing with Mom and Dad and throwing fits when they don’t get their way. But “Yeah but they get to get married, you’re no fair, I hate you” is not our position. Gay people are not childlike, incapable of integrating rational thought.

    When the states present their arguments for excluding gay people from the laws that govern citizens, we counter by proving such arguments to be false or based in animus. We don’t whine that we feel discriminated against, we prove that such discrimination is in evidence and that it is without rational basis.

    And if, indeed, truly rational arguments convinced us that marriage equality would cause great social harm, I can state with certainty that gay people would abandon that cause immediately. This is our society as well and we are not so selfish or foolish as to destroy it. We’ve just seen nothing at all that supports the fears of those who make predictions of dire consequences.

    How do the states decide the eligibility requirements for marriage?

    Actually the states decide the ineligibility requirements (check out the way that the laws are written). The presumption is that all marriages are legitimate unless otherwise excluded.

    The sole question – the only valid question – is whether the exclusion is fair, reasonable, necessary, and not based in animus. We argue that in the case of same-sex couples, the exclusion is neither fair, reasonable, or necessary and is to a large extent based in animus.

    Others who are excluded can state their own legal position, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with us.

    As for your other proposals about divorce, each is worthy of consideration. But they do not address the question as to whether laws that exclude gay persons from equal access are rationally defensible.

  265. Debbie Thurman# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    “Is it or ought it to be a self-evident truth? Is marriage equality “written on our hearts”?”

    I have no idea, nor do I care about what is “written on our hearts.” Many “self-evident” things turned out to not be true. My interests in this matter are in regards to rights and fairness.

    #

    Debbie Thurman# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    ” “And who here has ever used “inborn immutability” as an argument for supporting gay marriage?”

    I’ve lost count.”

    I wasn’t asking for a count, but actual NAMES (and it doesn’t have to be all of them a couple will do). I’ve been following this blog for a while and I have yet to see anyone use “inborn immutability” as an argument for supporting gay marriage.

  266. Rather than going around about fidelity in gay relationships (marriage or no), perhaps we can at least agree that there is a troubling undercurrent in the gay community, the same as there is a troubling undercurrent among those organized to uphold traditional marriage, to wit, their tendency toward infidelity and weak marriages themselves.

    No. Why on earth would I agree with that?

    I have no evidence that being gay or being an anti-gay activist correlates with infidelity or weak marriages. And I’ll not make such broad assumptions.

    (and, by the way, I did notice that you made a broad swipe at ALL gay people but only a subset of non-gay people)

  267. Gay people – or at least those here – are saying that if anyone else is being excluded, then the state has an obligation to defend the reasons for that exclusion.

    Timothy,

    I submit that I was paying attention and do understand 🙂 However, I do not agree. Whatever the state says their reasons for exclusion are, it will be met with those that are being excluded feeling discriminated against, just like gay people do now. The justification will be that other exceptions were made so why can’t the same be done for them. I am not suggesting exceptions should or should not be made, my point is what will happen when and if they are made. How do the states decide the eligibility requirements for marriage?

    With the current divorce rate being about 50%, I wonder if the emphasis should be on other requirements for what happens after marriage instead of who is eligible. For instance, make the eligibility requirements open as long as the people involved are consenting adults. Perhaps divorce should only be granted one time per person. Or, perhaps if there are children, and their mother or father is delinquent on child support payments, they are ineligible for marriage or re-marriage until that is cleared up. In the case of multiple spouses, perhaps it must be proven that they are self sufficient and will not seek government monetary support. If a person, has a propensity to inflict physical abuse on a spouse, perhaps it could be mandated that they complete anger management courses before they are eligible for another marriage. I also would like to propose that it become more difficult to obtain a divorce than just citing irreconciable differences. My personal favorite was a receptionist who worked at a very prominent company in Beverly Hills/West Hollywood – she told me that she married a man, awhile back, ( for money) from a foreign country so he could get citizenship to the U.S. The plan was to get a divorce after the required time with no conditions attached. She was shocked that he demanded to have sex with her afterward as that was not part of their agreement. He, of course, justified his reasoning because she was his wife. She sought out the help of an ex-boyfriend, who is an attorney, and from what others have told me, the marriage was annuled. Now, that reasoning for getting married, would not get my endorsement.

  268. And who here has ever used “inborn immutability” as an argument for supporting gay marriage?

    I don’t remember doing this. There is no proof for the inborn immutability of heterosexuality either, yet there are no groups calling for the end to opposite sex marriage based on this fact. Therefore, I think inborn immutability would be a poor argument to use.

  269. John appears to be saying it doesn’t matter what the origins of sexual orientation are. It stands to reason, then, that the inborn immutability question cannot be the basis for supporting same-sex marriage.

    No.

    Actually he’s saying that the origins of sexual orientation are not the best argument to use. I agree.

    That orientation is for the vast majority of gay people both immutable and determined at such an early point as to be – for all practical purposes – inborn is not “the basis for supporting same-sex marriage.” No one (literally no one) argues that every right is based on – and only on – an inborn immutable attribute. Rather, our arguments are against irrational discrimination.

    The fact that for most gay people their orientation is innate and immutable is simply the fact that removes one of the most specious (and cruel) arguments made to exclude gay people: that they could just become straight if they really wanted to.

    The issue of innate immutability addresses the legal question of whether discrimination could be avoided by the conscious choice of those who are subjected to it. That some few persons could pretend to be white (or identify as white) to avoid discrimination says nothing about those who could not. Nor does the testimony of those who no longer identify as homosexual says nothing about those who are innately immutably gay.

  270. “That all men are created equal” was a self-evident truth that this country chose to ignore for the many years it supported slavery. Is there such a self-evident thing as marriage equality?”

    I don’t understand what you are asking here.

    Is it or ought it to be a self-evident truth? Is marriage equality “written on our hearts”?

  271. Debbie Thurman# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    “It stands to reason, then, that the inborn immutability question cannot be the basis for supporting same-sex marriage. ”

    And who here has ever used “inborn immutability” as an argument for supporting gay marriage?

  272. What would you say about a man, in an opposite sex marriage for years, who suffered from depression, when he finally left that marriage and accepted the fact he was gay he was able to overcome his depression? I’ve known two such men. Is there a correlation?

    I guess it depends on the origins of his depression — whether or not he was genetically predisposed (clinical) or felt trapped in an unhappy life (situational).

  273. I believe the opinions expressed in those statements are not just those of a fringe element of the gay community. You disagree.

    My opinions are based on experience.

    Yours are based on something else.

    We will not get anywhere if we continue to debate it.

    I suspect that this is correct. No matter of actual experience, facts, honest evidence, or much else is likely to impact what is believed.

  274. Timothy, you make some good points about the gray areas of racial identification. Well illustrated by the Monocan Nation here in Virginia. They intermarried with both blacks and whites and had their actual racial identities expunged for many years.

    Rather than going around about fidelity in gay relationships (marriage or no), perhaps we can at least agree that there is a troubling undercurrent in the gay community, the same as there is a troubling undercurrent among those organized to uphold traditional marriage, to wit, their tendency toward infidelity and weak marriages themselves.

  275. “That all men are created equal” was a self-evident truth that this country chose to ignore for the many years it supported slavery.

    Interesting comment.

    Actually, those who supported slavery found consistency with that principle by defining “all men” in a way that excluded non-Europeans. They could then look at each other and declare that yes, all of us men are created equal and entitled to equal treatment under the law.

    Africans were not really men. They were childlike and ignorant, you see. Their relationships had higher levels of infidelity, so there was no need to recognize their marriages. God had ordained that they be different and the Bible itself declared that these sons of Cain should be slaves.

    So yeah, equality. Yeah, American values. As long as Africans were, well, not quite human then there’s no contradiction.

    This too worked for excluding women. All MEN are equal, you see. Gender is very important, you know. Women were childlike, they were subject to passions. A woman had to be watched and protected because they were capable of infidelity. These daughters of Eve were not really to be trusted – God said so.

    So yeah, equality. Yeah, American values. As long as women were, well, not in the category of “all men.”

    Can we think of any group that we consider to not be among “all men” today?

  276. Debbie,

    I walked away from depression. Since 1991, I’ve had none. After many years of same-sex attractions, I walked away from those. Is there a correlation?

    What would you say about a man, in an opposite sex marriage for years, who suffered from depression, when he finally left that marriage and accepted the fact he was gay he was able to overcome his depression? I’ve known two such men. Is there a correlation?

  277. Debbie Thurman# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    “It still does not go far enough in explaining why homosexuality, which has always been in existence, has not been recognized until fairly recently as an alternative underpinning for marriage. ”

    then let me re-iterate, because equality of the spouses was not part of marriage. Because of the imbalance between the sexes in a civil marriage the gender mattered. With marriages today it does not matter and that is only a recent (over the last few decades) development.

    “What I am getting at is that we have to ask ourselves, has society evolved this much, or do you think the legitimacy of same-sex unions has always been a self-evident but overlooked truth? ”

    Yes, I think society has evolved in its treatment of women and minorities. However, I think it still has further to go.

    ” “That all men are created equal” was a self-evident truth that this country chose to ignore for the many years it supported slavery. Is there such a self-evident thing as marriage equality?”

    I don’t understand what you are asking here.

  278. After many, many major depressive episodes, I walked away from depression. Since 1991, I’ve had none. After many years of same-sex attractions, I walked away from those. Is there a correlation?

    There are a host of reasons for why this might be the case and I don’t have the time to go into all of them.

    One could say the same for how much of the world views gays.

    Alcoholism is a disease and being gay is not. How many times do I need to tell you this?

  279. Debbie,

    Or are they an inconvenient truth?

    Is the article I posted above and written by hetersexuals entitled The Case Against Marriage an inconvenient truth?

  280. It still does not go far enough in explaining why homosexuality, which has always been in existence, has not been recognized until fairly recently as an alternative underpinning for marriage.

    We are not requesting now that homosexuality be recognized as an alternative underpinning for marriage. That is a nonsense argument.

    We are, however, arguing that excluding homosexual persons has no rational basis. This is a completely different argument.

    Imputing motivations may work well while within anti-gay circles, but it is of not much use when seeking discourse with those who actually are gay.

  281. But it does seem to be that you are suggesting that John believes that sexual orientation is akin to alcoholism and is a negative thing. That would be very dishonest of you, Debbie. It hints at animus and contempt as its motivators, rather than a desire for intellectual discourse.

    And as for your other unattributed random statements… they add no value. I doubt many here agree entirely with any of them; but more importantly, they are irrelevant.

    This posting of yours trotted off the marriage discussion and back into the familiar territory of “gays are awful people”.

    I don’t think I veered off in that way. Sorry it appears so to you. John appears to be saying it doesn’t matter what the origins of sexual orientation are. It stands to reason, then, that the inborn immutability question cannot be the basis for supporting same-sex marriage. I didn’t make the comparison to alcoholism, he did. He’s a philosopher, remember.

    I have often gone back to my own life experiences. It is clear, from looking at my family history, that I have a genetic predisposition to depression. I know God did not expect me to embrace that as my identity. I languished in it for a decade, however. The world has acted as an enabler toward the depressive. Depression is “the common cold of mental illness.” That leads us to reckon we’ll all have it at some point. The pharmaceutical industry develops and markets more drugs aimed at it than any other illness. Some to counter side effects of others. It has become accepted as a “brain disease” that one may well have for life. After many, many major depressive episodes, I walked away from depression. Since 1991, I’ve had none. After many years of same-sex attractions, I walked away from those. Is there a correlation?

    One could say the same for how much of the world views gays.

  282. Debbie,

    That could go back and forth forever, proving nothing. “I reject your rejecting.”

    I agree Debbie, which is why this is a terrible argument and should be left out of the debate – because it gets both sides nowhere!

  283. Debbie,

    I don’t know who’s pretending any of that stuff, but while were at it, let’s also not pretend that 31 states don’t have traditional marriage amendments.

    Amendments were made to be broken Debbie. 10 years ago gay marriage wasn’t allowed in any state. I think if you take a look at the states that have the amendments you will see a strong, heavily financed religious group in the background who don’t care about rational discussions but about using sound bites to instill fear in people

  284. Do you think some of the comments on this thread, from gay people who think others, who do not fit their definitiion of eligibility of marriage, fit into this category you describe as Restrictives?

    Ann,

    Can you rephrase this? I can’t figure out what you are asking.

  285. It’s not an insult to speak of our “idea” of God. That’s all we can claim to have –our own relationship, our own experience, our own idea of God as He reveals himself in our lives. We may be wrong in our understanding of Him and, if we let it, our faith tends to develop as we live. Faith is dynamic. The “idea” changes. Our understanding changes. God does not.

  286. BeyondMarriage.org features a pledge with troublesome elements (I highlighted a few) signed by hundreds of activists, academics, etc. What are folks to think about such things?

    That a few hundred of the country’s roughly 15 million gay people agree with them.

    Are we to disregard them as legitimate because you say they are or because you don’t like what they represent?

    Nope. Because even the most casual glance at any gay organization or gay newsource or gay organization or really pretty much anyone other than BeyondMarriage will quickly illustrate them to be expressing views that are inconsistent with most gay people.

    Or are they an inconvenient truth?

    Yeah, that’s it, Debbie.

    And Bryan Fischer speaks for you but you deny it because he is an inconvenient truth. Geeeez.

  287. Debbie Thurman# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    “If some strongly desire to and (even only a few) are able to jettison homosexuality, this has to call into question the “suspect class” designation of homosexuality. ”

    No it doesn’t. “suspect classification” does not require immutability. Religion is a suspect class and it certainly isn’t immutable.

  288. Jayhuck agrees that

    Homosexual orientation is a basic human identity, such that any state that doesn’t actively accommodate it necessarily harms or disregards a class of human beings.

    Debbie counters with:

    Fair enough, but that still leaves open the question of those who have rejected their formerly gay identities.

    One can have a homosexual orientation and “identify” as pretty much anything, including a cantaloupe or a dolphin.

    If some strongly desire to and (even only a few) are able to jettison homosexuality, this has to call into question the “suspect class” designation of homosexuality. And it is why the miscegenation comparisons are not valid. Not even one black man or woman has ever managed to convert to white or any other race.

    This argument – very common among anti-gay activists – demonstrates a rather shocking ignorance about race. And history.

    More than a few persons with a black identity changed cities and created a new non-black identity. Lena Horne did for a while, for example.

    Further, such arguments seem to think that race is a black-or-white matter. Truthfully, for many many many Americans, race is a bit of a question. My friend Matt, for example, identifies as white while his brother identifies as black; interestingly, physical appearance would suggest the opposite.

    My mother certainly looked like an American Indian. But she downplayed her ethnicity as much as possible and identified as white. And while my ethnic experience is one of a “average white American”, not a month goes by when someone doesn’t ask about my ethnicity. (Oddly my appearance seems to change – currently I seem to look “Eastern European” or “Mediterranean”).

    Yet the existence of people whose race is not easily identifies or explained does not invalidate the immutable nature of race as a category. It is a suspect class due to the discrimination experienced by the vast majority and not discounted by those at the margins.

    So too is orientation a suspect class (or I believe the supreme court will find it such) due to the experiences of the vast majority and not discounted by whatever Ted Haggard is calling himself this week.

    I honestly don’t know what those three gay icons (far from just isolated voices) think today about these statements they made earlier.

    By your standards, Debbie, I guess I’m a gay icon as well. Woo-hoo.

    I do know that The New York Times featured a story last year about a study purporting that gay marriages are more open than they are touted to be.

    No, you do not know that. You know that the Times included a report about a study of open gay relationships. They were not marriages. It was not a study about the openness of relationships. It was an HIV study which selected open relationships.

    But most anti-gay activists portrayed it in the way you said, so it is not surprising that you would have that perception. Oh how I wish that the anti-gay branch of Christianity were not dedicated to dishonesty.

  289. It might be helpful if you can show us how their perspectives have changed, then.

    No, that is not how fair discourse works. You don’t pull up a quote from 17 years ago out of context and demand that it be refuted to your satisfaction.

    OK, we’ll throw it out, then. I believe the opinions expressed in those statements are not just those of a fringe element of the gay community. You disagree. We will not get anywhere if we continue to debate it.

  290. As for here in the US a couple of reasons. Until the last few decades being gay was considered a disorder and there were laws against gays. Aside from that, previously, the laws regarding marriage treated the husband and wife differently. Thus there needed to be a definitive husband and wife in order to know how to apply the law. However, TODAY, marriage has evolved into an equal partnership, such that the gender of the partners is irrelevant under the law.

    That’s actually an honest and thoughtful answer. Thanks. It still does not go far enough in explaining why homosexuality, which has always been in existence, has not been recognized until fairly recently as an alternative underpinning for marriage. But I accept that as the best probably answer. What I am getting at is that we have to ask ourselves, has society evolved this much, or do you think the legitimacy of same-sex unions has always been a self-evident but overlooked truth? “That all men are created equal” was a self-evident truth that this country chose to ignore for the many years it supported slavery. Is there such a self-evident thing as marriage equality?

  291. Fine! Lets not pretend that a great deal of the arguments being made against gay marriage are not motivated by prejudice or bigotry though. Lets also not pretend that some arguments are not merely religious. Lets not pretend that all anti-gay marriage arguments aren’t motivated by hate either. And lets not pretend that so far, almost all anti-gay marriage arguments have failed in courts

    .

    I don’t know who’s pretending any of that stuff, but while were at it, let’s also not pretend that 31 states don’t have traditional marriage amendments.

  292. Debbie Thurman# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    “The discussion, in case you hadn’t noticed, has turned to civil marriage. Why haven’t we had it for centuries, if its benefits are so obvious? Is anthropology that short-sighted?”

    Actually, I’ve read claims that there were same-gender marriages in accent times. Although, I never followed up on them because I suspect they wouldn’t have been exactly as claimed.

    As for here in the US a couple of reasons. Until the last few decades being gay was considered a disorder and there were laws against gays. Aside from that, previously, the laws regarding marriage treated the husband and wife differently. Thus there needed to be a definitive husband and wife in order to know how to apply the law. However, TODAY, marriage has evolved into an equal partnership, such that the gender of the partners is irrelevant under the law.

  293. No it doesn’t Debbie, because Christians are a protected class as well, yet they choose their religion. Second the fact that many have rejected their ex-gay identity would not only call into question those who claim they have truly “rejected” these identities (assuming this means developing attractions for the opposite sex) including, but not limited to, the idea that these people might have been genuinely bisexual to begin with

    .

    That could go back and forth forever, proving nothing. “I reject your rejecting.”

  294. It might be helpful if you can show us how their perspectives have changed, then.

    No, that is not how fair discourse works. You don’t pull up a quote from 17 years ago out of context and demand that it be refuted to your satisfaction.

    That is fun when playing the Gotcha Game, but it adds absolutely nothing to intellectual discourse. Which is it that you are trying to accomplish here, Debbie?

  295. Debbie:

    I am curious as to what the reaction here would be to these statements made by prominent gays:

    Andrew Sullivan – Andy is an intelligent guy. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don’t.

    But I wonder at your reason for the quote. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether legal recognition should be provided equally. Rather, it appears that you simply are trying to say that gay relationships are not as you would want to define them. Or, perhaps, that strict sexual fidelity should be a defining characteristic of marriage. If so, I would expect you to apply the same standard to heterosexual marriages – to do otherwise would be bigotry.

    Michelangelo Signorile – Mike and I seldom agree on anything. This is definitely the case here.

    John Corvino – I have no idea what you are trying to say here, Debbie. It has nothing to do with marriage.

    But it does seem to be that you are suggesting that John believes that sexual orientation is akin to alcoholism and is a negative thing. That would be very dishonest of you, Debbie. It hints at animus and contempt as its motivators, rather than a desire for intellectual discourse.

    And as for your other unattributed random statements… they add no value. I doubt many here agree entirely with any of them; but more importantly, they are irrelevant.

    This posting of yours trotted off the marriage discussion and back into the familiar territory of “gays are awful people”.

  296. Debbie,

    I don’t maintain that gays are unable to see the logic in rational arguments that may be at odds with their views. They just seem unwilling to simply acknowledge that they disagree with a view that may be rationally opposed to their own beliefs rather than to paint the opposing view as irrational. Does not the same “I am rational, you are not” dictum apply to you, then?

    Fine! Lets not pretend that a great deal of the arguments being made against gay marriage are not motivated by prejudice or bigotry though. Lets also not pretend that some arguments are not merely religious. Lets not pretend that all anti-gay marriage arguments aren’t motivated by hate either. And lets not pretend that so far, almost all anti-gay marriage arguments have failed in courts.

    And finally, lets not pretend that some anti-gay marriage supporters, many actually, don’t call pro-gay marriage supporters names, or call THEM irrational or Activist instead of discussing the arguments as well.

    I’m still waiting to see a rational argument against gay marriage.

  297. Debbie,

    Do you realize how insulting it is for you to speak of my “idea of God”? As if I have invented some illusion of Him? He is not “my God.” He is God, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. I am created in His image, not the other way around.

    I really do apologize if I was insulting. I am created in his image as well, we all are, and I agree with all of your statement above. It just seems, at times, that we understand God differently, not that he changes.

  298. Debbie,

    Fair enough, but that still leaves open the question of those who have rejected their formerly gay identities. If some strongly desire to and (even only a few) are able to jettison homosexuality, this has to call into question the “suspect class” designation of homosexuality.

    No it doesn’t Debbie, because Christians are a protected class as well, yet they choose their religion. Second the fact that many have rejected their ex-gay identity would not only call into question those who claim they have truly “rejected” these identities (assuming this means developing attractions for the opposite sex) including, but not limited to, the idea that these people might have been genuinely bisexual to begin with.

  299. Ann

    As you know, I have a personal belief about marriage, however, that belief does not extend to preventing anyone else from getting married. I do not want to deny anyone an equal right.

    I’m with you there. Were I dictator of the world and all decisions on the planet left up to my personal opinions, there are lots of folks that wouldn’t be married to each other. But I have no desire to be controlling of others and tell them who they can or cannot marry.

    But…

    Gay people think their reasoning for excluding others from marriage eligibility is justified. I submit that it is subjective just as when others exclude gay people from marriage eligibility.

    And I submit that you aren’t paying attention.

    Gay people – or at least those here – are saying that if anyone else is being excluded, then the state has an obligation to defend the reasons for that exclusion.

    Of course, some are obvious (marrying an inanimate object has no meaning), others are less so (while I believe polygamy is an unworkable contract that simply cannot be implemented unless we return to the paradigm of men owning women as in Biblical times, it is not an indisputable objective truth).

    We aren’t “discriminating” against others, we simply want the rules of logic and reason to be applied to all.

  300. Although I’m sure you won’t see this, such statements are nothing but bigotry. You are saying, in short, that gay people are incapable of rational discussion and cannot argue the merits of arguments. We are, you indicate, unable to accept the logic or consistency of a rational argument.

    It’s rather ironic. Because those of us here who do not believe that gay people should be excluded from civil equality are appealing to logic, to thought, to rational discourse.

    You are appealing to religious faith.

    I don’t maintain that gays are unable to see the logic in rational arguments that may be at odds with their views. They just seem unwilling to simply acknowledge that they disagree with a view that may be rationally opposed to their own beliefs rather than to paint the opposing view as irrational. Does not the same “I am rational, you are not” dictum apply to you, then?

    I am appealing to more than religious faith. That cop-out needs to go.

  301. Restrictives think that those who want freedom or inclusion or respect must be required to meet the burden of proof to their (ever changing) level of satisfaction.

    Timothy,

    Do you think some of the comments on this thread, from gay people who think others, who do not fit their definitiion of eligibility of marriage, fit into this category you describe as Restrictives?

  302. Ann# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 11:35 am

    “There are many productive families who practice polygamy who face going to jail if they live the way they want to and have multiple marriages.”

    Unless they got multiple CIVIL marriages I fail to see what crime they would be charged with.

    Ann# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 11:51 am

    “If the current marriage laws are determined to be discriminating, and if it is re-defined, what would that look like? ”

    Exactly like it is now except the restriction that one spouse be male and one female is removed. Everything else is the same.

    “What would the eligibility be for anyone who wants the equal right to be married?”

    You cannot ask this question in a void. The issue is whether the government has a justifiable reason for denying the marriage. Therefore, the “who” matters. Ex. when you talked about polygamy I was able to give you justifications why it is not allowed.

  303. I’m sorry Debbie, but your world view clashes too much with reality for me to be able to take you seriously. Where it and the facts diverge, you simply plug in God and expect everyone else to accept that. I don’t see how that does a service to anyone.

  304. No rational reason to be opposed to gay marriage will ever be accepted as such.

    Although I’m sure you won’t see this, such statements are nothing but bigotry. You are saying, in short, that gay people are incapable of rational discussion and cannot argue the merits of arguments. We are, you indicate, unable to accept the logic or consistency of a rational argument.

    It’s rather ironic. Because those of us here who do not believe that gay people should be excluded from civil equality are appealing to logic, to thought, to rational discourse.

    You are appealing to religious faith. I know that some religions believe that their doctrines are, ipso facto, rational (often couched in terms of “natural law”), but appeals to the subjective (and all faith is subjective) are not appeals to rational thought.

    “My deity wants” or “my church teaches” are not rational arguments.

  305. Why haven’t we had it for centuries, if its benefits are so obvious? Is anthropology that short-sighted?

    You really cannot be serious. This is a joke, right?

    As to your quotes, Debbie, I’m interested that you should pull random statements, set them without context, and then demand to know what one thinks of them as the Bible is often mined for ‘proof texts’. I don’t think anything of them. I don’t read or listen to any of those writers. They speak for themselves.

  306. Debbie Thurman# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 11:44 am

    “I am curious as to what the reaction here would be to these statements made by prominent gays:”

    1st, everyone is entitled to their opinions. As for my opinion on the issues they raised.

    Sullivan:

    I tend to agree with his statement although I don’t know how many gay couples it would apply to. I don’t have a problem with open marriages/relationships. For some people they work for others they don’t.

    Signorile:

    Don’t really agree with his statement. Certainly, the concept of what makes a family is different than from 50 years ago, but that is happening with or without gay marriage.

    Corvino:

    Don’t really agree with the sentiment of his statement: gays shouldn’t act on their feelings or that being gay is undesirable.

    As for your random statements:

    “Fulfillment is impossible without regular outlets for sexual release.”

    disagree.

    “Meaningful intimacy is impossible without sex.”

    disagree

    “Fulfilling relationships are impossible without legal recognition.”

    disagree

    “Homosexual orientation is a basic human identity,”

    I agree with this part.

    “Homosexual orientation is a basic human identity, such that any state that doesn’t actively accommodate it necessarily harms or disregards a class of human beings.”

    I think I agree with this, but not really sure what is meant by “actively accommodate” means hence the qualification.

  307. Who does BeyondMarriage.org speak for when they put forward these desired definitions of marriage?

    Are they a fringe organization?

    Yes.

    Which is why appealing to BeyondMarriage is no more convincing to us than trying to equate your views with those of the Phelps Family.

  308. Ok, do you think other people who want to get married ,and do not fit your definition of eligiblilty, find your opinion discriminating? It is like how you feel when someone discriminates against you because your situation does not fit their definition of marriage.

    This reminds me that there are two basic approaches to civil life: restrictive and free.

    Those who have a restrictive mindset believe that the world should be viewed from the perspective that nothing should be allowed unless it can prove itself worthy. The natural response to anything at all should be to stop it or restrict it.

    The free mindset, on the other hand, believes that something should only be stopped if it can be proven to be unworthy.

    It’s all about who has the burden of proof. Restrictives think that those who want freedom or inclusion or respect must be required to meet the burden of proof to their (ever changing) level of satisfaction. Free minded think that harm must be demonstrated in order to restrict the rights of others.

  309. Here’s one – Do these people speak for all heterosexuals?

    The Case Against Marriage

    They speak for a surprising number of folks. Consider the number of couples that are cohabiting today. Marriage is not the panacea it once was considered to be in the minds of many.

  310. Comorbidity does not make two experiences analogous in any meaningful way. One may be attracted to the same sex and have the flu at the same time, but one would not develop a meaningful analogy from this observation.

    Debbie, you want to consider SSA to be a disorder of some kind but that is not how it manifests or is experienced by the majority of people who experience it. I recognize that it was all jumbled up for you but it is not the same for most others.

    Personal experience aside, basic attractions for most people are independent of disease processes. Straight people get depressed and have the flu and so do people who are basically attracted to the same sex.

  311. I would have to agree completely with the last statement.

    Fair enough, but that still leaves open the question of those who have rejected their formerly gay identities. If some strongly desire to and (even only a few) are able to jettison homosexuality, this has to call into question the “suspect class” designation of homosexuality. And it is why the miscegenation comparisons are not valid. Not even one black man or woman has ever managed to convert to white or any other race.

    I honestly don’t know what those three gay icons (far from just isolated voices) think today about these statements they made earlier. The only one I’ve ever talked to is Corvino. He’s not unreasonable. I do know that The New York Times featured a story last year about a study purporting that gay marriages are more open than they are touted to be. BeyondMarriage.org features a pledge with troublesome elements (I highlighted a few) signed by hundreds of activists, academics, etc. What are folks to think about such things? Are we to disregard them as legitimate because you say they are or because you don’t like what they represent? Or are they an inconvenient truth?

  312. Seriously, how many times does it have to be answered?

    Jon,

    Ok, what am I missing – I have not seen it – if you have time, please point me to the comments that address what the proposed new eligibilities are for marriage.

  313. Debbie,

    I don’t know that any of us have to go through any “contortions” to prove you got “over same sex attractions”. The problem is, what does it mean that you got over this? There are hundreds of answers to that question.

    For people with same-sex attractions, the “pill” is looking for that perfect relationship, the one that will make life worth living. The only perfect relationship in the universe is the one with Christ awaiting us. We don’t have to go turning over stones looking for it.

    God is very much in the equation. Support from other people is, as well, along with a person’s self-determination. When somebody wants something as badly as they need the next breath of air, they unleash forces that are beyond their understanding.

  314. Debbie,

    Let me just say that I find it irritating when people bring up the statements of a few, and by few I mean few, gay people who talk about marriage in this way. How would you feel if I put up quotes by HETEROSEXUALS who talk about getting rid of marriage entirely, or who don’t believe in marriage, or who think government-sponsored marriage needs to be done away with, or heterosexuals who support open marriages or the Swinging lifestyle within marriage? Really? There is a reason these arguments shouldn’t be made a part of reasonable and rational debate. That said, lets tackle these:

    Same-sex unions often incorporate the virtues of friendship more effectively than traditional marriages; and at times, among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds… [T]here is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman… [S]omething of the gay relationship’s necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.

    Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality, pp. 202–03

    One man’s opinion, first of all! What do you want me to say to this? Should I put up heterosexual quotes supporting open marriages?

    Same-sex couples should “demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.” Same-sex couples should “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, because the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake … is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.”

    Michelangelo Signorile, “Bridal Wave,” Out, Dec.–Jan. 1994

    Again, one person’s opinion. This person doesn’t speak for the vast majority of gay people and it would be a shame to think he does. Second, I would ask, what does he mean? He makes alot of vague statements. What does he mean by transform the family? As a gay man Debbie, I can honestly say I’ve never read more than a few sound bites by this guy. I don’t think we know enough about what he is saying to really talk about it here yet, and its a mistake to think he speaks for all or even most gay people.

    The fact is that there are plenty of genetically influenced traits that are nevertheless undesirable. Alcoholism may have a genetic basis, but it doesn’t follow that alcoholics ought to drink excessively. Some people may have a genetic predisposition to violence, but they have no more right to attack their neighbors than anyone else. Persons with such tendencies cannot say, “God made me this way,” as an excuse for acting on their dispositions.

    John Corvino, “Nature? Nurture? It Doesn’t Matter,” INDEPENDENT GAY FORUM (Aug. 12, 2004)

    Oy – tying being gay to alcoholism AGAIN. You think we would be beyond this at this point. Ok Debbie, FYI, alcoholism is a disease, being gay is not. Want to continue to go down this road?

    Also, do the pro-gay-marriage advocates here agree with these statements?

    Fulfillment is impossible without regular outlets for sexual release.

    Meaningful intimacy is impossible without sex.

    Fulfilling relationships are impossible without legal recognition.

    Homosexual orientation is a basic human identity, such that any state that doesn’t actively accommodate it necessarily harms or disregards a class of human beings.

    I can’t speak for all pro-gay marriage advocates, but what is meant by words like “fulfillment” and “meaningful intimacy”? Fulfilling relationships are possible without legal recognition if we are talking about friendships, of course! And I also think fulfilling relationships of the romantic kind are also possible without legal recognition, but that isn’t what gay marriage is all about. I would have to agree completely with the last statement.

  315. People do get over depressive episodes, Debbie. If you want to attribute this to God, have at it.

    People also get over same-sex attractions, David. I did. But you must go through all sorts of contortions to “prove” I didn’t.

    Both good and bad have come from the depression public awareness campaign. Yes, people have learned not to suffer in silence. Lives have no doubt been saved. Mine was one of them. But the downside is people have become convinced that some magic pill is going to be their answer. And with all those medications, more and more people are depressed. I have watched too many languish in a drug stupor, gaining weight and acquiring all those attendant health problems, and losing their will to do anything but pop that pill to deal with their problems.

    For people with same-sex attractions, the “pill” is looking for that perfect relationship, the one that will make life worth living. The only perfect relationship in the universe is the one with Christ awaiting us. We don’t have to go turning over stones looking for it.

    God is very much in the equation. Support from other people is, as well, along with a person’s self-determination. When somebody wants something as badly as they need the next breath of air, they unleash forces that are beyond their understanding.

  316. barry# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    “ONe last concise statement to Ken and Jayhuck–

    When a guy like MLK argued for civil rights, did you think he confined himself to the rights of blacks only?”

    No I don’t. and neither do I.

    “Gee, seems to me I heard him talk about a lot of groups.”

    As do I. I believe the requirement that the government have a valid justification (“compelling state interest”) in order to deny rights applies to everyone.

    To be clear, I’m not claiming to be in the same league as MLK, just pointing out Barry has been making quite a few incorrect assumptions about me.

  317. Signorille had a portion of an article from 1994 snipped out. Since then, he has continued to write tons of material and hosted a daily talk show that’s been going on for at least five years straight. How much has his opinion and his perspective changed since 1994?

    Earlier this year, some people took a speech that my friend Andrew made to a youth pastor leadership group back in 2008 and used it against him now, even those he’s written and said much more since then that has nuanced his belief system. It was fair then. It’s not fair here to toss in random quotes from whenever without context or linkage and ask for reaction.

    It might be helpful if you can show us how their perspectives have changed, then.

  318. Earlier this year, some people took a speech that my friend Andrew made to a youth pastor leadership group back in 2008 and used it against him now, even though he’s written and said much more since then that has nuanced his belief system. It was not fair then. It’s not fair here to toss in random quotes from whenever without context or linkage and ask for reaction.

  319. but I would point out again your religion is not mine and the discussion is about CIVIL marriage not religious marriage.

    The discussion, in case you hadn’t noticed, has turned to civil marriage. Why haven’t we had it for centuries, if its benefits are so obvious? Is anthropology that short-sighted?

  320. barry# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    “The point I was making to Ken is simple–he has argued that not allowing gays to marry is a violation of civil rights and when she asked him about other people who want the definition of marriage to accomodate their needs and desires, he punted.”

    I didn’t punt. I simply refused to say marriage should be open to anyone at all. I recognize that the state does have some legitimate reasons for denying marriage. And when Ann (and you) finally named a specific group, I told you why I agree with the state in denying those marriages.

    “I mean this: people who are genuinely concerned that their fellow citizens’ civil rights are being violated do not limit their activism or just their comments on a blog, to their own.”

    And I don’t (btw, you have no idea what “my own” is). If you were to read ALL my comments here (and in other places) you will find I have supported the rights of muslims (and other non-christians in the US), immigrants, racial minorities and others.

    “yet faced with the opportunity to argue your principle for all people, you ignore them?”

    I wasn’t ignoring anyone. I believe the principles should apply to everyone. Perhaps you missed this from my original counter argument on polygamy:

    That said if someone smarter than me can propose a fair, workable solution I would certainly be willing to consider it.

    “if you really believed this was a civil rights argument, and if you really had given it serious thought, and weren’t being hypocritical, you’d be arguing for doing away with marriage as a state or federal issue as others have suggested. You’d be arguing for all marriages to be private and not in need of federal or state sanctions. ”

    Marriages ARE personal contracts, recognized by the government with a variety of rights, benefits, and responsibilities. And it is a civil rights argument because the government is DENYING the right of marriage to a group without just cause.

    “I am saying you have a serious credibility problem when you say you are only fighting for civil rights when you obviously are avoiding doing the same for others. It hurts your cause.’

    Again, what others?

  321. Signorille had a portion of an article from 1994 snipped out. Since then, he has continued to write tons of material and hosted a daily talk show that’s been going on for at least five years straight. How much has his opinion and his perspective changed since 1994?

    Earlier this year, some people took a speech that my friend Andrew made to a youth pastor leadership group back in 2008 and used it against him now, even those he’s written and said much more since then that has nuanced his belief system. It was fair then. It’s not fair here to toss in random quotes from whenever without context or linkage and ask for reaction.

  322. Debbie Thurman# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 9:21 am

    “Who gets to define “rational,” Ken?”

    Ultimately the courts. However, reasonable people can generally debate the issues and come to an understanding of what is (and is not) rational. A simple test I like to use is “how does the argument sound when applied to another group?” Ex: what if you take an argument against gay marriage and use it as an argument against inter-racial marriage, does it still seem rational or fair?

    but I would point out again your religion is not mine and the discussion is about CIVIL marriage not religious marriage. so what Jesus, Mohammad, Jehovah, Vishnu, Buddha, Hera or any other religious figure would think about gay marriage it not relevant to the discussion.

  323. Debbie: I’m not a big fan of random, disconnected statements lumped together from various sources.

    But you do have an opinion about the statements. They are neither random nor disconnected, but are germane to the topic at hand. Are they representative of the gay community or not?

  324. And its not uncommon for groups to fight for their own – just as black people did during the civil rights era. I personally have no real problem with polygamy, but its also something I don’t know anything about and I don’t know what the impacts are on children. All I can speak about genuinely are gay people. I don’t do that to the exclusion of other possibly good families, or to prevent others from fighting for marriage, I do this because this is what I know

    Jayhuck,

    I really appreciate this thoughtful comment. Thank you.

  325. I cannot remember how many times I have asked this question, however, I will ask it again.

    If the current marriage laws are determined to be discriminating, and if it is re-defined, what would that look like? What would the eligibility be for anyone who wants the equal right to be married?

    I have a personal request. If possible, please answer in a thoughtful and sincere manner without sarcasm or the use of caps and lose any narcissistic, self centeredness, realizing this isn’t about you, rather, the entire population who want the same rights as everyone.

  326. Ann,

    I don’t know that gay people feel any sense of entitlement, they are asking merely to be treated equally. And its not uncommon for groups to fight for their own – just as black people did during the civil rights era. I personally have no real problem with polygamy, but its also something I don’t know anything about and I don’t know what the impacts are on children. All I can speak about genuinely are gay people. I don’t do that to the exclusion of other possibly good families, or to prevent others from fighting for marriage, I do this because this is what I know 🙂

  327. I am curious as to what the reaction here would be to these statements made by prominent gays:

    Same-sex unions often incorporate the virtues of friendship more effectively than traditional marriages; and at times, among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds… [T]here is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman… [S]omething of the gay relationship’s necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.

    Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality, pp. 202–03

    Same-sex couples should “demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.” Same-sex couples should “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, because the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake … is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.”

    Michelangelo Signorile, “Bridal Wave,” Out, Dec.–Jan. 1994

    The fact is that there are plenty of genetically influenced traits that are nevertheless undesirable. Alcoholism may have a genetic basis, but it doesn’t follow that alcoholics ought to drink excessively. Some people may have a genetic predisposition to violence, but they have no more right to attack their neighbors than anyone else. Persons with such tendencies cannot say, “God made me this way,” as an excuse for acting on their dispositions.

    John Corvino, “Nature? Nurture? It Doesn’t Matter,” INDEPENDENT GAY FORUM (Aug. 12, 2004)

    Also, do the pro-gay-marriage advocates here agree with these statements?

    Fulfillment is impossible without regular outlets for sexual release.

    Meaningful intimacy is impossible without sex.

    Fulfilling relationships are impossible without legal recognition.

    Homosexual orientation is a basic human identity, such that any state that doesn’t actively accommodate it necessarily harms or disregards a class of human beings.

  328. Jayhuck,

    As you know, I have a personal belief about marriage, however, that belief does not extend to preventing anyone else from getting married. I do not want to deny anyone an equal right. My point has been the hypocrisy and sense of entitlement I have heard from those who say they are being discriminated against and holding themselves above others who do not fit the traditional definition of marriage. I find the insensitivity stunning. Gay people think their reasoning for excluding others from marriage eligibility is justified. I submit that it is subjective just as when others exclude gay people from marriage eligibility. I cannot say I personally agree with every reason someone wants to get married, however, if exceptions are to be made for one group, then everyone else have to be considered, lest they consider themselves discriminated against. I still think Mary Jo LeTourneau and Villie should have been able to get married instead of her going to jail while their two children were raised by a grandmother until she got out. They are together now as a family. There are many productive families who practice polygamy who face going to jail if they live the way they want to and have multiple marriages. If marriage is to be re-defined, who gets in and who doesn’t and what is it based on, if not discrimination?

  329. To Ann and Barry Re: polygamous mariages.

    Our legal framework cannot handle polygamy. Nor do I think it is capable of

    it. Lets take the simplest example of one man with 2 wives (A and B):

    What is the legal relationship between A and B? If the husband dies is there any legal relationship between them?

    What if the husband is incapacitated, who makes medical/legal decisions for him

    A or B? What if they disagree, who decides?

    If the husband and A want a divorce does B have any legal standing to contest it?

    If A does divorce, how much of the property is she entitled to? 1/2? 1/3? 1/4?

    And if you go beyond 3 people the problems get even worse.

    This is just a small sample why our legal system can’t handle polygamous marriage. Further, all schemes I’ve seen that deal with polygamous marriage unfairly regulate women to a subservient role in marriage. I do not think there is a fair, workable solution to the problems of polygamous marriage. That is why I

    believe thee government is justified in not allowing polygamous marriages.

    That said if someone smarter than me can propose a fair, workable solution I would certainly be willing to consider it. However, until I actually see such a

    solution, then I believe the government is justified in denying polygamous marriages.

  330. barry,

    You are just setting up arbitrary milestones. In order for gay people to champion their own equality they have to ___________ (fill in the blank).

    No one is punting. No one is lacking credibility. Gay people need not solve Darfor or achieve world piece or address polygamy.

    We need only provide evidence that the discrimination against gay people is not founded in rational basis and therefor invalid.

  331. Polygamy, as mormons practice it, is a religious marriage modeled on the patriarchs. So it really has nothing to do with marriage equality. I don’t want a religious marriage I want a civil marriage that is meaningful.

    As soon as one mentions God or Jesus one is, by definition, using unrational terms, concepts beyond the reach of reason, which, though they might be meaningful to you, have nothing to do with the discussion of civil marriage between consenting adults. i’m happy for those possessed of faith just don’t try to make me live my life according to your belief. I read an astounding amount of slander and outright lies directed against gay people. Language which would not be tolerated for one second were it directed at any other group. Personally, I don’t care what anyone thinks of me. If I had children I’d feel differently perhaps. I only care when groups try to write legislation based on nothing but prejudice and willful ignorance.

    And can we please, once and for all, stop equating sexual orientation with morality?

  332. Are you saying that blacks should have been arguing for equal rights for gay people when they sought civil rights?

    Interestingly… some did see the fight as the same. Mildred Loving, for example, spoke out for same-sex marriage, as does Coretta Scott King (who says that her husband would be a gay rights supporter if alive today). Perhaps those who actually fought in the trenches against bigotry are a bit more adept at recognizing it than are those who claim their heritage but never fought for it.

  333. On in Iowa, instead of debating the merits of the case, people just worked to remove long-time judges from their positions! Rational debate indeed

  334. (and, by the way, I did notice that you made a broad swipe at ALL gay people but only a subset of non-gay people)

    Gee, make it the whole hetero community, then. I only meant to point out the hypocrisy in those most vocally opposed to gay marriage. And I was implying that that subset of the gay community was also involved in the marriage debate. That’s all.

  335. Polygamy, et al can be discussed in a separate discussion.

    Emily,

    Are you a moderator on this blog now? I thought you were a visitor like the rest of us without the ability to determine what can and cannot be discussed.

  336. I’ve presented my case already. You’ll have to take it or leave it.

    huh, too bad she wasn’t with the opposing counsel on the prop 8 case, maybe they wouldn’t have been so thoroughly trounced.

  337. I have often gone back to my own life experiences. It is clear, from looking at my family history, that I have a genetic predisposition to depression. I know God did not expect me to embrace that as my identity.

    Who in their right mind would build an identity based on the fact that they are depressed? Being depressed is a psychologically harmful condition that can be treated with therapy and medication. I mean, I guess you can choose to take pride in anything – but depression interferes with one’s life no matter what.

    homosexuality is a naturally occurring sexual variation that encompasses a very core part of humanity – romantic and sexual attraction. The only way it is “interference” in any way is if people hate the fact that they possess this trait. otherwise, it’s not a problem.

    People can choose not to say they’re gay; they can abstain from sexual activity; they can make themselves numb to the point of losing all attraction to anybody – but they can’t switch their core orientation to heterosexuality. It’s even an open secret among ex-gay circles. Otherwise they wouldn’t use such belabored and mangled terms as “Christian on a post-gay journey.” They could just use “straight.”

  338. What I find laughable about this whole call to rational debate, is that after a great deal of back and forth in the courtroom and thoughtful arguments being made by both sides, when judges affirm the arguments supporting gay marriage, the other side, the anti-gay side resorts to calling judges names, like Activist, even if they were appointed by conservative folk. Instead of looking at the arguments pro and con made in the courtroom and discussing them, judges are simply called names.

  339. Debbie,

    It wouldn’t matter, Jayhuck. I’ve presented my case already. You’ll have to take it or leave it.

    If I remember your arguments correctly Debbie, none have been fair, or just or reasonable. Like I said, the courts seem to see such arguments in the same way, lacking!

  340. Emily,

    Jayhuck, they couldn’t present one at the Prop 8 trial, what makes you think anybody can present one now?

    I know, and I find this interesting. There have been several trials where the religious conservatives have had ample opportunity to have their best and brightest present these rational arguments against gay marriage and in almost all cases, the arguments have failed. I wonder why? The rational and supposedly logical arguments have played out plenty of times in the court system. I think if we want to look at the pro and con arguments, maybe we should look there

  341. If there is a good, logical reason to object to gay marriage, then please present us with one. I have heard the what I think are most of the one’s being touted as logical or rational or reasonable, almost always by conservative religious folk interestingly, and none have passed muster.

    It wouldn’t matter, Jayhuck. I’ve presented my case already. You’ll have to take it or leave it.

  342. BeyondMarriage.org is a group of only 20 people – they speak mostly for themselves!

    In April 2006 a diverse group of nearly twenty LGBT and queer activists – some organizers, some scholars and educators, some funders, some writers and cultural workers – came together to discuss marriage and family politics as they exist in the United States today.

    We met over the course of two days for lively conversations in which there was often spirited disagreement. However, we do all stand in agreement with the statement entitled “Beyond Same Sex Marriage”.

    We offer this statement as a way to challenge ourselves and our allies working across race, class, gender and issue lines to frame and broaden community dialogues, to shape alternative policy solutions and to inform organizing strategies around marriage politics to include the broadest definitions of relationship and family.

  343. Jayhuck, they couldn’t present one at the Prop 8 trial, what makes you think anybody can present one now?

  344. Re: Polygamy –

    Well, unlike same sex marriage, there are certainly plenty of examples of polygamy in the Bible: King David, King Solomon, etc… There are actually no verses in the New Testament or Old Testament that forbid polygamy! So from a Christian perspective, what do we make of this?

  345. Debbie,

    Not. You say rational, I say irrational. And vice versa. No rational reason to be opposed to gay marriage will ever be accepted as such. I used hyperbole, not a straw man, in direct response to Ken. And the “gay marriage” movement is multi-faceted.

    If there is a good, logical reason to object to gay marriage, then please present us with one. I have heard the what I think are most of the one’s being touted as logical or rational or reasonable, almost always by conservative religious folk interestingly, and none have passed muster. I am willing to dialogue and debate in a civil manner if someone wants to present such an argument, but to date, I have seen none. I have seen people try to tie gay marriage to social ills in other countries only to find out those “ills” existed before the advent of gay marriage. I’ve seen people try to tie gay marriage to the loss of religious freedoms, but those issues have to do with hate crimes laws and the events themselves are debatable as to whether they are really about the loss of freedoms or about equal treatment for all. It is easy to write laws that protect both conservative religious freedoms and gay people, and those laws are being written now. You have to expect some problems with the system while things are being fleshed out.

    Please, enlighten us on any logical, rational or reasonable argument against gay marriage and perhaps we can debate it here.

  346. from Ken–

    Our legal framework cannot handle polygamy. Nor do I think it is capable of

    it. Lets take the simplest example of one man with 2 wives (A and B):

    You see, it’s your particular point of bias that says our legal framework ” cannot handle polygamy.” As the laws are now written, yes, but new social orders (polygamy, homosexual marriage) would have new laws written to deal with legal issues that would arise from them. That the way things work. Changes in the social order= changes in the laws.

    For example, when divorce became easier in the different states, the laws about custody changed. Most states grant joint custody. That has had social consequences that weren’t intended in that many kids spend one week or month living with one parent followed by the same time period with the other parents. Even when the parents live in different towns. So, laws will be made which address the social changes. Of course, often the new laws do indeed create new problems. I, for one, do not think people understood when joint custody became common, that judges would allow for such crazy circumstances that allow for the circumstance I describe above where kids go from parent to parent like a ping pong ball, missing school and the like.

    So, I think your argument that homosexual marriage can be better handled by the legal system than other marriage arrangments is a non-starter. Opponents of gay marriage can make the same claim you just made–think of all the legal problems that are now about to arise over custody claims of offspring of gay marriages. There can never be biological children of both parents of a gay marriage. The law will have to deal with that and it’s likely the states will have differing practices (as they do now in awarding custody to heterosexual parents) only the problem will be complicated by the lack of biological parentage by both gay parents.

    I don’t think your argument about new laws helps your case at all.

    The bottom line remains the same–changing a definition that has historical weight for all of recorded history (let us not forget also that polygamy has common historical weight as a social institution as well, while homosexual marriage does not) is tantamount to inviting all kinds of changes to the concept/definition.

    Your argument about legal issues that will arise leaves your position open up to the same argument.

    Your civil rights argument may (or may not, I am not a constitutional expert) be your strongest argument, but if you argue that, then you have to argue it for others as well.

  347. strawman.

    Not. You say rational, I say irrational. And vice versa. No rational reason to be opposed to gay marriage will ever be accepted as such. I used hyperbole, not a straw man, in direct response to Ken. And the “gay marriage” movement is multi-faceted.

  348. The discussion at hand is about gay marriage. Whether their families are worthy of that moniker.

    Polygamy, et al can be discussed in a separate discussion.

    Two people wanting to enter into a specific type of contract is how “marriage” is defined by civil law.

    Whether or not an organization – mainstream OR fringe – wants to legalize other types of unions has no bearing on whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to get married.

    The “slippery slope” argument is itself oftentimes a fallacy; I believe it is one in the case of this topic. The only thing being called for by those who argue for gay marriage specifically is the recognition of the gender of the partners involved. Not the number of people, not the age, not the species.

  349. Who gets to define “rational,” Ken? If Jesus Christ himself appeared before us and spoke those words that gays insist he never spoke or would speak, would he be received any more graciously than he was 2,000 years ago? Would he still be called irrational? Would he be crucified again?

    strawman.

    1ra·tio·nal

    adj ?rash-n?l, ?ra-sh?-n?l

    Definition of RATIONAL

    1

    a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable

    2

    : involving only multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction and only a finite number of times

    3

    : relating to, consisting of, or being one or more rational numbers

    — ra·tio·nal·ly adverb

    — ra·tio·nal·ness noun

    See rational defined for English-language learners »

    Examples of RATIONAL

    1.

    2.

    from Merriam-Webster online

  350. Who does BeyondMarriage.org speak for when they put forward these desired definitions of marriage?

    Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner

    Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households

    Close friends and siblings who live together in long-term, committed, non-conjugal relationships, serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers

    Are they a fringe organization?

  351. Gay people – or at least those here – are saying that if anyone else is being excluded, then the state has an obligation to defend the reasons for that exclusion.

    Timothy,

    I submit that I was paying attention and do understand 🙂 However, I do not agree. Whatever the state says their reasons for exclusion are, it will be met with those that are being excluded feeling discriminated against, just like gay people do now. The justification will be that other exceptions were made so why can’t the same be done for them. I am not suggesting exceptions should or should not be made, my point is what will happen when and if they are made. How do the states decide the eligibility requirements for marriage?

    With the current divorce rate being about 50%, I wonder if the emphasis should be on other requirements for what happens after marriage instead of who is eligible. For instance, make the eligibility requirements open as long as the people involved are consenting adults. Perhaps divorce should only be granted one time per person. Or, perhaps if there are children, and their mother or father is delinquent on child support payments, they are ineligible for marriage or re-marriage until that is cleared up. In the case of multiple spouses, perhaps it must be proven that they are self sufficient and will not seek government monetary support. If a person, has a propensity to inflict physical abuse on a spouse, perhaps it could be mandated that they complete anger management courses before they are eligible for another marriage. I also would like to propose that it become more difficult to obtain a divorce than just citing irreconciable differences. My personal favorite was a receptionist who worked at a very prominent company in Beverly Hills/West Hollywood – she told me that she married a man, awhile back, ( for money) from a foreign country so he could get citizenship to the U.S. The plan was to get a divorce after the required time with no conditions attached. She was shocked that he demanded to have sex with her afterward as that was not part of their agreement. He, of course, justified his reasoning because she was his wife. She sought out the help of an ex-boyfriend, who is an attorney, and from what others have told me, the marriage was annuled. Now, that reasoning for getting married, would not get my endorsement.

  352. No, people who argue against gay marriage but can provide no rational reason for opposing it other than they don’t like gays (or claim God doesn’t like gays) are anti-gay.

    Who gets to define “rational,” Ken? If Jesus Christ himself appeared before us and spoke those words that gays insist he never spoke or would speak, would he be received any more graciously than he was 2,000 years ago? Would he still be called irrational? Would he be crucified again?

    This debate has gone far beyond the rational. Too much anger and self-righteousness for what is rational to be seen or heard.

  353. Do you think a family, with children, that practices polygamy deserves the same privileges of marriage as other people who are married?

    Are you a therapist? You’re answering a question with a redirected question.

    As to polygamy? I have a few thoughts on this. Polygamy often gets lumped in with GLBT marriages, but it’s hardly our issue. I dare you to ask most actual Polygamists (who tend to be quite religiously and socially conservative) how much they support the “gay lifestyle”. They don’t. But I can see the merit of respecting their religious liberties when it comes to marriage law (not that most of this country respect my religious liberities when it comes to marriage law, but that’s another issue…).

    On the other hand, plural marriages have a tendency to field abuses. We’re seeing that with the different polygamous Mormon cults here in the USA and Canada and we’re seeing it overseas in the Middle East and in Africa. Abuses with how the women are treated, but also with how the younger men are treated (and banished) in a society where a few men marry many wives and the men with little power or status have nothing.

    And of course there’s the whole “bleeding the Beast” (AKA welfare fraud) as practiced by the Mormon cults here in the USA. I marry five women spiritually, but not legally. Most or all of my wives successfully apply for welfare benefits despite my income and resources. That’s not cool. That alone could be a good reason for seriously considering the legalization of polygamy; forced financial responsibility towards your entire family.

    Basically, polygamy is much more complex than monogamy. If it were legalized, many details would need to be ironed out for how it would be practically accomplished: Do all spouses need to concent when a new spouse is added? How is divorce handled? Can the polygamous familiy financially support itself? How is inheritance handled? Should there a limit to the number of spouses in such a union? Why or why not?

    To summarize my answer, Ann, my mind is open to learning more about their needs. But it’s not a simple issue of legalizing it and those seeking to legalize polygamy (and I’m not certain that most of them are actually trying to legalize it) need to lead the charge.

  354. Debbie Thurman# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    “It stands to reason, then, that the inborn immutability question cannot be the basis for supporting same-sex marriage. ”

    And who here has ever used “inborn immutability” as an argument for supporting gay marriage?

  355. Timothy, you make some good points about the gray areas of racial identification. Well illustrated by the Monocan Nation here in Virginia. They intermarried with both blacks and whites and had their actual racial identities expunged for many years.

    Rather than going around about fidelity in gay relationships (marriage or no), perhaps we can at least agree that there is a troubling undercurrent in the gay community, the same as there is a troubling undercurrent among those organized to uphold traditional marriage, to wit, their tendency toward infidelity and weak marriages themselves.

  356. Debbie,

    Or are they an inconvenient truth?

    Is the article I posted above and written by hetersexuals entitled The Case Against Marriage an inconvenient truth?

  357. Debbie,

    That could go back and forth forever, proving nothing. “I reject your rejecting.”

    I agree Debbie, which is why this is a terrible argument and should be left out of the debate – because it gets both sides nowhere!

  358. I hope families like Jon’s are recognized for the goodness they bring each other and society and that civil unions bring all the rights and privileges that traditional marriages have. This is my personal opinion and one that is not meant to interfere with anyone else’s life.

    So you advocate for stripping me involuntarily of my marriage license and making me get a civil union license instead? I guess you’re a step up against the Iowa GOP, which wants to involuntarily strip me of my license and ban recognition of any marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, or whatever.

  359. Don’t forget the android marriages, Emily. Protect Marriage Maryland is terrfied about possible human/android marriages. They cited the existence of Data on Star Trek: TNG as evidence of this possible menace.

  360. Jayhuck agrees that

    Homosexual orientation is a basic human identity, such that any state that doesn’t actively accommodate it necessarily harms or disregards a class of human beings.

    Debbie counters with:

    Fair enough, but that still leaves open the question of those who have rejected their formerly gay identities.

    One can have a homosexual orientation and “identify” as pretty much anything, including a cantaloupe or a dolphin.

    If some strongly desire to and (even only a few) are able to jettison homosexuality, this has to call into question the “suspect class” designation of homosexuality. And it is why the miscegenation comparisons are not valid. Not even one black man or woman has ever managed to convert to white or any other race.

    This argument – very common among anti-gay activists – demonstrates a rather shocking ignorance about race. And history.

    More than a few persons with a black identity changed cities and created a new non-black identity. Lena Horne did for a while, for example.

    Further, such arguments seem to think that race is a black-or-white matter. Truthfully, for many many many Americans, race is a bit of a question. My friend Matt, for example, identifies as white while his brother identifies as black; interestingly, physical appearance would suggest the opposite.

    My mother certainly looked like an American Indian. But she downplayed her ethnicity as much as possible and identified as white. And while my ethnic experience is one of a “average white American”, not a month goes by when someone doesn’t ask about my ethnicity. (Oddly my appearance seems to change – currently I seem to look “Eastern European” or “Mediterranean”).

    Yet the existence of people whose race is not easily identifies or explained does not invalidate the immutable nature of race as a category. It is a suspect class due to the discrimination experienced by the vast majority and not discounted by those at the margins.

    So too is orientation a suspect class (or I believe the supreme court will find it such) due to the experiences of the vast majority and not discounted by whatever Ted Haggard is calling himself this week.

    I honestly don’t know what those three gay icons (far from just isolated voices) think today about these statements they made earlier.

    By your standards, Debbie, I guess I’m a gay icon as well. Woo-hoo.

    I do know that The New York Times featured a story last year about a study purporting that gay marriages are more open than they are touted to be.

    No, you do not know that. You know that the Times included a report about a study of open gay relationships. They were not marriages. It was not a study about the openness of relationships. It was an HIV study which selected open relationships.

    But most anti-gay activists portrayed it in the way you said, so it is not surprising that you would have that perception. Oh how I wish that the anti-gay branch of Christianity were not dedicated to dishonesty.

  361. It might be helpful if you can show us how their perspectives have changed, then.

    No, that is not how fair discourse works. You don’t pull up a quote from 17 years ago out of context and demand that it be refuted to your satisfaction.

    OK, we’ll throw it out, then. I believe the opinions expressed in those statements are not just those of a fringe element of the gay community. You disagree. We will not get anywhere if we continue to debate it.

  362. Fine! Lets not pretend that a great deal of the arguments being made against gay marriage are not motivated by prejudice or bigotry though. Lets also not pretend that some arguments are not merely religious. Lets not pretend that all anti-gay marriage arguments aren’t motivated by hate either. And lets not pretend that so far, almost all anti-gay marriage arguments have failed in courts

    .

    I don’t know who’s pretending any of that stuff, but while were at it, let’s also not pretend that 31 states don’t have traditional marriage amendments.

  363. Debbie Thurman# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    “The discussion, in case you hadn’t noticed, has turned to civil marriage. Why haven’t we had it for centuries, if its benefits are so obvious? Is anthropology that short-sighted?”

    Actually, I’ve read claims that there were same-gender marriages in accent times. Although, I never followed up on them because I suspect they wouldn’t have been exactly as claimed.

    As for here in the US a couple of reasons. Until the last few decades being gay was considered a disorder and there were laws against gays. Aside from that, previously, the laws regarding marriage treated the husband and wife differently. Thus there needed to be a definitive husband and wife in order to know how to apply the law. However, TODAY, marriage has evolved into an equal partnership, such that the gender of the partners is irrelevant under the law.

  364. No it doesn’t Debbie, because Christians are a protected class as well, yet they choose their religion. Second the fact that many have rejected their ex-gay identity would not only call into question those who claim they have truly “rejected” these identities (assuming this means developing attractions for the opposite sex) including, but not limited to, the idea that these people might have been genuinely bisexual to begin with

    .

    That could go back and forth forever, proving nothing. “I reject your rejecting.”

  365. It might be helpful if you can show us how their perspectives have changed, then.

    No, that is not how fair discourse works. You don’t pull up a quote from 17 years ago out of context and demand that it be refuted to your satisfaction.

    That is fun when playing the Gotcha Game, but it adds absolutely nothing to intellectual discourse. Which is it that you are trying to accomplish here, Debbie?

  366. Debbie:

    I am curious as to what the reaction here would be to these statements made by prominent gays:

    Andrew Sullivan – Andy is an intelligent guy. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don’t.

    But I wonder at your reason for the quote. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether legal recognition should be provided equally. Rather, it appears that you simply are trying to say that gay relationships are not as you would want to define them. Or, perhaps, that strict sexual fidelity should be a defining characteristic of marriage. If so, I would expect you to apply the same standard to heterosexual marriages – to do otherwise would be bigotry.

    Michelangelo Signorile – Mike and I seldom agree on anything. This is definitely the case here.

    John Corvino – I have no idea what you are trying to say here, Debbie. It has nothing to do with marriage.

    But it does seem to be that you are suggesting that John believes that sexual orientation is akin to alcoholism and is a negative thing. That would be very dishonest of you, Debbie. It hints at animus and contempt as its motivators, rather than a desire for intellectual discourse.

    And as for your other unattributed random statements… they add no value. I doubt many here agree entirely with any of them; but more importantly, they are irrelevant.

    This posting of yours trotted off the marriage discussion and back into the familiar territory of “gays are awful people”.

  367. Debbie,

    I don’t maintain that gays are unable to see the logic in rational arguments that may be at odds with their views. They just seem unwilling to simply acknowledge that they disagree with a view that may be rationally opposed to their own beliefs rather than to paint the opposing view as irrational. Does not the same “I am rational, you are not” dictum apply to you, then?

    Fine! Lets not pretend that a great deal of the arguments being made against gay marriage are not motivated by prejudice or bigotry though. Lets also not pretend that some arguments are not merely religious. Lets not pretend that all anti-gay marriage arguments aren’t motivated by hate either. And lets not pretend that so far, almost all anti-gay marriage arguments have failed in courts.

    And finally, lets not pretend that some anti-gay marriage supporters, many actually, don’t call pro-gay marriage supporters names, or call THEM irrational or Activist instead of discussing the arguments as well.

    I’m still waiting to see a rational argument against gay marriage.

  368. Debbie,

    Fair enough, but that still leaves open the question of those who have rejected their formerly gay identities. If some strongly desire to and (even only a few) are able to jettison homosexuality, this has to call into question the “suspect class” designation of homosexuality.

    No it doesn’t Debbie, because Christians are a protected class as well, yet they choose their religion. Second the fact that many have rejected their ex-gay identity would not only call into question those who claim they have truly “rejected” these identities (assuming this means developing attractions for the opposite sex) including, but not limited to, the idea that these people might have been genuinely bisexual to begin with.

  369. Ann

    As you know, I have a personal belief about marriage, however, that belief does not extend to preventing anyone else from getting married. I do not want to deny anyone an equal right.

    I’m with you there. Were I dictator of the world and all decisions on the planet left up to my personal opinions, there are lots of folks that wouldn’t be married to each other. But I have no desire to be controlling of others and tell them who they can or cannot marry.

    But…

    Gay people think their reasoning for excluding others from marriage eligibility is justified. I submit that it is subjective just as when others exclude gay people from marriage eligibility.

    And I submit that you aren’t paying attention.

    Gay people – or at least those here – are saying that if anyone else is being excluded, then the state has an obligation to defend the reasons for that exclusion.

    Of course, some are obvious (marrying an inanimate object has no meaning), others are less so (while I believe polygamy is an unworkable contract that simply cannot be implemented unless we return to the paradigm of men owning women as in Biblical times, it is not an indisputable objective truth).

    We aren’t “discriminating” against others, we simply want the rules of logic and reason to be applied to all.

  370. Although I’m sure you won’t see this, such statements are nothing but bigotry. You are saying, in short, that gay people are incapable of rational discussion and cannot argue the merits of arguments. We are, you indicate, unable to accept the logic or consistency of a rational argument.

    It’s rather ironic. Because those of us here who do not believe that gay people should be excluded from civil equality are appealing to logic, to thought, to rational discourse.

    You are appealing to religious faith.

    I don’t maintain that gays are unable to see the logic in rational arguments that may be at odds with their views. They just seem unwilling to simply acknowledge that they disagree with a view that may be rationally opposed to their own beliefs rather than to paint the opposing view as irrational. Does not the same “I am rational, you are not” dictum apply to you, then?

    I am appealing to more than religious faith. That cop-out needs to go.

  371. Restrictives think that those who want freedom or inclusion or respect must be required to meet the burden of proof to their (ever changing) level of satisfaction.

    Timothy,

    Do you think some of the comments on this thread, from gay people who think others, who do not fit their definitiion of eligibility of marriage, fit into this category you describe as Restrictives?

  372. Why haven’t we had it for centuries, if its benefits are so obvious? Is anthropology that short-sighted?

    You really cannot be serious. This is a joke, right?

    As to your quotes, Debbie, I’m interested that you should pull random statements, set them without context, and then demand to know what one thinks of them as the Bible is often mined for ‘proof texts’. I don’t think anything of them. I don’t read or listen to any of those writers. They speak for themselves.

  373. I think it’s pretty simple. Marriage is a contract between two people. Making it a contract between one person and many other people complicates the legal matter and it becomes a different kind of contract.

    likewise, children cannot consent to many things under the law, and cannot consent to being married. Animals cannot consent either, which leaves “man-on-dog” out of the question. Same with man-on-corpse or man-on-table.

    It sounds ridiculous that I’m bringing up those imaginary couplings, but they are strawmen used to evade giving a determined answer as to why gays should be able to marry.

  374. And its not uncommon for groups to fight for their own – just as black people did during the civil rights era. I personally have no real problem with polygamy, but its also something I don’t know anything about and I don’t know what the impacts are on children. All I can speak about genuinely are gay people. I don’t do that to the exclusion of other possibly good families, or to prevent others from fighting for marriage, I do this because this is what I know

    Jayhuck,

    I really appreciate this thoughtful comment. Thank you.

  375. Jayhuck, they couldn’t present one at the Prop 8 trial, what makes you think anybody can present one now?

  376. strawman.

    Not. You say rational, I say irrational. And vice versa. No rational reason to be opposed to gay marriage will ever be accepted as such. I used hyperbole, not a straw man, in direct response to Ken. And the “gay marriage” movement is multi-faceted.

  377. The discussion at hand is about gay marriage. Whether their families are worthy of that moniker.

    Polygamy, et al can be discussed in a separate discussion.

    Two people wanting to enter into a specific type of contract is how “marriage” is defined by civil law.

    Whether or not an organization – mainstream OR fringe – wants to legalize other types of unions has no bearing on whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to get married.

    The “slippery slope” argument is itself oftentimes a fallacy; I believe it is one in the case of this topic. The only thing being called for by those who argue for gay marriage specifically is the recognition of the gender of the partners involved. Not the number of people, not the age, not the species.

  378. Who gets to define “rational,” Ken? If Jesus Christ himself appeared before us and spoke those words that gays insist he never spoke or would speak, would he be received any more graciously than he was 2,000 years ago? Would he still be called irrational? Would he be crucified again?

    strawman.

    1ra·tio·nal

    adj ?rash-n?l, ?ra-sh?-n?l

    Definition of RATIONAL

    1

    a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable

    2

    : involving only multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction and only a finite number of times

    3

    : relating to, consisting of, or being one or more rational numbers

    — ra·tio·nal·ly adverb

    — ra·tio·nal·ness noun

    See rational defined for English-language learners »

    Examples of RATIONAL

    1.

    2.

    from Merriam-Webster online

  379. Who does BeyondMarriage.org speak for when they put forward these desired definitions of marriage?

    Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner

    Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households

    Close friends and siblings who live together in long-term, committed, non-conjugal relationships, serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers

    Are they a fringe organization?

  380. No, people who argue against gay marriage but can provide no rational reason for opposing it other than they don’t like gays (or claim God doesn’t like gays) are anti-gay.

    Who gets to define “rational,” Ken? If Jesus Christ himself appeared before us and spoke those words that gays insist he never spoke or would speak, would he be received any more graciously than he was 2,000 years ago? Would he still be called irrational? Would he be crucified again?

    This debate has gone far beyond the rational. Too much anger and self-righteousness for what is rational to be seen or heard.

  381. Do you think a family, with children, that practices polygamy deserves the same privileges of marriage as other people who are married?

    Are you a therapist? You’re answering a question with a redirected question.

    As to polygamy? I have a few thoughts on this. Polygamy often gets lumped in with GLBT marriages, but it’s hardly our issue. I dare you to ask most actual Polygamists (who tend to be quite religiously and socially conservative) how much they support the “gay lifestyle”. They don’t. But I can see the merit of respecting their religious liberties when it comes to marriage law (not that most of this country respect my religious liberities when it comes to marriage law, but that’s another issue…).

    On the other hand, plural marriages have a tendency to field abuses. We’re seeing that with the different polygamous Mormon cults here in the USA and Canada and we’re seeing it overseas in the Middle East and in Africa. Abuses with how the women are treated, but also with how the younger men are treated (and banished) in a society where a few men marry many wives and the men with little power or status have nothing.

    And of course there’s the whole “bleeding the Beast” (AKA welfare fraud) as practiced by the Mormon cults here in the USA. I marry five women spiritually, but not legally. Most or all of my wives successfully apply for welfare benefits despite my income and resources. That’s not cool. That alone could be a good reason for seriously considering the legalization of polygamy; forced financial responsibility towards your entire family.

    Basically, polygamy is much more complex than monogamy. If it were legalized, many details would need to be ironed out for how it would be practically accomplished: Do all spouses need to concent when a new spouse is added? How is divorce handled? Can the polygamous familiy financially support itself? How is inheritance handled? Should there a limit to the number of spouses in such a union? Why or why not?

    To summarize my answer, Ann, my mind is open to learning more about their needs. But it’s not a simple issue of legalizing it and those seeking to legalize polygamy (and I’m not certain that most of them are actually trying to legalize it) need to lead the charge.

  382. I hope families like Jon’s are recognized for the goodness they bring each other and society and that civil unions bring all the rights and privileges that traditional marriages have. This is my personal opinion and one that is not meant to interfere with anyone else’s life.

    So you advocate for stripping me involuntarily of my marriage license and making me get a civil union license instead? I guess you’re a step up against the Iowa GOP, which wants to involuntarily strip me of my license and ban recognition of any marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, or whatever.

  383. Don’t forget the android marriages, Emily. Protect Marriage Maryland is terrfied about possible human/android marriages. They cited the existence of Data on Star Trek: TNG as evidence of this possible menace.

  384. I personally don’t care about the word ‘marriage’ so much as I care about the rights that are gained by having that federally recognized contract in place.

    Gay couples have had power of attorney, living wills and still have been denied seeing each other in the hospital. This isn’t some hypothetical thing it happens and it continues to happen. It’s happened to me. It’s happened to my friends.

    Personally I am scared to death to travel to any state that doesn’t have some form of something in place, because I know my family will swoop down in a heartbeat and get my partner arrested for being at my side despite all the legal hoops we’ve run ourselves through already.

  385. I think it’s pretty simple. Marriage is a contract between two people. Making it a contract between one person and many other people complicates the legal matter and it becomes a different kind of contract.

    likewise, children cannot consent to many things under the law, and cannot consent to being married. Animals cannot consent either, which leaves “man-on-dog” out of the question. Same with man-on-corpse or man-on-table.

    It sounds ridiculous that I’m bringing up those imaginary couplings, but they are strawmen used to evade giving a determined answer as to why gays should be able to marry.

  386. WHO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? What other group is claiming they are being UNFAIRLY discriminated against?

    If some other group of people feels they should be allowed to marry they are free to argue their case and demand the government justify denying them the right to marriage. However, until this group actually speaks up (or you specify WHO you are talking about) there is nothing to discuss.

    It seems ridiculous that anyone should have to actually type this, Ken, but for over a century or longer in this country, there have been groups of men and women who have argued with both local and state authorities ( in Utah, Idaho, Colorado, Arizona, and others, I do believe) that marriage between one man and more than one woman should be legal and that the state has been denying them their rights by refusing to recognize such unions and refusing to sanction them and thus robbing them of the benefits that acrue to legal marriage both during life and after death.

    If you are so convinced that the one man, one woman definition is not only discriminatory but also in violation of people’s civil rights, I’d think that you would be an advocate for what these others feel is discriminatory, mean-spiritied, and restrictive of their definition of marriage and family.

    After all, you are arguing that the definition of marriage that now exists is too narrow and exclusionary and discriminating—- this is their argument too. They simply don’t have your financing and lobbying clout, but since you are all in the same boat, I’d think that if you really were acting out of strong moral principles and a belief in the importance of the civil rights for everyone, as you argue, that you’d include them in your political discourse and certainly in your political activities and lobbying.

    Your evasive statement to Ann about other possible concepts/definitions of what might constitute marriage, your refusal to acknowledge that other people are just like you in that they feel the state and the federal gov’t. have ignored their civil rights in this matter, all this makes me wonder how you don’t see yourself as just as narrow-minded, just as bigoted, just as selfish and self-righteous as those you have repeatedly criticized. You don’t seem at all like someone concerned about civil rights at all because you just seem concerned about yourself and one group. That makes your constant cries of denial of civil rights seem really fake and very selfish.

  387. Ken,

    I think I have pretty much covered my thoughts on this. I think we could continue to discuss it and because of our biases, not come to any productive agreement. I am not sure what the answer is for marriage eligibility or for denying anyone the privilege. That is why I asked my original question about it way back on this thread or another one. I didn’t mean it to carry on this extent, however, I did get concerned when I saw, what I felt was a sense of entitlement that would include one exception (gays) and exclude others (anyone else). I hope families like Jon’s are recognized for the goodness they bring each other and society and that civil unions bring all the rights and privileges that traditional marriages have. This is my personal opinion and one that is not meant to interfere with anyone else’s life.

  388. Ann# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 12:19 am

    “If the current eligibility laws for marriage are considered discriminating, what do you propose the eligibility law be for all consenting adults who want the same privilege of being married as you do?”

    WHO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? What other group is claiming they are being UNFAIRLY discriminated against?

    If some other group of people feels they should be allowed to marry they are free to argue their case and demand the government justify denying them the right to marriage. However, until this group actually speaks up (or you specify WHO you are talking about) there is nothing to discuss.

    You keep ignoring what I’m saying, which is the government must have a rational justification for denying marriage to a class of people. Until you say who this other group is that you are talking about, it is impossible to say whether the governments denial of marriage to them is justified or not.

  389. What group of people besides gay couples are seeking marital rights and responsibilities and being denied that ability? I still haven’t been told.

    Do you think a family, with children, that practices polygamy deserves the same privileges of marriage as other people who are married?

  390. So who do you think should be excluded from civil marriage

    I like the criteria for marriage the way it is now. If that criteria is changed to accommodate one group of people as an exception, and excludes others who want the same privileges, then that is an ongoing case of and for discrimination, as it should be.

  391. I am not asking for any advocacy for any group. If the current eligibility laws for marriage are considered discriminating, what do you propose the eligibility law be for all consenting adults who want the same privilege of being married as you do?

    In theory, allowing gays to marry in all 50 states gives you that ability to accomodate all consenting adults. What group of people besides gay couples are seeking marital rights and responsibilities and being denied that ability? I still haven’t been told.

  392. Ann# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 12:01 am

    “Ok, I guess you are unwilling to see the hypocrisy. ”

    Because there is no hypocrisy Ann.

    “You have an opinion about who can or cannot get married, as long as it accommodates you.”

    No Ann it has nothing to do with accommodating me. You are making incorrect assumptions about me.

    “People who have a different definition of marriage than you are anti-gay and/or discriminating.”

    No, people who argue against gay marriage but can provide no rational reason for opposing it other than they don’t like gays (or claim God doesn’t like gays) are anti-gay.

    “Someone else who does not fit your definition of marriage does not deserve to get married.”

    So you believe that brothers and sisters should be allowed to marry is that it Ann?

    And if you don’t believe that, does that mean you are a hypocrite?

    And to clarify something else you seem to be misunderstanding. I don’t believe 1st cousins should be allowed to marry. However, I am not saying that states that do allow 1st cousins to marry should make it illegal. You see, even though I have my beliefs, I’m not trying to force others to live by them.

  393. Jon Trouten,

    I am not asking for any advocacy for any group. If the current eligibility laws for marriage are considered discriminating, what do you propose the eligibility law be for all consenting adults who want the same privilege of being married as you do?

  394. To be clear I do not determine who does or does not get married. Nor have I ever claimed to have that authority, thus I am not cable of discriminating against people in their ability to marry.

    Ken,

    Ok, I guess you are unwilling to see the hypocrisy. You have an opinion about who can or cannot get married, as long as it accommodates you. People who have a different definition of marriage than you are anti-gay and/or discriminating. Someone else who does not fit your definition of marriage does not deserve to get married. Your situation is the exception. Ok, I get it.

  395. I did not know this. Do you know what the exception is based on? Interesting as well because in another post Ken, who is for gay marriage, said the two things he did not think qualified someone for marriage was a young age and first cousins. This is what I meant when I said it was inevitable that those who felt discriminated against, would eventually discriminate against others as well. If exceptions are made, It is impossible to leave anyone out without them feeling discriminated against.

    Are you suggesting Ann that children should be allowed to enter into a marriage contract when they cannot legally be bound in any other contract?

    I ask you again, what groups are seeking marriage recognition besides gay couples who aren’t receiving it? Why are you asking gay couples to advocate for those folks when I’m not even aware of who’s being excluded? Should they not at least publicly state, “we cannot legally marry. would you please stand with us?”

    Who is being excluded from marriage besides gay couples?

  396. Ann# ~ Feb 17, 2011 at 11:08 pm

    “do you think other people who want to get married ,and do not fit your definition of eligiblilty, find your opinion discriminating? It is like how you feel when someone discriminates against you because your situation does not fit their definition of marriage.”

    To be clear I do not determine who does or does not get married. Nor have I ever claimed to have that authority, thus I am not cable of discriminating against people in their ability to marry.

    Now to be clear Ann do you think that banning a brother and sister from marrying is the same thing as banning a gay couple? You seriously can’t see any distinction in those 2 situations?

  397. Actually I was giving what I personally thought would be criteria for restricting who could marry. i was not citing the specific laws.

    Ken,

    Ok, do you think other people who want to get married ,and do not fit your definition of eligiblilty, find your opinion discriminating? It is like how you feel when someone discriminates against you because your situation does not fit their definition of marriage.

  398. When ad hominems are all a person can muster, that signals the end of a debate or discussion.

  399. Follow that bizarre line of thought to it’s logical conclusion and see where you land.

    Why don’t you take us there, David. “Logic” says what?

  400. Ann# ~ Feb 17, 2011 at 8:36 pm

    “I did not know this. Do you know what the exception is based on? ”

    If you are asking why marriages that wouldn’t be allowed in a state but recognized if the marriage was done in another state, then the answer is because of the full-faith and credit clause of the US Constitution.

    “Interesting as well because in another post Ken, who is for gay marriage, said the two things he did not think qualified someone for marriage was a young age and first cousins.”

    Actually I was giving what I personally thought would be criteria for restricting who could marry. i was not citing the specific laws.

    “This is what I meant when I said it was inevitable that those who felt discriminated against, would eventually discriminate against others as well. If exceptions are made, It is impossible to leave anyone out without them feeling discriminated against.”

    The difference is whether the government has sufficient reason to exclude certain people from marriage. You are attempting to argue that all restrictions are the same. They are not. Restrictions based on the age of the couple are not the same as restrictions based on the gender of the couple.

  401. Considering that the marriage benefits so coveted by gays are bestowed by the federal government, I am wondering how having 50 possible definitions of marriage will ever work.

    We only have one definition of married, but we currently have 50 different sets of criteria. The eligibility age, closeness of relationship, paperwork, blood testing, etc. are all different, but it’s all marriage and it’s all agreed that one state will recognize the decisions of the other and that the Feds will let states decide.

    With one exception. There is only one group of married people that the Feds refuse to recognize. Gee, what could that exception be?

    I get so weary of special exceptions made to exclude me from the fabric of life. It’s all so very Christian… and nothing at all like Christ.

  402. Debbie Thurman# ~ Feb 17, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    “The whole argument for gay marriage stems from the premise that homosexuality is something desirable that ought not be tampered with.”

    No, the argument for gay marriage that in order to deny the right of marriage to a class of citizens the government must have a sufficient reason for doing so, and not liking gays is not a sufficient reason.

  403. I personally don’t care about the word ‘marriage’ so much as I care about the rights that are gained by having that federally recognized contract in place.

    Gay couples have had power of attorney, living wills and still have been denied seeing each other in the hospital. This isn’t some hypothetical thing it happens and it continues to happen. It’s happened to me. It’s happened to my friends.

    Personally I am scared to death to travel to any state that doesn’t have some form of something in place, because I know my family will swoop down in a heartbeat and get my partner arrested for being at my side despite all the legal hoops we’ve run ourselves through already.

  404. Debbie Thurman# ~ Feb 17, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    “I don’t know who is claiming that those homes are devoid of love. That’s not what this discussion is about. It’s a straw man.”

    Emily didn’t claim people where saying gay parents where devoid of love. She said people where denigrating those families. Ex. claiming gay parents are selfish.

  405. From what I’ve observed in her writing, Debbie exists in her own world where secular laws that oppose her personal worldview don’t exist. Hence her aiding ex-gay deadbeat mother and kidnapper Lisa Miller with her “Only One Mommy” campaign. For her, the ends justify the means so long as “God” is pleased.

    Loving same sex couples being treated equally to loving opposite sex couples goes against her bible interpretation. So “God” must be pleased and civil law must reflect this.

    Childless couples who cannot reproduce (including the hetero ones, i’m assuming) were meant to be childless – “God” is telling them this and civil law must reflect this.

    I find this brand of Dominionism extremely bizarre. By this logic, Maggie Srivastav (nee Gallagher) should be forcibly divorced, since she is “unequally yoked” to her Hindu husband.

  406. WHO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? What other group is claiming they are being UNFAIRLY discriminated against?

    If some other group of people feels they should be allowed to marry they are free to argue their case and demand the government justify denying them the right to marriage. However, until this group actually speaks up (or you specify WHO you are talking about) there is nothing to discuss.

    It seems ridiculous that anyone should have to actually type this, Ken, but for over a century or longer in this country, there have been groups of men and women who have argued with both local and state authorities ( in Utah, Idaho, Colorado, Arizona, and others, I do believe) that marriage between one man and more than one woman should be legal and that the state has been denying them their rights by refusing to recognize such unions and refusing to sanction them and thus robbing them of the benefits that acrue to legal marriage both during life and after death.

    If you are so convinced that the one man, one woman definition is not only discriminatory but also in violation of people’s civil rights, I’d think that you would be an advocate for what these others feel is discriminatory, mean-spiritied, and restrictive of their definition of marriage and family.

    After all, you are arguing that the definition of marriage that now exists is too narrow and exclusionary and discriminating—- this is their argument too. They simply don’t have your financing and lobbying clout, but since you are all in the same boat, I’d think that if you really were acting out of strong moral principles and a belief in the importance of the civil rights for everyone, as you argue, that you’d include them in your political discourse and certainly in your political activities and lobbying.

    Your evasive statement to Ann about other possible concepts/definitions of what might constitute marriage, your refusal to acknowledge that other people are just like you in that they feel the state and the federal gov’t. have ignored their civil rights in this matter, all this makes me wonder how you don’t see yourself as just as narrow-minded, just as bigoted, just as selfish and self-righteous as those you have repeatedly criticized. You don’t seem at all like someone concerned about civil rights at all because you just seem concerned about yourself and one group. That makes your constant cries of denial of civil rights seem really fake and very selfish.

  407. Marriage laws aren’t totally uniform here in the states. For example, there’s a sizable minority that allow first cousins to marry. Those marriages are still recognized by the federal government and are recognized by other states where they aren’t otherwise allowed.

    Jon Trouten,

    I did not know this. Do you know what the exception is based on? Interesting as well because in another post Ken, who is for gay marriage, said the two things he did not think qualified someone for marriage was a young age and first cousins. This is what I meant when I said it was inevitable that those who felt discriminated against, would eventually discriminate against others as well. If exceptions are made, It is impossible to leave anyone out without them feeling discriminated against.

  408. Ken,

    I think I have pretty much covered my thoughts on this. I think we could continue to discuss it and because of our biases, not come to any productive agreement. I am not sure what the answer is for marriage eligibility or for denying anyone the privilege. That is why I asked my original question about it way back on this thread or another one. I didn’t mean it to carry on this extent, however, I did get concerned when I saw, what I felt was a sense of entitlement that would include one exception (gays) and exclude others (anyone else). I hope families like Jon’s are recognized for the goodness they bring each other and society and that civil unions bring all the rights and privileges that traditional marriages have. This is my personal opinion and one that is not meant to interfere with anyone else’s life.

  409. Ann# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 12:19 am

    “If the current eligibility laws for marriage are considered discriminating, what do you propose the eligibility law be for all consenting adults who want the same privilege of being married as you do?”

    WHO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? What other group is claiming they are being UNFAIRLY discriminated against?

    If some other group of people feels they should be allowed to marry they are free to argue their case and demand the government justify denying them the right to marriage. However, until this group actually speaks up (or you specify WHO you are talking about) there is nothing to discuss.

    You keep ignoring what I’m saying, which is the government must have a rational justification for denying marriage to a class of people. Until you say who this other group is that you are talking about, it is impossible to say whether the governments denial of marriage to them is justified or not.

  410. What group of people besides gay couples are seeking marital rights and responsibilities and being denied that ability? I still haven’t been told.

    Do you think a family, with children, that practices polygamy deserves the same privileges of marriage as other people who are married?

  411. If God does not bless a couple with children, should they question His wisdom?

    Follow that bizarre line of thought to it’s logical conclusion and see where you land.

  412. So who do you think should be excluded from civil marriage

    I like the criteria for marriage the way it is now. If that criteria is changed to accommodate one group of people as an exception, and excludes others who want the same privileges, then that is an ongoing case of and for discrimination, as it should be.

  413. I am not asking for any advocacy for any group. If the current eligibility laws for marriage are considered discriminating, what do you propose the eligibility law be for all consenting adults who want the same privilege of being married as you do?

    In theory, allowing gays to marry in all 50 states gives you that ability to accomodate all consenting adults. What group of people besides gay couples are seeking marital rights and responsibilities and being denied that ability? I still haven’t been told.

  414. Ann# ~ Feb 18, 2011 at 12:01 am

    “Ok, I guess you are unwilling to see the hypocrisy. ”

    Because there is no hypocrisy Ann.

    “You have an opinion about who can or cannot get married, as long as it accommodates you.”

    No Ann it has nothing to do with accommodating me. You are making incorrect assumptions about me.

    “People who have a different definition of marriage than you are anti-gay and/or discriminating.”

    No, people who argue against gay marriage but can provide no rational reason for opposing it other than they don’t like gays (or claim God doesn’t like gays) are anti-gay.

    “Someone else who does not fit your definition of marriage does not deserve to get married.”

    So you believe that brothers and sisters should be allowed to marry is that it Ann?

    And if you don’t believe that, does that mean you are a hypocrite?

    And to clarify something else you seem to be misunderstanding. I don’t believe 1st cousins should be allowed to marry. However, I am not saying that states that do allow 1st cousins to marry should make it illegal. You see, even though I have my beliefs, I’m not trying to force others to live by them.

  415. Jon Trouten,

    I am not asking for any advocacy for any group. If the current eligibility laws for marriage are considered discriminating, what do you propose the eligibility law be for all consenting adults who want the same privilege of being married as you do?

  416. They have an origin and His name is God.

    There we have the problem. There is no middle ground. There is no appeal to reason. There is no logic. There is only faith. Which is a gift. Which I am prepared to honor. But which was never meant to be taken literally.

  417. I did not know this. Do you know what the exception is based on? Interesting as well because in another post Ken, who is for gay marriage, said the two things he did not think qualified someone for marriage was a young age and first cousins. This is what I meant when I said it was inevitable that those who felt discriminated against, would eventually discriminate against others as well. If exceptions are made, It is impossible to leave anyone out without them feeling discriminated against.

    Are you suggesting Ann that children should be allowed to enter into a marriage contract when they cannot legally be bound in any other contract?

    I ask you again, what groups are seeking marriage recognition besides gay couples who aren’t receiving it? Why are you asking gay couples to advocate for those folks when I’m not even aware of who’s being excluded? Should they not at least publicly state, “we cannot legally marry. would you please stand with us?”

    Who is being excluded from marriage besides gay couples?

  418. Ann# ~ Feb 17, 2011 at 11:08 pm

    “do you think other people who want to get married ,and do not fit your definition of eligiblilty, find your opinion discriminating? It is like how you feel when someone discriminates against you because your situation does not fit their definition of marriage.”

    To be clear I do not determine who does or does not get married. Nor have I ever claimed to have that authority, thus I am not cable of discriminating against people in their ability to marry.

    Now to be clear Ann do you think that banning a brother and sister from marrying is the same thing as banning a gay couple? You seriously can’t see any distinction in those 2 situations?

  419. Debbie:

    I am just trying to wrap my head around your logic. I apparently cannot, we live in different worlds. I do not believe in your ‘God’.

  420. When someone says ‘raise important ethical and moral questions’ then it implies that something is wrong with the status quo and would require law changes. You then bring your faith’s deity into the matter as well, which has no part of Law. Why should I care what you deity thinks of someone’s inability to have children?

    It implies that someone is wanting to alter the status quo, and there need to be good reasons for doing so. Morality and law didn’t evolve from nothingness, by the way. They have an origin and His name is God.

    When does THAT stop by the way? The questioning of wisdom? Why do we question God’s wisdom in people who are born blind? Are we throwing aside his wisdom when medicine cures that condition? What about being born with a cleft pallet? Why do we question his wisdom there? How do you determine what was His Will and what was not?

    You do get that you are making a reverse argument here, don’t you? Do you likewise want gay people to accept that God may not have meant them to remain gay?

    The whole argument for gay marriage stems from the premise that homosexuality is something desirable that ought not be tampered with. Yet it could be a flawed premise.

  421. Actually I was giving what I personally thought would be criteria for restricting who could marry. i was not citing the specific laws.

    Ken,

    Ok, do you think other people who want to get married ,and do not fit your definition of eligiblilty, find your opinion discriminating? It is like how you feel when someone discriminates against you because your situation does not fit their definition of marriage.

  422. Ken,

    I’m a naturalized American. DOMA is the law of the land. I see no point in challenging it because it would consume all the energy I need for my work. But there’s no getting around it. And now Wyoming Republicans are proposing a bill that would make our feeble attempt to protect ourselves illegal. So, even if we could be married in the state in which we live and pay taxes, if either of us is injured in that state all of our expensive living wills/POAs/ etc will be ignored. Remind me never to go there again.

    What mostly concerns me now is how to care for each other as we get to the age that we’re going to need it. There are no inheritance rights and we stand to lose all we’ve managed to acquire should one of us need long-term care.

    We’re too old now to consider the option of children. My husband would have made a very good father. That’s for younger men and women than us. But those younger men and women – and their children – need our support.

  423. Debbie:

    When someone says ‘raise important ethical and moral questions’ then it implies that something is wrong with the status quo and would require law changes. You then bring your faith’s deity into the matter as well, which has no part of Law. Why should I care what you deity thinks of someone’s inability to have children?

    When does THAT stop by the way? The questioning of wisdom? Why do we question God’s wisdom in people who are born blind? Are we throwing aside his wisdom when medicine cures that condition? What about being born with a cleft pallet? Why do we question his wisdom there? How do you determine what was His Will and what was not?

  424. When ad hominems are all a person can muster, that signals the end of a debate or discussion.

  425. Follow that bizarre line of thought to it’s logical conclusion and see where you land.

    Why don’t you take us there, David. “Logic” says what?

  426. Ann# ~ Feb 17, 2011 at 8:36 pm

    “I did not know this. Do you know what the exception is based on? ”

    If you are asking why marriages that wouldn’t be allowed in a state but recognized if the marriage was done in another state, then the answer is because of the full-faith and credit clause of the US Constitution.

    “Interesting as well because in another post Ken, who is for gay marriage, said the two things he did not think qualified someone for marriage was a young age and first cousins.”

    Actually I was giving what I personally thought would be criteria for restricting who could marry. i was not citing the specific laws.

    “This is what I meant when I said it was inevitable that those who felt discriminated against, would eventually discriminate against others as well. If exceptions are made, It is impossible to leave anyone out without them feeling discriminated against.”

    The difference is whether the government has sufficient reason to exclude certain people from marriage. You are attempting to argue that all restrictions are the same. They are not. Restrictions based on the age of the couple are not the same as restrictions based on the gender of the couple.

  427. Same-sex couples are not capable of reproducing, law or not. Your statement is illogical. I haven’t said anything about laws. I am saying sperm/egg-bank babies are a method of reproduction that raises important ethical and moral questions. What comes next? Eugenics? Designer babies? I realize some couples (straight, obviously) are devastated by the inability to have children naturally. Even so, should they accept this? Should they consider adoption? If God does not bless a couple with children, should they question His wisdom?

  428. Debbie:

    So let me get this correctly. You would like to make it illegal for same-sex couples to reproduce?

  429. Why people feel the need to assault those children’s families by denigrating their value as loving homes

    I don’t know who is claiming that those homes are devoid of love. That’s not what this discussion is about. It’s a straw man.

  430. Would me becoming a father through surrogacy make our family look more normal?

    For all the reasons that you gave, Jon, yes, it would.

  431. From what I’ve observed in her writing, Debbie exists in her own world where secular laws that oppose her personal worldview don’t exist. Hence her aiding ex-gay deadbeat mother and kidnapper Lisa Miller with her “Only One Mommy” campaign. For her, the ends justify the means so long as “God” is pleased.

    Loving same sex couples being treated equally to loving opposite sex couples goes against her bible interpretation. So “God” must be pleased and civil law must reflect this.

    Childless couples who cannot reproduce (including the hetero ones, i’m assuming) were meant to be childless – “God” is telling them this and civil law must reflect this.

    I find this brand of Dominionism extremely bizarre. By this logic, Maggie Srivastav (nee Gallagher) should be forcibly divorced, since she is “unequally yoked” to her Hindu husband.

  432. stephen# ~ Feb 17, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    “We live in NY state which recognizes our Canadian marriage but offers none of the benefits or responsibilities (or stabilizing) benefits of marriage. Am I missing something. ”

    NY is still sorting out whether it recognizes gay marriage or not. So your status is an open question.

    “We’ve been told by the AG’s office not to bother trying to file joint taxes either federally or for the state. ”

    I’d recommend contacting the ACLU or Lambda Legal rather than the AG. Note, under DOMA you aren’t allowed to file jointly (at the federal level), the question is whether you are willing to risk challenging DOMA. Also, if you are Canadian there may be treaty issues involved as well (and if the fed decides to play hardball your residency status).

  433. Why? Because they want to appear as normal as any other couple? What about the child’s perspective?

    Children have consistently “come out” in defense of their gay parents. Why people feel the need to assault those children’s families by denigrating their value as loving homes is not fair on the child. It should not have to be their responsibility to justify their parents to anyone, and yet they are consistently forced to do so by anti-gay bigots (and concern trolls.)

    When you’re raised in a family with two same-gender parents, that’s what feels “normal.”

    Just like when you’re raised in a single-parent household, it feels normal. Or a household with grandparents raising the grandchildren. Or even foster homes.

    This idea that there’s only one truly “normal” family structure is absurd. It wasn’t even true in the ever-coveted 1950’s – it was only true on TV – where married couples slept in separate twin beds with a lamp table between them.

  434. Ken,

    as a married man myself I don’t understand any of these benefits on the state level. Unless one is a government employee. I’m not and neither is my husband. We live in NY state which recognizes our Canadian marriage but offers none of the benefits or responsibilities (or stabilizing) benefits of marriage. Am I missing something. We’ve been told by the AG’s office not to bother trying to file joint taxes either federally or for the state. Since we’re both self-employed, making one return could be a big saving. The new governor has committed himself to re-introducing a marriage equality bill here in the current session. Perhaps that will have some meaning. Right now I would much rather have a civil union that has some legal standing than this marriage which is mostly symbolic. I’ve also been really revolted by the torrent of vitriol and lies that have been unleashed on us by the anti-gay industry on the right. To say it leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth is an understatement.

    I wonder what would be happening if it was a jewish group that CPAC was excluding.

  435. Maybe I want a biological heir. Maybe I want to see my eyes and hear my laugh reflected back at me (something I heard yesterday on Catholic radio regarding the joys of parenthood). Maybe I want a third child and for some reason it’s not the right situation for us to go through adoption again. There are lots of reasons why people want to become parents and why they choose the methods for becoming parents.

    Would me becoming a father through surrogacy make our family look more normal?

  436. If I became a dad through a surrogate, would we look more normal then because I’m biologically connected to one of my kids?

    What would be your reason for bringing a child in this way into the world?

  437. A child already in the world is one matter. Heterosexual couples who go through the intricacies required to have a child conceived are engineering something nature never intended.

    And you’re okay with this?

    No, I am not.

  438. Debbie Thurman# ~ Feb 17, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    “Same-sex couples who go through the intricacies required to have a child conceived are engineering something nature never intended.”

    What about straight couples who go through the EXACT SAME intricacies to conceive, are they “selfish” as well?

    “Why? Because they want to appear as normal as any other couple? What about the child’s perspective?”

    Or maybe the couple simply wants a biological connection to their child just as straight parents do. Perhaps instead of simply assuming the worst about gay parents you could just ASK them.

  439. A child already in the world is one matter. Same-sex couples who go through the intricacies required to have a child conceived are engineering something nature never intended. Why? Because they want to appear as normal as any other couple? What about the child’s perspective?

    The before-mentioned Zach Wahls was brought into his mothers’ home (along with his sister) through artificial assistance. He has indicated that he’s very happy with his family. I’m sure he’s happy to be alive. I know several other kids who’ve come into their gay families through non-adoptive means. I’m not aware of any of them that wish they’d never been created.

    I dont’ get the “appearing as normal as any other couple” statement. Are you suggesting that Zach Wahls’ family looks more normal that my family, which was conceieve through adoption? I mean, I’m a huge proponent of foster parenting and adoption and I wish more people would do it. But I also realize that it’s not for everyone. I guess I’m just stuck up on the whole “normalcy” issue. If I became a dad through a surrogate, would we look more normal then because I’m biologically connected to one of my kids?

  440. A child already in the world is one matter. Same-sex couples who go through the intricacies required to have a child conceived are engineering something nature never intended.

    A child already in the world is one matter. Heterosexual couples who go through the intricacies required to have a child conceived are engineering something nature never intended.

    And you’re okay with this?

  441. There was no disagreement historically about genders.

    There was no disagreement historically about race and religion until someone said that it was wrong to deny marriage to two people of different races or religions. Just because “it’s always been done this way” doesn’t make it right.

  442. A child already in the world is one matter. Same-sex couples who go through the intricacies required to have a child conceived are engineering something nature never intended. Why? Because they want to appear as normal as any other couple? What about the child’s perspective?

  443. I don’t get it. Why are bioligically connected kids more of a fate-tempter than adoptive kids? Do bio kids react worse than kids who’ve been adopted if/when their families dissolve?

  444. Wow. So you believe that gay parents like myself are selfish for taking on the challenges and responsibilities of parenthood?

    I was thinking more of those same-sex couples who tempt fate to have one conceive a child. If a parent already has a child from a previous marriage or if a couple adopts children who would otherwise be left to foster care, the motives are different.

  445. I’m curious Jon, are you and your spouse considering challenging DOMA (ex, by filing as married on your Fed. Income taxes)?

    No. I’m not sure that Mark would go for it.

    Then again, who knows what changes the future may bring.

  446. If that’s all it’s about, then it is selfish. In fact, it was selfish to start with.

    Wow. So you believe that gay parents like myself are selfish for taking on the challenges and responsibilities of parenthood?

    Wow…

  447. “We are boldly going where no man has gone before. The consequences may not be what we hope for.”

    Several countries already allow gay marriage Debbie. The US is hardly trail blazing on the issue of gay rights.

    The “we” is a universal we. It’s all a recent phenomenon.

    It has worked since this country was founded Debbie. Who was eligible to marry has ALWAYS been defined at the state level.

    There was no disagreement historically about genders.

  448. Those lesbians and gay men who create families with other women and/or men are *extremely selfish* when they do the whole ex-gay thing and use that as an excuse to exclude their former partners based on their changed life perspective.

    If that’s all it’s about, then it is selfish. In fact, it was selfish to start with.

  449. Jon Trouten# ~ Feb 17, 2011 at 11:30 am

    “I’m sure that America is much safer and secure now that I’m married in Iowa, but considered single under federal law.”

    I’m curious Jon, are you and your spouse considering challenging DOMA (ex, by filing as married on your Fed. Income taxes)?

  450. Debbie Thurman# ~ Feb 17, 2011 at 11:19 am

    “Considering that the marriage benefits so coveted by gays are bestowed by the federal government,”

    I don’t think you understand marriage benefits very well. While the federal government grants quite a few benefits/rights based on marital status, there are probably just as many at the state level: ex. inheritance rights, “next of kin” status, property rights, many state level court rulings on the standings of spouses. etc.

    “I am wondering how having 50 possible definitions of marriage will ever work.”

    It has worked since this country was founded Debbie. Who was eligible to marry has ALWAYS been defined at the state level.

    “We will have the never-ending battle of the Constitutional amendments unless a new one overrides them all. ”

    It didn’t require a (federal) constitutional amendment to end the battle over inter-racial marriages, and I suspect it won’t require one to end the battle over gay marriage either.

    Debbie Thurman# ~ Feb 17, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    “We are boldly going where no man has gone before. The consequences may not be what we hope for.”

    Several countries already allow gay marriage Debbie. The US is hardly trail blazing on the issue of gay rights.

  451. Rephrase:

    Those lesbians and gay men who create families with other women and/or men are *extremely selfish* when they do the whole ex-gay thing and use that as an excuse to exclude their former partners based on their changed life perspective. Once again, IMHO, but it’s a very strong opinion.

  452. What? Progressive Christians can’t talk about sin as it relates to public policy? Conservative Christians do it all the time.

    I mentioned this before, but the custody thing is happening even without married parents. It happens with both gay and het parents who break up and use their kids as pawns to hurt their former loved ones. The wisest parents are those who can set aside their pain and anger following a break up and learn how to suck it up for the benefit of their kids.

    Those lesbians and gay men who create families with other women and/or men are *extremely selfish* and then do the whole ex-gay thing and use that as an excuse to exclude their former partners based on their changed life perspective. Once again, IMHO, but it’s a very strong opinion.

    Then again, it doesn’t matter how well our kids actually do when raised by two moms and two dads. As more than a few GOPeople here in Iowa said following Zach Wahls’ recent speech in support of his lesbian moms, there are always going to be a few random exceptions. In other words, any failed gay families or kids of gay families are the rule. All successful gay families and kids of gay families are odd blips.

  453. It’s absolutely sinful to discriminate against families like mine because of *something unknown* that *might* happen at *some potential point* in the future.

    I know it’s your humble opinion, Jon, but such discrimination is unlawful and unconstitutional. Sinful is another matter that sits outside the church-state wall. Potential unwanted consequences of gay marriage ought to at least give us pause. But what is already happening to children — confusion about gender roles, custody disputes with parents going AWOL from their former gay lives and a shutting down of questions about what might be unhealthy in homosexuality (critical thinking) — is a clear and present problem.

  454. It’s absolutely sinful to discriminate against families like mine because of *something unknown* that *might* happen at *some potential point* in the future. IMHO.

    Agreed, Jon!

  455. When someone says ‘raise important ethical and moral questions’ then it implies that something is wrong with the status quo and would require law changes. You then bring your faith’s deity into the matter as well, which has no part of Law. Why should I care what you deity thinks of someone’s inability to have children?

    It implies that someone is wanting to alter the status quo, and there need to be good reasons for doing so. Morality and law didn’t evolve from nothingness, by the way. They have an origin and His name is God.

    When does THAT stop by the way? The questioning of wisdom? Why do we question God’s wisdom in people who are born blind? Are we throwing aside his wisdom when medicine cures that condition? What about being born with a cleft pallet? Why do we question his wisdom there? How do you determine what was His Will and what was not?

    You do get that you are making a reverse argument here, don’t you? Do you likewise want gay people to accept that God may not have meant them to remain gay?

    The whole argument for gay marriage stems from the premise that homosexuality is something desirable that ought not be tampered with. Yet it could be a flawed premise.

  456. Ken,

    I’m a naturalized American. DOMA is the law of the land. I see no point in challenging it because it would consume all the energy I need for my work. But there’s no getting around it. And now Wyoming Republicans are proposing a bill that would make our feeble attempt to protect ourselves illegal. So, even if we could be married in the state in which we live and pay taxes, if either of us is injured in that state all of our expensive living wills/POAs/ etc will be ignored. Remind me never to go there again.

    What mostly concerns me now is how to care for each other as we get to the age that we’re going to need it. There are no inheritance rights and we stand to lose all we’ve managed to acquire should one of us need long-term care.

    We’re too old now to consider the option of children. My husband would have made a very good father. That’s for younger men and women than us. But those younger men and women – and their children – need our support.

  457. I think we are coming to a place where some kind of federal nod to civil unions will become reality. We are boldly going where no man has gone before. The consequences may not be what we hope for.

    The consequences may end up being totally what we hope for.

    It’s absolutely sinful to discriminate against families like mine because of *something unknown* that *might* happen at *some potential point* in the future. IMHO.

  458. This is the point I was trying to make on another thread – I cannot see any fairness to the law if exceptions are made. Everyone who wants to get married will insist that their situation, whatever it is, should be considered as it is an equal right. I asked what would be the criteria for marriage that would fit all people and I did not get an answer. If the current law is being questioned for discrimination, what would be a better law that does not discriminate?

    Marriage laws aren’t totally uniform here in the states. For example, there’s a sizable minority that allow first cousins to marry. Those marriages are still recognized by the federal government and are recognized by other states where they aren’t otherwise allowed.

  459. I think we are coming to a place where some kind of federal nod to civil unions will become reality. We are boldly going where no man has gone before. The consequences may not be what we hope for.

  460. I am wondering how having 50 possible definitions of marriage will ever work. We will have the never-ending battle of the Constitutional amendments unless a new one overrides them all.

    This is the point I was trying to make on another thread – I cannot see any fairness to the law if exceptions are made. Everyone who wants to get married will insist that their situation, whatever it is, should be considered as it is an equal right. I asked what would be the criteria for marriage that would fit all people and I did not get an answer. If the current law is being questioned for discrimination, what would be a better law that does not discriminate?

  461. Good point, Debbie. I’m sure that America is much safer and secure now that I’m married in Iowa, but considered single under federal law.

    I’m just relaying GOProud’s mission statement, which doesn’t address marriage at all.

    I also get your point about the child custody cases. Then again, child custody cases aren’t dependent on married and/or divorced parents. Child custody cases also occur between people who never married or intended to marry.

  462. stephen# ~ Feb 17, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    “We live in NY state which recognizes our Canadian marriage but offers none of the benefits or responsibilities (or stabilizing) benefits of marriage. Am I missing something. ”

    NY is still sorting out whether it recognizes gay marriage or not. So your status is an open question.

    “We’ve been told by the AG’s office not to bother trying to file joint taxes either federally or for the state. ”

    I’d recommend contacting the ACLU or Lambda Legal rather than the AG. Note, under DOMA you aren’t allowed to file jointly (at the federal level), the question is whether you are willing to risk challenging DOMA. Also, if you are Canadian there may be treaty issues involved as well (and if the fed decides to play hardball your residency status).

  463. Considering that the marriage benefits so coveted by gays are bestowed by the federal government, I am wondering how having 50 possible definitions of marriage will ever work. We will have the never-ending battle of the Constitutional amendments unless a new one overrides them all. We already have these wars between the states going on, especially where interstate child custody cases are concerned.

  464. Al Cardena of the American Conservative Union indicated yesterday on CSPAN that while individual members of GOProud are welcome to next year’s CPAC, GOProud the organization won’t be allowed unless it disawoes itself of any gay rights policy stands. Keep in mind that GOProud’s only real gay rights policy stand is its support of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell’s repeal. As far as marriage, GOProud opposes the federal constitutional amendment defining marriage, but that’s b/c they believe that the states should be have the ability to make their own policies regarding marriage.

  465. Those lesbians and gay men who create families with other women and/or men are *extremely selfish* when they do the whole ex-gay thing and use that as an excuse to exclude their former partners based on their changed life perspective.

    If that’s all it’s about, then it is selfish. In fact, it was selfish to start with.

  466. Jon Trouten# ~ Feb 17, 2011 at 11:30 am

    “I’m sure that America is much safer and secure now that I’m married in Iowa, but considered single under federal law.”

    I’m curious Jon, are you and your spouse considering challenging DOMA (ex, by filing as married on your Fed. Income taxes)?

  467. Debbie Thurman# ~ Feb 17, 2011 at 11:19 am

    “Considering that the marriage benefits so coveted by gays are bestowed by the federal government,”

    I don’t think you understand marriage benefits very well. While the federal government grants quite a few benefits/rights based on marital status, there are probably just as many at the state level: ex. inheritance rights, “next of kin” status, property rights, many state level court rulings on the standings of spouses. etc.

    “I am wondering how having 50 possible definitions of marriage will ever work.”

    It has worked since this country was founded Debbie. Who was eligible to marry has ALWAYS been defined at the state level.

    “We will have the never-ending battle of the Constitutional amendments unless a new one overrides them all. ”

    It didn’t require a (federal) constitutional amendment to end the battle over inter-racial marriages, and I suspect it won’t require one to end the battle over gay marriage either.

    Debbie Thurman# ~ Feb 17, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    “We are boldly going where no man has gone before. The consequences may not be what we hope for.”

    Several countries already allow gay marriage Debbie. The US is hardly trail blazing on the issue of gay rights.

  468. Rephrase:

    Those lesbians and gay men who create families with other women and/or men are *extremely selfish* when they do the whole ex-gay thing and use that as an excuse to exclude their former partners based on their changed life perspective. Once again, IMHO, but it’s a very strong opinion.

  469. What? Progressive Christians can’t talk about sin as it relates to public policy? Conservative Christians do it all the time.

    I mentioned this before, but the custody thing is happening even without married parents. It happens with both gay and het parents who break up and use their kids as pawns to hurt their former loved ones. The wisest parents are those who can set aside their pain and anger following a break up and learn how to suck it up for the benefit of their kids.

    Those lesbians and gay men who create families with other women and/or men are *extremely selfish* and then do the whole ex-gay thing and use that as an excuse to exclude their former partners based on their changed life perspective. Once again, IMHO, but it’s a very strong opinion.

    Then again, it doesn’t matter how well our kids actually do when raised by two moms and two dads. As more than a few GOPeople here in Iowa said following Zach Wahls’ recent speech in support of his lesbian moms, there are always going to be a few random exceptions. In other words, any failed gay families or kids of gay families are the rule. All successful gay families and kids of gay families are odd blips.

  470. It’s absolutely sinful to discriminate against families like mine because of *something unknown* that *might* happen at *some potential point* in the future.

    I know it’s your humble opinion, Jon, but such discrimination is unlawful and unconstitutional. Sinful is another matter that sits outside the church-state wall. Potential unwanted consequences of gay marriage ought to at least give us pause. But what is already happening to children — confusion about gender roles, custody disputes with parents going AWOL from their former gay lives and a shutting down of questions about what might be unhealthy in homosexuality (critical thinking) — is a clear and present problem.

  471. It’s absolutely sinful to discriminate against families like mine because of *something unknown* that *might* happen at *some potential point* in the future. IMHO.

    Agreed, Jon!

  472. I think we are coming to a place where some kind of federal nod to civil unions will become reality. We are boldly going where no man has gone before. The consequences may not be what we hope for.

    The consequences may end up being totally what we hope for.

    It’s absolutely sinful to discriminate against families like mine because of *something unknown* that *might* happen at *some potential point* in the future. IMHO.

  473. This is the point I was trying to make on another thread – I cannot see any fairness to the law if exceptions are made. Everyone who wants to get married will insist that their situation, whatever it is, should be considered as it is an equal right. I asked what would be the criteria for marriage that would fit all people and I did not get an answer. If the current law is being questioned for discrimination, what would be a better law that does not discriminate?

    Marriage laws aren’t totally uniform here in the states. For example, there’s a sizable minority that allow first cousins to marry. Those marriages are still recognized by the federal government and are recognized by other states where they aren’t otherwise allowed.

  474. I think we are coming to a place where some kind of federal nod to civil unions will become reality. We are boldly going where no man has gone before. The consequences may not be what we hope for.

  475. I am wondering how having 50 possible definitions of marriage will ever work. We will have the never-ending battle of the Constitutional amendments unless a new one overrides them all.

    This is the point I was trying to make on another thread – I cannot see any fairness to the law if exceptions are made. Everyone who wants to get married will insist that their situation, whatever it is, should be considered as it is an equal right. I asked what would be the criteria for marriage that would fit all people and I did not get an answer. If the current law is being questioned for discrimination, what would be a better law that does not discriminate?

  476. Good point, Debbie. I’m sure that America is much safer and secure now that I’m married in Iowa, but considered single under federal law.

    I’m just relaying GOProud’s mission statement, which doesn’t address marriage at all.

    I also get your point about the child custody cases. Then again, child custody cases aren’t dependent on married and/or divorced parents. Child custody cases also occur between people who never married or intended to marry.

  477. Considering that the marriage benefits so coveted by gays are bestowed by the federal government, I am wondering how having 50 possible definitions of marriage will ever work. We will have the never-ending battle of the Constitutional amendments unless a new one overrides them all. We already have these wars between the states going on, especially where interstate child custody cases are concerned.

  478. Opposing civil rights was a “conservative” stance 50-60 years ago. The problem is (as it was then) is that then younger generations support gay rights (and supported civil rights previously) and are still supporting it as they get older. And if conservative groups want to be able to attract new members (and stay viable) they are going to need to re-think their stances on gay rights

    today, no reasonable (i.e. non-hate) group would dare boycott an event because it had a black org. attending. However, I can imagine it happening 50 years ago. And 40 years from now I suspect those orgs that pulled out will be viewed as we would view orgs that boycotted because of the inclusion of civil rights groups 50 years ago.

  479. Opposing civil rights was a “conservative” stance 50-60 years ago. The problem is (as it was then) is that then younger generations support gay rights (and supported civil rights previously) and are still supporting it as they get older. And if conservative groups want to be able to attract new members (and stay viable) they are going to need to re-think their stances on gay rights

    today, no reasonable (i.e. non-hate) group would dare boycott an event because it had a black org. attending. However, I can imagine it happening 50 years ago. And 40 years from now I suspect those orgs that pulled out will be viewed as we would view orgs that boycotted because of the inclusion of civil rights groups 50 years ago.

Comments are closed.