San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, a Republican, announced today that he's changed his mind and now supports gay marriage:
· I am here this afternoon to announce that I will sign the resolution that the City Council passed yesterday directing the City Attorney to file a brief in support of gay marriage.
· My plan, as has been reported publicly, was to veto that resolution, so I feel like I owe all San Diegans an explanation for this change of heart.
· During the campaign two years ago, I announced that I did not support gay marriage and instead supported civil unions and domestic partnerships.
· I have personally wrestled with that position ever since. My opinion on this issue has evolved significantly — as I think have the opinions of millions of Americans from all walks of life.
· In order to be consistent with the position I took during the mayoral election, I intended to veto the Council resolution. As late as yesterday afternoon, that was my position.
· The arrival of the resolution — to sign or veto — in my office late last night forced me to reflect and search my soul for the right thing to do. . . .
· As I reflected on the choices that I had before me last night, I just could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community that they were less important, less worthy and less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage — than anyone else — simply because of their sexual orientation. . . .
· I do believe that times have changed. And with changing time, and new life experiences, come different opinions. I think that's natural, and certainly it is true in my case. . . .
· I have close family members and friends who are members of the gay and lesbian community. These folks include my daughter Lisa and her partner, as well as members of my personal staff.
· I want for them the same thing that we all want for our loved ones — for each of them to find a mate whom they love deeply and who loves them back; someone with whom they can grow old together and share life's wondrous adventures.
· And I want their relationships to be protected equally under the law. In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships — their very lives — were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife Rana.
[Thanks to journalist Rex Wockner for providing the text of the mayor's message.]
Leave aside for now the merits of the California marriage litigation San Diego will now support. Leave aside also the tactical question whether a pro-gay marriage ruling from the California Supreme Court would be worth the risk of a backlash producing a state constitutional amendment banning both gay marriage and civil unions.
A couple of things in the mayor's statement really stand out. First, he is willing to reconsider his views about even fundamental matters in light of experience, and allow those views to evolve and adapt over time. It's obvious that Sanders' personal experience with gay people among his friends, staff, and family has had a deep effect on his view about marriage. He no longer sees gay marriage as alien to marriage because he has seen gay relationships up close. Second, in light of his experience, Sanders sees no meaningful distinction between his own marriage and the relationships gay people form.
Years ago, Michael Sandel distinguished liberal toleration from moral argument. Mayor Sanders' claims are not liberal arguments for toleration of nasty behavior. They are substantive and highly contested claims about the good of lasting homosexual relationships. They do not argue for some formal equality or abstract liberty by trying to bracket the question whether homosexual acts are immoral; instead, they confront the moral objection to homosexuality itself.
Liberal toleration was sufficient to convince Americans (including their courts) to do away with stigmatizing and pointless sodomy laws. That's why the laws could be eliminated in a country in which the majority of the population still viewed homosexual acts as immoral. Doing so simply signaled tolerance. Liberal tolerance might even be enough to sustain support for civil unions.
But allowing gay marriage goes further because it affixes a stamp of approval. The most committed opponents of gay marriage understand this, and that's precisely why they oppose it. Maggie Gallagher once said that losing on gay marriage means "losing American civilization." Losing gay marriage for Gallagher and others means not just losing on some words in the family code or on some legal debate over how to define fundamental rights. It means losing a world-view. The advantage they have in public debate is that they address the moral questions that matter to people, while gay marriage supporters are trained to recite the oath to liberal tolerance: "The government should not legislate morality." That line worked with sodomy laws but it won't work with marriage. Americans understand marriage itself to "legislate morality," so arguing amorally for gay marriage is like arguing for touchdowns in a baseball game.
It's possible for those with moral objections to homosexual acts to support gay marriage as good policy. But for most Americans, supporting gay marriage will mean seeing it and the love of gay couples it memorializes as good things, as moral things, not as merely neutral things, and certainly not as distasteful things we must abide as the price of preserving individual liberty and pluralism. They will have to cross the gap between tolerance and acceptance, which one Republican mayor has now done.
UPDATE: Video of Mayor Jerry Sanders' emotional announcement is available here.
That is the true libertarian position.
But they do. Polls consistently show that about one-third approve of gay marriage, one-third of civil unions, and one-third wants no recognition at all. Which means, of course, that about two-thirds approve of some degree of legal recognition of gay unions.
At what point would you agree that American support gay unions? Does it have to be 80%? 90%? Unanimous? What's wrong with just a plain majority?
Glad you support gay marriage. But even if judges ruled in favor of allowing gay marriages, how is it 'forced' upon Americans? Such a ruling would not affect 97.5% of Americans. (I use the number that 2.5% of the population is gay, since that is what the anti-gay people say). If we are such a low number of people, and most gays are concentrated in large coastal cities, and many gays will not get married, that means that the vast majority of Americans will never even encounter a married gay couple.
So what is being 'forced' upon you? If you don't want to go to a marriage ceremony, you won't have to. you won't even be expected to give a gift! So, please, tell me what it is exactly that you will be forced to do that is different from today. Gays can now get married in Massachusetts, so I would like to hear from anyone from there who'se life has changed for the worse in some fashion because gays are getting married.
Please be specific. Thanks!
What is wrong with 51% why don't you look at the Bush presidency for that type of logic and see what stupid results it brings.
2/3rds is a different number, but that 2/3rds is not for marriage, it is for marriage lite.
No, people won't be forced to give gifts, but as has been pointed out many times before, the whole point of legal marriage is that it gives the couple a package of legal goodies that are extracted from other people, including taxpayers, landlords, employers, businesses, hospitals, government agencies, etc.
That's true. I can't think of a single instance in which a court forced society to approve of something related to marriage -- a ruling which caused resentment but was eventually accepted. Can you?
For those interested, the video is here.
Not the Loving v. Virginia comparison yet again...
No trying to put a damper on DC's pretty words, but I'm afraid he's blowing smoke here somewhat. The man might be a Republican, but he's in San Fransisco with an out gay in the family. This is not exactly Mr. Middle American Senator calling for an endorsement here.
Sadly, more Americans are now thinking along the lines of "gay bathroom sex" than they are "hey, these homosexuals are just like me and my wife."
Pretty words can only take you so far, and overestimating progress or extrapolating more from one example than you really should = not good.
That Iowa court language was truly more valuable to the country as a whole, because it was pretty common sense American thinking: Good folks are being discriminated against here by sex, period. That should stop.
Enough of the idea that gays should have to be "just like you and your wife" in order to be treated equally in America. Be careful what thinking like that gets you is all I'm saying. Because not everybody is going to be as "brave" and convinced as the SF mayor with his out child.
Still, big tolerant California city, right? Not exactly an unpopular move politically where he's facing public condemnation for standing up for his beliefs.
WWJRD: San Diego is a tolerant city, but not a liberal hotbed. There are plenty of strong conservative voters, which may be noted by the current Republican mayor and a previous Republican mayor, Pete "I'm afraid of immigrants because it will get me elected" Wilson. Also, on many levels, San Diego is still a Navy town and a significant number of Naval officers retire there. And you imagine how retirees with history of ordering people around would enjoy being involved in community politics.
But that does not make it a marriage. And I think gays have a lot of damn gall to think they have the right to redefine marriage for the whole society.
Mildred Loving herself believes the comparison is accurate. Link.
But again, if we are only 2.5% of the population, and from what I've seen, only about 10% of all gay people are even thinking of marriage, then only about 0.25% of the US population is engaging in SSM, right? And again, most of those are happening in just Massachusetts, and if allowed, a few coastal blue states. So just how many people above are actually affected by gay marriage?
Flash Gordon: I also see two gay men who love each other, who have adopted several children together. Guess you don't really care if the kids have married parents, do you?
And then we have the situations where any hetero, say, Britney Spears, can get drunk and married then divorced in less than 12 hours, and that's called "marriage." Pretty damn galling, yet you are okay with that.
This gets it exactly right.
Imagine Fred and Ethel getting married in 1995.
Now the law gets changed in 2007, allowing gays to get married.
Why don't SSM proponents recognize all the ways Fred and Ethel are affected? Are they daft? Why are they so selfish?
There's just something that rankles me about vastly expanding the definition of the word "marriage" after so long to include same-sex couples. I would be absolutely fine if there were some other word for the relationship. It's something new and different, so why not just call it something else rather than shoehorn it into the existing definition?
See, e.g., South Park 9x10, "Follow that Egg!"
Twenty years ago I married a really cute, intelligent blonde woman, to whom I am still married and with whom I have had three children. Had I waited, I would have had the choice of marrying a less brainy guy who shared my interests in football and weiss beers. I didn't have such a choice.
And no way does Ethel marry Fred if she can find a female mate to go shopping with.
It's not about giving or receiving anything, such as legal advantages. People don't sit there thinking, "If we can only deny them health coverage..."
It's about social approval. Either society sees it as "right" or "wrong" and the legality of marriage is the litmus test. Advocates for gay marriage believe that as way, as DC notes in his post.
But shit, if NY allows dem gays to get married, I'm gonna have no choice but to divorce that bitch!
". . . as has been pointed out many times before, the whole point of legal marriage is that it gives the couple a package of legal goodies that are extracted from other people, including taxpayers, landlords, employers, businesses, hospitals, government agencies, etc."
Why are married couples entitled to these benefits in the first place? To promote procreation? If that is the case, then all childless married couples should be forced to renounce any such benefits they receive, as they have fulfilled their part of the bargain. Why should my taxes go to a DINK married couple? Also, if you get married and then divorced and there are no kids, but you were married long enough to partake of marital "rights," then should you be required to reimburse the state for any benefits you received?
When two people get married, the first thought to cross my mind is not "Oh, crap. There is another couple whom I have to acknowledge their rights and help subsidize." It really doesn't affect me if Chip is in the hospital and Brett is allowed to visit him as a family member and make medical decisions for him, any more than it would if you substituted Ken and Barbie for Chip and Brett.
Cornellian hit the nail on the head with respect to a proper legal designation of "marriage": it should be termed a civil union. It is a contractual relationship between spouses and the state. End of story. Not everyone chooses to get married in a house of worship or have the ceremony officiated by a religious official. My wife and I were married in a courhouse by a civil servant. There was no mention of G-d during the ceremony at all. Is my marriage any less "real" than one performed in a church/synagogue/voodoo tent?
I lived in San Diego for 5 years, and it is mostly a very reserved, conservative town. It is more conservative then Los Angeles, by and large. It has it's areas of progressives, but most of the town is not open to new cultural norms.
I do remember that there was one village in San Diego that was trying to attract gays to the area. The village, Kensington, had mostly old houses from the 1890 - 1920's and many of the neighborhoods were run down. The idea was that gays tend to be gentrifying. If they could attract Gays, they would move in, improve the houses one by one, which would improve the neighborhoods and thus the village. Last I saw, it worked out well for those who bought in.
Give me a break, Dale. The differences are so significant that gays have been willing to suffer serious social approbation for their relationships instead of just forming OSMs. Transexuals have been willing to spend thousands of dollars (often of OPM) and get their bodies sliced and diced to change sexes. Obviously, sex difference are enormously significant and thus SSM and OSM differ enormously.
And when are the libertarians on VC going to stop advocating state licensure of sex. You know, once they license it they can turn right around and pull the license and all the poor SSM couples will have to stop having sex. Don't fall for the trick.
actually, i think the point is that marriage evolved (it was not some sort of ad hoc creation by those intending to subjugate women (dworkin 101) or whatever.
marriage, as a concept evolved. in nearly every society.
its not so much to promote procreation. its to elevate an environment (stable, longterm parents) that is deemed best to raise a child in. iow, people are going to procreate no matter what. the point is what is the optimal environment for those children to be raised.
that said, im not against gay marriage.
this is also why polygamy (despite being seen as more "out there' than same sex marriage) evolved in numerous societies and has a long history. it's a form of marriage that can also be a good environment for raising da chilluns.
whether one is for or against gay marriage, it clearly IS a redefinition of marriage.
men and women are fundamentally different. marriage has historically been between (not among) men and women.
it is a radical redefinition. i am not against it, but i am against many advocates who claim it is merely extending marriage rights, so to speak, and not a complete redefinition/expansion of what a marriage means... unlike polygamy, for instance, which is not a redefinition (since it has historically been a kind of marriage)
No. Does our society believe abortion is right or wrong? How about being a Catholic? Or piercing one's nose? Or eating organic foods? or the war in Iraq?
There are tons of issues that our societies addresses every single day, and no one had claimed that there is an either/or for any of these. We have vast number of people on all sides of these various issues. Somehow, our country hangs together, despite (or because of) all this diversity of opinion.
That's true with gay marriage. In Massachusetts, gays can currently get married. Some people there love the idea, some people hate it. Yet the state carries forth, and people still get up and go to work in the morning. Ask any person in Canada, where SSM is legal throughout the country, and find out whether what has changed. You will find very little.
But of course, your issue isn't about gay marriage, it's about gays in general. For some reaons, you believe that society must not 'approve' of gays. Well, the problem is that you can disapprove of gays as much as you like, but we will still be here, and it won't change anything. So what's the problem?
Yes we need more parents who are such upstanding citizens. We need less Dick Cheney's and Jerry Sanders in the world. Who through passive acceptance or active support try to rewrite thousands of years of tradition.
it's really not.
There's just something that rankles me about vastly expanding the definition of the word "marriage" after so long to include same-sex couples. I would be absolutely fine if there were some other word for the relationship. It's something new and different, so why not just call it something else rather than shoehorn it into the existing definition?
Perhaps the thing that rankles you is that calling it marriage would remove the final societal indicator that gay people are inferior to straight people. Maybe I'm wrong, but if that's not it, please try to specify what the "something" is.
Also, same-sex relationships aren't "new and different," as a review of literature and history throughout the ages might show. What's different is that gay people (in some parts of the world, anyway) have overcome the oppression that in the past created tremendous obstacles to their relationships, and are now in a position to pursue equal treatment under the law.
If we accept your belief of marriage's purpose, then I agree. But, I think marriage's purpose has already evolved, beyond what you claim it to be, to include the encouragement of finding a lifemate. If we accept my belief of marriage's purpose, then allowing same-sex couples to marry is not a redefinition.
I do find it odd, however, that self-righteous blowhards decree that same-sex marriage will somehow "ruin" marriage. Homosexuals have only been allowed that state in random, small areas for the tiniest bit of recent history. Yet the divorce rate is (I believe) 50%. Gay marriage is an easy scapegoat and an easy target because the real causes of divorce are much to murky and complex to point a bullying finger at.
For a bit of humor on this topic, here's a great song by Roy Zimmerman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bja2ttzGOFM
Spineless wimp.
it look awhile for some of us to realize that leaving others alone to live as they like includes letting others get "married" if they want to.
as for wide stances, stay away General.
and this differs from your posts how?
It's a fundamental discomfort with changing definitions of words to shift the terms of the debate. I view it as fundamentally dishonest, and an attempt to accomplish something (acceptance of legally-binding gay monogamous committed relationships) by bootstrapping it to an already well-accepted idea (marriage as one man and usually one woman).
I think that redefinition is akin to cheating and admission that the argument that one can't win on the merits. There are numerous examples of this, but they include: what the Warren court did with "property", what certain segments of the academic left have done with "sexist", "racist" or the words "liberal", positive rights and FDR's "freedoms".
Also, same-sex relationships aren't "new and different," as a review of literature and history throughout the ages might show. What's different is that gay people (in some parts of the world, anyway) have overcome the oppression that in the past created tremendous obstacles to their relationships, and are now in a position to pursue equal treatment under the law.
Straw man. I'm not talking about the existence same sex relationships. I'm talking about their LEGAL recognition as more-or-less equivalent to marriage. Further, I am not disputing equal treatment (except possibly with regards to primary physical custody of children in divorces or adoption , but that's neither here nor there), just the use of the word "marriage".
That's the real libertarian angle here. My view had been for moving "marriage" to the churches and leaving "civil union" (or whatever title you prefer) with the goverment. Now I see that government can't be trusted to remain true to any such principle, so I'm forming a "marriage anarchist" movement. First meeting is in Las Vegas, at one of the drive-through chapels.
So you're for re-criminalizing adultery, intra-marital sodomy and birth control? After all, so-called 21st century "marriage" is based on the institution that included those elements.
What's your rationale for not accepting legally-binding gay monogamous committed relationships?
He paid you a compliment, Brian... nice reflexes, though.
If there's been a deliberately dishonest changing of the terms of the debate, it's by those who have cast this cause as "defending" marriage, an artful use of propaganda that makes gay people and their supporters into attackers from whom protection is needed. I still don't see how it's a such a redefinition of the word to say same-sex couples can marry. Just because they never could before? Unless you think there is something fundamentally different (read: lesser) about same-sex relationships than straight relationships, how is the actual term being redefined?
Do you consider gay adoption to be a fundamental redefining of the word adoption? Historically, of course, adoptive couples were always heterosexual. But you don't hear people arguing about "the definition of adoption."
What a gay person seeks when settling down with another is comparable to what a straight person does. We are not attempting to (dishonestly) redefine marriage, merely end our exclusion from it.
Wow. It's funny how people will adopt such a blatantly ahistorical and false mantra. The government always has, and always will, legislate morality. People only recognize that the state legislates morality when they run into some law which conflicts with their personal sense of morality (here, SSM). But so long as the law and a person's morality sync up, that person will whistle along ignorantly proclaiming that the law shouldn't legislate morality. But the truth is, practically all laws are based on moral assumptions (even when merely utilitarian morality) of the majority being imposed on the minority.
When am I going to get to live my right to look at fully nude people while drinking a beer in public? I was born loving alcohol and nudity! My lifestyle choice doesn't hurt anyone else! You soda and clothes lovers are allowed to live your life, so stop imposing your morality on me!
The article also emphasizes the point that we had conceptions of marriage preexisting current laws. Marriage is not just about the legal protections, but also religion, love, etc. Those other meanings are why I agree with Tutin's first comment above. This concern was also illustrated in an earlier thread on the subject, where an SSM proponent admitted that he wanted to eventually be able to force churches to perform marriages under the evolved civil definition.
I see. So if gay's want to accomplish acceptance of legally-binding gay monogamous committeed relationhips, you would fully support that if we called it, say LBGMCR instead of marriage, and it had all the same rights and responsibilities of marriage? That way, we get everything we want (except the word marriage) and we haven't bootstrapped onto marriage.
In other words, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's not a duck, but something that straight people can live with.
As a physician who treats patients with AIDS one of the complaints my gay patients make to me is that their inability to get married prevents their SO from getting medical coverage. If that is reversed the huge medical expenses associated with treatment will have to be borne by all Blue Cross/Oxford/United members rather than through public hospitals. It is another subject but for those of you in favor of universal government health care, BC/O/U is far far better.
Bottom line Randy R: it doesn't take that many new AIDS patients in your health plan to raise your monthly premium. Maybe there is nothing wrong with that but full disclosure in advance would be ideal.
There's a difference between "included" and "fundamentally about". Intra-marital sodomy and birth control aren't really relevant to the marriage (which I DO NOT define as about procreation). Adultery is closer to the line, but nobody is hurt, other than the families. Maybe a civil remedy (bring back alienation of affections, and something for the kids too? alienation of attentions?), but certainly not a criminal one.
What's your rationale for not accepting legally-binding gay monogamous committed relationships?
There is none because I don't just accept them, I'm very happy about them, as long as they're not called "marriage".
I still don't see how it's a such a redefinition of the word to say same-sex couples can marry. Just because they never could before? Unless you think there is something fundamentally different (read: lesser) about same-sex relationships than straight relationships, how is the actual term being redefined?
There's nothing lesser, they're just different. To quote probably every Property casebook, "an ounce of history is worth a ton of logic". And I don't think the logic is all on the "lets call every committed monogamous relationship a marriage" side. Even though airplanes and helicopters both fly, they do it in different ways and were developed differently. We don't call them the same thing because they're different -- there's nothing inferior about one or the other. Just like cars and trucks, motorcycles and mopeds, ATVs and dirt bikes -- all of which are "vehicles" -- both domestic partnerships and marriages fall under the category of "committed monogamous relationships with legal effect". They're just different.
Do you consider gay adoption to be a fundamental redefining of the word adoption? Historically, of course, adoptive couples were always heterosexual. But you don't hear people arguing about "the definition of adoption."
Because adoption is a familial rearing (if you'll pardon the pun) arrangement, rather than a romantic/sexual one. As I'm sure you're aware, adoption need not even made by a couple; individuals are free to and often adopt. The sexual preferences of the parent are orthogonal to the adoption arrangement. That is to say, they have no bearing on the legally adopted or adopting party, whereas marriage was and is fundamentally about the romantic (and typically procreative) desires of the couple. Aunts and uncles, grandparents, and other relatives often take in family members who are orphaned, and typically adopt them.
What a gay person seeks when settling down with another is comparable to what a straight person does.
I've never denied that it's comparable; in fact, I think it's equivalent. It's just not IDENTICAL, which is why I prefer to use a non-identical term.
We are not attempting to (dishonestly) redefine marriage, merely end our exclusion from it.
Again, if you have all the rights, privileges, and benefits of marriage, other than the term "marriage" itself, how are you "excluded" from it? Again, you're trying to bootstrap the acceptance to the near-universal approval of marriage.
Look, I agree with just about every one of your goals -- just not calling it "marriage".
For opponents of SSM, their logic is totally lacking. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the whole anti-gay crowd claims that gays are as little as 1% of the population, but they usually settle around 3%. ( I disagree, of course, but let's take their own numbers). But not all gays get married. Only at best, 10% even comtemplate it. So that's about 0.3% of the population gettin hitched.
Such a small percentage will have no impact upon national health insurance rates. In fact, the GAO issued a study about three years ago which confirmed that the federal government will actually save a bit of money!
Still, that doesn't stop people. They claim that if 0.3% of the population gets married, it will mean that marriage is 'destroyed' that businesses will be affected across the board, taxes will jump, heteros will stop having children, and it's the end of society. I didn't know we had such power! Of course, these arguments are absurd, and sane people see through them.
Unless, of course, you are willing to concede that 10% of the population is gay. But few people like that number, because then it means everyone has a gay family member or co-worker. They would have to concede that gay people are EVERYWHERE. (omigod!)
Bottomline Libertarian: There are plenty of people who are hetero who have AIDS, and not all gay men have AIDS. Maybe there is nothing wrong with that, but a little more awareness on your part would be ideal. But insurance rates aren't going to change much at all.
In other words, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's not a duck, but something that straight people can live with..
It's a certain species of goose :).
But actually, looking at different parts of the animal world, your analogy proves more than you might think. Just because something looks like, acts like, and moves like a species doesn't mean that it IS that species. Which is why we have separate species called the Ash Borer (not a honey bee), The False Cobra (not a cobra), Milk snakes and False Coral snakes (not coral snakes).
This is typical liberal LIE. No one is excluded from marriage. Any man can marry a woman any woman can marry a man. That is an essence of marriage.
First of all SSM proponents are absolutely dishonest people so, why should we listen to them.
And btw adoption is adoption no matter who adapted whom, quite the contrary marriage is a marriage only if two people in the relationship have different gender.
Errr... having been to a bunch of San Diego Republican meetings, I would say that it is an unpopular move. The majority of elected officials there are conservative or libertarian. As mentioned above, it's a big naval area.
That all said, while I'm for SSM, I understand why people don't want it. Most of it is religious, and some of it is predicated upon what has happened to marriage over the past few decades. As we've moved to no-fault divorce, the divorce rate is approaching 50%. Arguably, it's bad for women: those who are abused or cheated on cannot bring that evidence into the divorce proceedings. Some states are recognising the problems with no-fault divorce and moving, albeit slowly, back towards a fault system. Essentially, it's an illusory contract: "I agree to marry you until I don't want to anymore."
A fair number of conservatives see the problem with that and think that SSM will further erode the marital and family unions. The polygamists are joining the fun.
I do think that marriage is, in many ways, inherently religious, or so tied in to religion that it cannot be separated. Civil unions for everyone!
But for nominalists, who hold that concepts of marriage exist merely and only within human minds, there isn't a problem with changing the definition.
That's been my disagreement all along -- not so much about SSM, but at the idea at a philosophical level that many of these concepts that we've all agreed upon for so long can simply be changed by the whim (or argument) of humans.
In other words, once we substitute nominalism for the concept of natural law as the basis for our laws, come the deluge. Unfortunately, this substitution project is not only well underway, it could be argued natural-law proponents are conducting a, um, rear-guard action at this point.
So if I were to hurl an epithet across the barricades at SSM proponents, it would be, "Nominalists!"
ok, first of all... disclaimer: im not against gay marriage
the term is being redefined because intersex relationships (conventional marriage) are DIFFERENT than same sex relationships.
why?
because men and women are very different. i don't want to get into a long thread discussing endocrinology, cognition, instincts, drives, etc. etc. etc. but it is simply biological fact that men and women are quite DIFFERENT
this is also why the comparison of gay marriage to interracial marriage is so ludicrous.
it is, thus a REDEFINITION to define a same sex coupling as marriage, assuming that traditionally marriage has been an opposite (i detest the phrase "opposite sex". how about "complementary sex" but that would probably be "heteronormative" or something)
one (erroneous) dogma of the left for decades was that male/female differences were socially constructed. that the differences in behavior were entirely socially constructed. this is about as anti-scientific as creationism but it didn't stop the gender ideologues.
we are just getting over that anti-scientific hangover.
regardless, a coupling of same sex persons is thus, a redefinition of marriage, which has traditionally been defined as an intersex coupling.
the two things, while having similarities (obviously) are thus different, and a redefinition
Well, a first marriage is unlike a second marriage and thus should have a different name. A marriage between senior citizens is different than a marriage between teenagers. A marriage between a black man and a white woman is different than a marriage between two people of the same race. Some of these marriages weren't allowed 50 years ago.
Let's move beyond physical characteristics and into purpose. Some marry for love, some for sex, some for money, some to carry on the family name, some to have children, some for companionship, some under pressure. The purposes of marriage 50 years ago are different from the purposes of today which are different from the purposes 50 years from now. Different names for all!
GMUSL 3L elevates gender/sex as the only distinction that matters. I suggest he/she trade in that pound of rewritten history for an ounce or two more of logic.
As a physician lurking on a legal blog it is all too rare that I can contribute factually. I speak as a board certified specialist in sexually transmitted diseases. You say there are "plenty" of people who are hetero who have AIDs.
This is a very inconvenient truth but it is a truth. A sexually active, non-IV drug using heterosexual male has approximately zero chance of acquiring AIDS. Males are simply not at risk. The skin on the penis is a barrier. I know this flies in the face of perceived wisdom but the PR machine was very good.
AIDS is a disease of people who share needles and of the recipient in a male-gay relationship. Females in a heterosexual relationship are at risk if the partner is HIV positve. It requires mucous membranes for transmission. There is now much discussion if HIV can possibly be transmitted through oral sex to the recipient but the answer is not clear. A male in exclusively heterosexual relationships who is not a drug user has a greater likelihood of developing breast cancer or even getting hit by lightning.
On a prescriptive note, since HIV is -- at the very least -- extremely difficult (some say impossible but who knows?) to transmit via oral sex, and since oral sex is the most common homosexual male behavior, then it makes sense to encourage gay men to save anal sex (if they have it at all) for committed relationships, after an HIV test, and always with condoms.
If you are going to be promiscuous (not that I advise this, but some/many folks will) stick with oral sex, and other safer activities.
Is this advise sound?
If this is true then marriage ought to be entirely exempt from government's "cognizance," and you should argue for the privatization of marriage, and wholly consign "marriage" to the private entities like churches or private secular entities.
Government may still have to involve itself by granting certain legal rights and responsibilities to couples. But those rights would not be called "marriage," and this would be a public institution that any two persons could enter.
So you get married by your church and then you register for your civil union.
This is probably the best solution to the gay marriage controversy; but to such Platonists who believe marriage is pre-political and its definition cannot be affected by government action, I would imagine this the only acceptable outcome, because what government can define, government can re-define.
Jon, in all my discussions re this subject your comments are the most restrained, logical and practical. Congratulations.
AIDS in Africa is everything you say and more. It is a different disease than we have here in the US. A legitimate fear is Africa AIDS will spread here and then we would be in real trouble.
Condoms are usually an effective prevention. I still think oral sex is probably safe despite unconfirmed speculation, so that would be the way to go.
It will never happen, but a monogomous relationship between two HIV negative people would be the ideal and safe.
bingo. shilts, and others covered this very well. a CLASSIC example of political correctness "anybody can get aids". well, almost anybody CAN get it, but the RELATIVE risks based on behavior are EXTREMELY varied.
it's like saying who goes in the ocean can get attacked by a shark. well, yes. but if you go in murky water, near a rivermouth, in central california, with great big chunks of seal meat taped to your body and wildly thrash about, you are a bit MORE likely to get attacked by a shark than if you go into the ocean at your standard beach.
as much as the left loves to blame reagan for ignoring AIDS (and he certainly is culpable of not giving it a high enough priority early on), a massive amount of blame lies with those who chose to ignore risks AND with those (shilts covered this in "and the band played on) in san francisco etc. who refused to do anything that would make them look bad to the gay community, and who refused to address the real behavioral risks associated with aids, because even though that would be medically CORRECT, it would be factually incorrect.
see: exactly. that's a rational argument. it acknowledges that there IS a difference, and then asks - is that different ENOUGH such that we should be against gay marriage? i say "NO" we shouldn't be against it. but im not about to say it's not a redefinition. because... it is.
I apologize. I misread your statement as sarcasm.
Then why is AIDS so prominent in the hetero population in Africa and Asia? Are you saying that all the men acquired it because they are IV drug users? Obviously not.
Furthermore, lesbians have among the lowest rates for AIDS. Therefore, according to your theory, it would be very good to have lesbians marry each other and get on each other's health insurance, because they both contribute to the pool, and yet both will likely not require need for it, at least not AIDS. A net gain for the insurance companies.
But why stop there? Most of the people who have breast cancer are women, so we really should be careful about letting wives be part of the health insurance, because obviously those women raise the insurance costs for everyone. Drop the wives, and we'll all be better for it.
Except for the wives, of course. And the people with AIDS.
Many companies, including a majority of Fortune 500 companies, now allow domestic partner benefits. Initially, in the 90s, they were worried about just what you have talked about, that adding gay's peoples' partners would drive up the costs of health care. Study after study, including many companies own evaluations, have found this is not true. Unless you can show some evidence that health care rates have increased as a result of adding domestic partner, you will have to concede the argument.
Agreed. But how else to respond to people like Springjourney who claims we are lying, and that we gays can marry, when in knows darn well we can't? And who is dead set against us from getting married based on nothing more than sheer animous?
And if true, then if we get that type of AIDS in the US, then will you, and whit, decide that the hetero form of AIDS is something that they innocently got, but the gay form of AIDS is somehow worse, because we gay men ignored medical advice, whereas those innocent hetero men were just doing what nature demands of them? It really boggles the mind how quickly some people, like whit, are quick to blame gays for their disease, but all other get a pass.
Then what? You already lost that battle. In Canada and Massachusetts, we now have had SSM for several years. So the definition of marriage is changed all over the US, because any gay couple can visit MA for a few days, fill out the license and get hitched. Or we can go to Canada.
The definition of marriage has already changed. Arguing over whether it can or should be is over. The issue is dead.
So now what? Any practical differences now that the definiation has changed? What is now different than it was before? Please be specific. (I always make the request, and to date, no one has answered it).
Bottomline: all this is really about your kids. You are afraid that if SSM is legalized, or your kids see two guys kissing without getting their heads bashed in, or condemned by the Pope, then your kids will grow up to be pansies. Am I correct?
After all, if you really aren't worried about your own unfulfilled same sex urges, or worried about your own kids's same sex urges, you really wouldn't care whether two guys get hitched.
If I am not correct, then here's a simple solution. Allow SSM. If you are not worried about having same sex urges, then it simply doesn't affect you. You marry your opposite sex partner, and that's it. You don't have to like it, you don't have invite gays over for dinner party, and you can politely refuse to attend their wedding.
think of it like drinking alcohol. there are many groups, such as Mormon, Methodists, and such, who disapprove of drinking. Yet most will have no problem with other people drinking. Those who want to drink will do so, thosee who don't want to drink don't have to. Even in Utah, you can still get beer and wine without a problem. Somehow, even there, deep in Mormon country, where drinking is immoral based on the Bible, they were able to find accomodation to everyone. Even reformed alcoholics don't go around trying to ban all people from drinking. We don't have wars between drinkers and non-drinkers!
The same for the gays and straights. Let us get married. If you don't like it, then go about your life. It's pretty much what has happened in MA and Canada and Spain and other places. What's the big deal?
Why?
I presume that you would also support polygamy? It is a promise which fulfills pretty much all of your above requirements. (Monogamy would be fulfilled so long as that counts as only sleeping with people to whom you are married.)
The larger question is this: is there a principled way to distinguish homosexual marriage from polygamy?
From a historical perspective, how far back are we going and how relevant is it? As we get most of our traditions from Western Europe, shouldn't we look there, from, say, 1000 AD onwards?
now who's redefining words
It is getting late in the evening so I hope Randy gets to read this.
African AIDS has not yet crossed over but you are correct it might. Then approximately 146 million more males will be at risk.
Whit mentions "And The Band Played On". The tragedy the book describes is shameful. One hero he repeatedly mentions is Marcus Aurelis Conan. (Randy look him up)(Dale, you probably know of him) When I was Chief Resident he was one of my residents. He is a true hero. He has dedicated his life to treating AIDS patients without much thought for personal remuneration.
Randy in comparing hetero and gay populations there is a very interesting statistic. In 1982/83 the Gray Journal tried to find out the cause of GRID (gay-related). They asked patients in the hospital every conceivable question to try and find out epidemiology. Breast fed, lived in the city, house had rats, foods eaten, etc etc etc. Remember these were 30 something young males. Finally they found a correlation which over the years has held up.
How many different sexual partners have you had in your entire life? VC readers, before you read on, in the privacy of your own home, why don't you make an estimate.
This has been asked repeatedly over the years by many different social study researchers. The answers average out (different between males and females) 8-15. These studies have been done many times with similar results.
Now for the startling Gray Journal report. What was the average number of different sexual lifetime partners for the gay males in the hospital with what is now called AIDS? - 1200. That is correct 1200 different sexual partners by the time they were less than 40 years old. They said they often had a sexual relationship with six different men in one evening in a bath house and never even saw their faces.
Draw whatever conclusions you please.
DC: This line of discussion is veering pretty far off-topic, but here's my take on the question of allegations of freakish levels of promiscuity among gay men: http://www.marriagedebate.com/mdblog/2003_08_03_mdblog_archive.htm#106038323498106727. It draws for the most part on Eugene's analysis on this blog a few years ago. The bottom line is that, while studies of this are not very reliable, the best evidence we have indicates that gay males have somewhat more lifetime sexual partners than straight men -- but that the difference is not huge. And even this difference has come in a society that has given gay men little incentive to settle down.
Exactly as Randy said, all gay males do not have AIDS. The study was not done on a randomly chosen gay population but on patients who already had AIDS. To jump from that specific study to the conclusion that all gay males have 1200 different partners is absurd.
Since all acknowledge that AIDS is limited to the 2 groups discussed previously from a scientific curiosity the question arose why gay males? If you don't think it is the promiscuity that causes AIDS what do you think is the reason?
I personally hope that is the reason because that is easily corrected and perhaps we can dramically decrease its incidence. BTW, go to the SF Bath Houses and see what is happening again.
Do you know Marc?
This whole thread started because you stated that by adding gay people's spouses to health insurance, insurance costs would rise. Your premise was because gay men have AIDS, that will surely increase health care costs.
Well, of course gay men have AIDS. And many have AIDS where it could have been prevented. But that's not the issue at hand. The vast majority of gay men actually are not HIV poz or have AIDS. And no study has shown that adding gay people to health insurance based on spousal eligibility has caused any noticible increase in health insurance premiums.
You consistently refuse to address these facts which counters your initial argument, and instead veer off and start talking about those discrediting studues. Do you wish for another chance at it, because I am happy to hear you talk about the real issues.
However, whenever I hear people talking, like you and whit, about how gay men have AIDS because they are promiscuous, have thousands of sex partners, refuse to learn about prevention and so on, what I really hear from you is that gay men are so perverted that they have insatiable sex urges, and if they get any diseases like AIDS they deserve it, unlike the innocent hetero people who get it accidently, and they should be of no concern to the modestly sexed hetero population.
If that's not you, then tell me where I am wrong.
In response, some of asked how hetero males in Africa and Asia can get AIDS. You responded that there is a different strain of AIDS, at least in Africa. Therefore, this strain in Africa must infect men in a way that is different from AIDS in the US. That could be the only way for the virus to travel from female to male, assuming that none of the men in Africa have sex with other men. (A dangerous, and incorrect assumption, by the way).
Please explain how. I'm curious. I've done some research on this, and nothing comes up. Do you have any sourcing for this?
there are 2 major strains of HIV...HIV-1 is common in the US and europe and HIV-2 is common in Africa. based on what i was taught 4 years ago in an HIV/AIDS class, the two strains have different preferences for what specific subtype of immune cells they infect. HIV-1 prefers the subtype in the anus and HIV-2 prefers the subtype found in female reproductive system.
That said, Libertarian's comments aren't the whole story. HIV cases are growing fastest in the US amongst the heterosexual community due to IV drug abuse and the fact that the HIV virus mutates rapidly. the number of cases in heterosexuals will relatively shortly overtake the number of cases in homosexual men. no link, sorry...i don't have time to find it right now...but i did post the link in one of the more recent threads concerning SSM on this site.
The CDC fact sheet more or less said the same thing (except it didn't mention if it is easier or harder to get infected with type 1 vs type 2 if similar circumstances occurred)
Link 1
this article though says type 2 is harder to transmit
Link 2
Good questions. Since I don't view marriage as a right and I'm not very keen on the modern obsession with abstract equality, I have no principled objection to making such distinctions. If society as whole doesn't benefit much (and by benefit I mean more than just money--e.g., less promiscuity), don't let them get married or stick 'em with fines (and while you're at it you can stick folks like Britney Spears with big fines too).
And again, most of those are happening in just Massachusetts, and if allowed, a few coastal blue states. So just how many people above are actually affected by gay marriage?
If you include the coastal blue states: tens of millions. Certainly the state, acting on behalf of all of its citizens, is giving its stamp of approval to such unions (which will impose negative psychic costs on people who oppose SSM) and the social effects on family and society are not likely to be felt immediately. All taxpayers--also tens of millions--would be affected (the financial cost per taxpayer might not be large but you asked how many). Since people change jobs with some frequency these days, maybe 0.5 to 2 million businesses potentially would be affected. In any event, as I've said before, I don't see much potential benefit to society with SSM either.
Second, to the extent that gay marriage would encourage monogamy, it should be seen as discouraging behaviour conducive to HIV transmission. So I think on balance, the AIDS issue cuts in favor of gay marriage. Unless, of course, you simply think that recognizing homosexuality in society somehow manufactures gay people.
...
I don't see much potential benefit to society with SSM either.
Yes, those 1000+ benefits and protections afforded to married couples don't add up to much "benefit to society." Certainly not when considered against those awful negative psychic costs.
If sodomy and sex outside marriage are criminal (which they recently were), then intra-marital sodomy and birth control ARE fundamental to marriage.
Nobody outside the partners is hurt by adultery? You may not be aware of this, but adultery can lead to children. Protection of their rights is a perfectly good reason to criminalize the act, DNA-testing notwithstanding. Of course, you could legalize poly-marriage and solve that one more completely than the mess we currently have.