pageok
pageok
pageok
Broad domestic partnerships in Nevada:

The state legislature overrode the Governor's veto. The vote was 28-14 in the state assembly, and 14-7 in the state senate, exactly the amounts needed in each house.

The governor had argued that a 2002 state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage precluded the partnership bill. While I haven't seen the text of the Nevada bill, it apparently grants same-sex (and opposite-sex) couples substantially all of the rights and protections of marriage when they register as domestic partners. By my count, Nevada was one of nine states that amended its constitution to ban only same-sex "marriage" and not also "similar" unions. Three of those nine states (California, Oregon, and Nevada) now have broad domestic partnership laws.

mgh (mail):
the bill is SB236 and it does indeed convey all of those rights, with the except of a carve-out so that employers are not required to provide benefits to DP's.

an amazing turn-around from the disappointing loss at the ballot box seven years ago, and a testament to the power of the gaming lobby (according to news coverage by the Vegas papers, Harrah's was a big proponent).
6.1.2009 12:01pm
Randy R. (mail):
Seven years ago is an eon in terms of this cultural trend. I wouldn't be surprised if in five years the state reverses the ban on SSM, as most predict.

It's an interesting pattern. In CA, VT and NH, we have state legislatures granting SSM or DP, and the Republican governor vetoes it. In CA, they didn't have enough to override, but they did in VT and NH. In CT, the Republican governor didn't veto, but I don't know if that's because he knew it would be overrided. In NY, we have the opposite, a Democratic gov, who is pushing for it, and the state Senate is reluctant to go along.

In all cases, the R's are fighting SSM and DP, and the D's are pushing it. Seeing as how the country is trending this way anyway, (all polls show increased support for SSM and civil unions over the past 10 years), I would say that the D's are more in touch with the future of the country than the R's are.
6.1.2009 12:23pm
ShelbyC:
It's interesting how narrowly these bans on gay "marriage" are being interpreted. I mean, if there was a constitutional ban on the "electric chair" we probably wouldn't let the govt use a similar device that's not called the electric chair.
6.1.2009 12:35pm
martinned (mail) (www):

It's interesting how narrowly these bans on gay "marriage" are being interpreted. I mean, if there was a constitutional ban on the "electric chair" we probably wouldn't let the govt use a similar device that's not called the electric chair.

How about other devices that would leave the criminal just as dead?
6.1.2009 12:46pm
ruuffles (mail) (www):

In CT, the Republican governor didn't veto, but I don't know if that's because he knew it would be overrided.

The gov of CT is a woman, and she didn't veto because the state supreme court already ruled in favor.
6.1.2009 12:58pm
Bruce Hayden (mail):
Hey, I am happy here. I am straight, live mostly in Nevada now, and may look into this. We were looking at what was available in Phoenix, but this looks better.

In any case, I, and I think a number of others, draw the line between what is closer to the contract side and what is closer to the moral/historical/religious side of relationships. Which is why I can easily support domestic partnerships, without accepting (yet) gay marriage.
6.1.2009 1:08pm
AnthonyJ (mail):
It's not really that weird that bans on gay marriage are interpreted narrowly unless stated otherwise. There's plenty of evidence that the name does make a difference.
6.1.2009 2:14pm
cmr:
I'm perfectly fine with this. I'd be willing to bet this doesn't make any real waves, either.
6.1.2009 2:35pm
Hans:
The voters should repeal the state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, since there seems to be no harm to society in permitting gay marriage.

But until they do, the amendment should be respected by not allowing marriages-in-all-but-name. Civil unions with all the attributes of marriage ARE marriages.

Thus, the governor's decision to veto the legislation was correct.
6.1.2009 2:50pm
martinned (mail) (www):
@Hans: Well, one could argue that, by banning marriages but not "similar unions", the constitutional rule was always meant to allow (i.e. not rule out) civil partnerships. Original meaning, understanding, etc.
6.1.2009 2:58pm
Hauk (mail):
In CA, VT and NH, we have state legislatures granting SSM or DP, and the Republican governor vetoes it. In CA, they didn't have enough to override, but they did in VT and NH.

New Hampshire's governor is a large-D Democrat. And he didn't veto the bill, but refused to sign it until the legislature adopted a supplemental bill that incorporates his preferred changes. The Senate passed the supplemental bill, but the House refused it, and the bill went to a conference committee of both houses. The committee just reached a compromise, and the governor has indicated that he is likely to sign both the original bill and the supplemental bill if the supplemental bill is approved by the legislature.
6.1.2009 3:13pm
Bob VB (mail):
That's all marriage is, a name. That's what the Washington and the California Supreme Courts decided - the rights are everyone but they can be accessed and limited to different groups by whatever named contracts the state's legislatures want.

If they wanted to limit the rights they would have said so in their amendment as other states have done.
6.1.2009 3:17pm
Dan Hamilton:
Marriage is a subset of Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships. (1 male, 1 female)

If the Gays would just look to Civil Unions for everyone and let marriage be a subset. Very few would have any problems except of course for the Flaming Activist Gays.
They care nothing for Civil Unions. They just want to get the "Word" marrage attached to whatever Union or Partnership they can get so that they can rub the breeders noses in it and be able with lawsuites to harrass all those they concider to dis them.

I was and still am for tolerance. But what the Flaming Activist Gays want is NOT tolerance they want FORCED ACCEPTANCE. To cram it down everyone thoat and get back at all the people that hurt their little feelings.

Tolerance has been given and rejected as not enough. Forced Acceptance will be used. Indifference and tolerance will be turned into lasting hatred with good solid reason behind that hatred.

Great going gays.
6.1.2009 3:23pm
O. Hutchins (mail):
When Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships are recognized by the Federal government (mine wasn't), you'll have a valid point, Dan. In fact, what actually happened here in PA was that the anti-SMers got so riled up by places like Philadelphia recognizing them for their own employees, they tried to ban municipalities from doing so, even in the cases of hetero-couples.

No one is demanding you accept anything. You don't have to like gays, or socialize with them, just as you are free to not socialize with other religions, or ethnic groups. Are you forced to "accept" someone of a different faith?
6.1.2009 3:36pm
pluribus:
Dan Hamilton:

I was and still am for tolerance. But what the Flaming Activist Gays want is NOT tolerance they want FORCED ACCEPTANCE. To cram it down everyone thoat and get back at all the people that hurt their little feelings.

You're so right, Dan. I'm for tolerance, too, but not when people start demanding rights. It's one thing to tolerate gays, another thing entirely to tolerate gay rights. What makes them think they're as good as us normal people? What makes them think they should have the same rights as we do? Those people deserve a good kick in the ass, and I hope they get it real soon.*


[*Sarcasm off now.]
6.1.2009 3:40pm
Joseph Slater (mail):
I was and still am for tolerance. But what the Flaming Activist Gays want

Sarcastro couldn't have done that better.
6.1.2009 4:07pm
zuch (mail) (www):
Tolerance has been given and rejected as not enough. Forced Acceptance will be used. Indifference and tolerance will be turned into lasting hatred with good solid reason behind that hatred.
"You're a non-breeder, you can't come in, nyah, nyah, nyah!"

"Oh, that's hurtful and bigoted."

"Seeeeee!!!! You're just a bunch of haters, so now I have a reason to hate you!"

Cheers,
6.1.2009 4:22pm
xbg:
Dan Hamilton, you're so right. It's the same thing as with those damned negroes. Tolerance has been given and rejected as not enough. FORCED ACCEPTANCE will be used. They still insist on drinking from the same water fountain than us normal people. Disgusting.
6.1.2009 4:22pm
iambatman:
Oh, those Flaming Gay Activists have something else to cram down your throat, or they would if you obviously didn't gladly accept it.
6.1.2009 4:23pm
martinned (mail) (www):
Cheney's on board! (As he has been for a while...)
6.1.2009 4:29pm
Danny (mail):
Good for Nevada!
It's open to straight couples too. It will be interesting to see how popular it is among them, too.
6.1.2009 4:37pm
cmr:
Invective aside, I bet you'd find a plurality among those who would agree to comprehensive civil union legislation if they didn't feel the institution of marriage wouldn't still be threatened. I know it's cute to roll your eyes and suck your teeth when people aren't buying the wolf tickets the gay community is selling: that this is just about equality under the law and they aren't a litigious special interest group and they don't have, objectively speaking, an agenda that isn't just about "civil rights". Left uncheck, they can and will turn into any other special interest group that got what they wanted initially but now wants to push the envelope even further.

About 80% of this debate is about who is for it and who is against it and the accompanying rhetoric about those who are against it being bigoted and those who are for it being tolerant and accepting. The other 20% is somewhat substantive, but there's even a lot of misunderstanding about legitimate arguments for/against it.

And martinned, he's fine with state's approving it, but he doesn't support federal recognition. Hmm, interesting. That seems to be pretty much a populist opinion.
6.1.2009 4:39pm
martinned (mail) (www):
@cmr: I don't think that's what Cheney said. He doesn't want some federally enacted SSM, which seems to me to be the correct position. I don't think he's against the federal government recognising in various ways same sex marriages lawfully entered into in those states that have SSM.
6.1.2009 4:45pm
Lymis (mail):
So many people claim to base their disagreement with same sex marriage on some illusion that anywhere in this country there has ever been a civil union that actually conveyed all the same benefits and obligations as civil marriage.

There hasn't.

So claiming that gay people asked for equality, got it, and then demanded more is simply untrue.

We asked for equality, got (in all too few cases) civil unions that don't come close to granting all the benefits and obligations as marriage, and continue to demand what we demanded in the first place - equality.

I don't understand why that is so hard to understand, or why people who could easily know better continue to spread a lie.

Even marriage as licensed in a few states now doesn't grant the same benefits as it does to straight people, because the vast majority of those rights are granted by the federal government.

It doesn't take being a Flaming Activist to be unwilling to settle for less than other citizens are already given, for no reason other than other people's religious beliefs.
6.1.2009 5:15pm
pluribus:
cmr:

Left uncheck, they can and will turn into any other special interest group that got what they wanted initially but now wants to push the envelope even further.

That's a great argument to use against any group that wants equal rights. Women asked for equal rights. Blacks asked for equal rights. Religious minorities asked for equal rights. The disabled asked for equal rights. Did you resist all of these groups for fear that, if they got equal rights, they would only ask for more? Equality apparently is not acceptable to you. We have to deny equality to those who are demanding it because, if we don't, they'll ask for more than equality. The absurd logic of this formulation boggles the mind. Coming from you, however, it is far from surprising.
6.1.2009 5:48pm
Bryan Long:
Civil marriage itself isn't a right. It's a privilege extended by government because of the beneficial effects it believes will flow from it--namely, social stability and reproduction, each supporting the existence of the other. That rationale is not present, or less present, when it comes to SSM: less so than in 'plural marriage' and probably no more so than in the case of cohabitating relatives. Regardless, the government does not extend marriage benefits to either of those groups.

Anti-SSM really sold the pass when they allowed the pro-SSM side to define the issue as a matter of rights, with their only riposte being 'It's against tradition and/or God!', which is a pretty lousy argument when Americans don't seem to take either seriously. SSM was probably inevitable, but had the anti-SSM types tackled it from an economic or legal angle, they probably could've held out a little longer. But now the floodgates are open.

(Personally, I have no problem with SSM, provided what follows is the opportunity for any two or more consenting adults to enjoy the same privilege, assuming they satisfy the underlying policy rationale to the same or greater extent as a same-sex couple. At the very least, those state supreme courts that have found 'one man and one woman' to be constitutionally defective while 'two consenting adults' is not will have to perform some impressive gyrations to limit marriage strictly to romantic pairs.)
6.1.2009 5:54pm
zuch (mail) (www):
cmr:
The other 20% is somewhat substantive, but there's even a lot of misunderstanding about legitimate arguments for/against it.
Ummmm ... beg pardon to bother such a busy mind, but what were the substantive arguments against gay marriage again? Thanks in advance.

Cheers,
6.1.2009 6:01pm
zuch (mail) (www):
Bryan Long:
Civil marriage itself isn't a right. It's a privilege extended by government because of the beneficial effects it believes will flow from it--namely, social stability and reproduction, each supporting the existence of the other.
Oh piffle with your "privilege". Even if it were a privilege, you'd have to explain why we hand such "privileges" out the way we do. But you're just flat-out wrong on the law. Marriage is a fundamental right. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia.

Cheers,
6.1.2009 6:07pm
nedwilliams (mail) (www):
Substantive arguments? That's your job. The overwhelming majority of Americans think that a social union between a man and a woman is worth special treatment under the law . . . and they don't feel that way about a social union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. So they aren't willing to re-define the concept or expand the special category of things-crucial-to-society's-existence simply because some people are demanding they do so.
6.1.2009 6:12pm
pluribus:
Bryan Long:

Civil marriage itself isn't a right. It's a privilege extended by government because of the beneficial effects it believes will flow from it--namely, social stability and reproduction, each supporting the existence of the other.

Call it a privilege and all this nonsense about equal rights just goes away, eh? If something is a privilege instead of a right, the white male heterosexuals of society can dictate who will get the privilege and who won't, and under what terms and conditions. Do you believe the civil rights movement was really a civil privileges movement? Do you believe that those generations of blacks, women, religious minorities, and similar groups who thought they were fighting for equal rights were only really asking for equal privileges? Do you believe that black children have a right to attend integrated public schools, or just a privilege? If a marriage license bureau denied an interracial couple a license to marry, do you think the denial could be upheld on the basis that marriage isn't a right--it just a privilege that can be extended or denied any way at all. Just define the problem away and all will be well, and all of this nonsense about equal rights will disappear!
6.1.2009 6:26pm
nedwilliams (mail) (www):
By the way, Loving v. Virginia's holding is that--all things being equal, marriage is a right. The color of one's skin is different than whom someone is sexually attracted to.
6.1.2009 6:34pm
zuch (mail) (www):
nedwilliams:Substantive arguments? That's your job. The overwhelming majority of Americans think that a social union between a man and a woman is worth special treatment under the law . . . and they don't feel that way about a social union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.The overwhelming majority of Southerners (at least those that were allowed to vote) also felt that marriage was between a white and a white, or a black and a black ... but not between a white and a black. What result?

But getting to the BOP, you have that wrong as well. There must be a compelling gummint interest in laws with discriminatory effect. The BOP is on the gummint as to why such invidious distinctions should be allowed. You don't need to prove that you deserve equal rights; it's up to those that would discriminate to show why you don't.

Cheers,
6.1.2009 7:02pm
zuch (mail) (www):
nedwilliams:
By the way, Loving v. Virginia's holding is that--all things being equal, marriage is a right....
Why, thank you. At least that's decided and off the table.
... The color of one's skin is different than whom someone is sexually attracted to.
The laws in question prohibit same-sex marriages. There is no law that prevents people of homosexual orientation from marrying, nor any examination of the sexual orientation of people who get married. The only criteria is as to what sexual organs (or chromosomes) they have. But that's then gender discrimination. Which is also frowned upon absent a significant gummint interest.

Let's get serious, Ned: What is the point of denying marriage to gays? What's in it for you? Be honest now....

Cheers,
6.1.2009 7:09pm
AnthonyJ (mail):
Civil marriage itself isn't a right. It's a privilege extended by government because of the beneficial effects it believes will flow from it--namely, social stability and reproduction, each supporting the existence of the other.
The social stability argument is a nonstarter -- there's no reason to think gay relationships contribute any less to social stability than other relationships. The reproduction argument can be valid, but suffers a major flaw which is why it isn't actually used: it implies that any marriage that cannot reasonably result in reproduction should be forbidden, including such people as post-menopausal women, and in fact fairly strongly suggests that the legal benefits of marriage should only accrue to those couples who actually have children. Politically speaking, this is a nonstarter.
6.1.2009 7:47pm
Bryan Long:
By the way, Loving v. Virginia's holding is that--all things being equal, marriage is a right.


The talk of "rights" in Loving was typical Warren Court rhetoric. The case was decided on the issue of a racial standard being used to apply state law in an unequal fashion. Virginia did not meet (and probably could not meet) the high bar that the Fourteenth Amendment was explicitly enacted to place on statutes that make suspect use of racial criteria. In other words, Loving held not that there was a right to marry, but that (with marriage laws as with any other) there is a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race.

Had the Court meant more than that, it had ample opportunity to take up numerous post-Loving invitations to recognize a legally enforceable marriage right separate from otherwise unrelated federal law, and it has never chosen to do so. If for some reason we want to give dicta the same precedential value as a holding, then SSM wouldn't overcome Reynolds v. US.

Do you believe the civil rights movement was really a civil privileges movement?

Two Amendments to the federal Constitution, not to mention a considerable amount of federal statutory law, were passed specifically to recognize those rights that the civil rights movement was attempting to vindicate. The same cannot be said of SSM, or even civil marriage generally, which is nothing more than a quid pro quo from the state: it will assure the married couple certain economic and other benefits for economic and other benefits it expects to get in return. A marriage "right" exists to the extent--barring relevant federal law--that the state doesn't have a passable reason for suppressing it, which makes it a rather threadbare right at best, or (as I see it) a privilege that is largely subject to the whims of the aforementioned white male heterosexuals. (Does Obama get to be an honorary white man when he's dissenting from progressive shibboleths?)

If Congress recognized homosexuals as a protected class--I think the Matthew Shepard bill is circulating again this session, and there's no reason the Democrats can't pass it if they so desire--then there'd seem to be firmer ground for a pro-SSM decision rooted in Loving. Failing that, if the Court tilts a touch more to the left, America is arguably as ready for a successful Equal Protection argument as it was for Brown or Roe. I don't think it would be good law, but the Supremes are notorious for not consulting me about these things.
6.1.2009 7:54pm
martinned (mail) (www):
@AnthonyJ, Zuch, pluribus and others: Why do you even bother?
6.1.2009 7:58pm
Randy R. (mail):
Bryan Long: "It's a privilege extended by government because of the beneficial effects it believes will flow from it--namely, social stability and reproduction, each supporting the existence of the other. That rationale is not present, or less present, when it comes to SSM"

Then you haven't been listening. There are currently thousands of gay couples who currently have children, usually (but not only) through adoption. Those children deserve the social stability that comes from having their parents married.

In addition, as people age, it is very much the point of social stability to have people married and care for each other, rather then leave then alone. Which is often a reason why older people get married anyway. In other words, gays each support the existence of each other just as straight people do.

"had the anti-SSM types tackled it from an economic or legal angle, they probably could've held out a little longer."

The didn't because they couldn't. The Congressional Budget Office did an extensive report a few years ago that concluded that federal tax revenue would actually increase if SSM were enacted around the country.

"their only riposte being 'It's against tradition and/or God!', which is a pretty lousy argument when Americans don't seem to take either seriously."

Ah yes, the old 'God hates gays' argument. The only problem is that many religions support SSM, including the reformed and conservative jewish faiths, and many protestant faiths. You're only real arguement is that these religions don't take God seriously, which of course makes no sense.

Ned Williams: "The overwhelming majority of Americans think that a social union between a man and a woman is worth special treatment under the law . . . and they don't feel that way about a social union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman."

Depends on your definition of "overwhelming majority". Currently, support in America for SSM is in the 40 percentile range. Support for *either* SSM or civil union is in the 60 or higher range, which would certainly constitute an overwhelming majority.

Of course, most everyone thinks that a social union between a man and a woman is worth special treatment. What they are increasingly realizing is that that union isn't harmed in any way by a social union between a man and a man , or a woman and a woman. AND, they are realizing that those relationships are worth the same special treatment.

Now, perhaps you can show some harm that has been caused to society or to such unions where SSM has been implemented. If you know of any, please give us such evidence in places such as Massachusetts, Canada, S. Africa, Spain, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden. Or perhaps you can argue that people in those countries don't respect God or tradition. Or perhaps you can argue that once you allow gays the right to marry, they didnt' stop there and demanded a lot more.

But of course, you won't be able to.
6.1.2009 8:00pm
Cornfed (mail):
Meanwhile in Iowa the Dem legislature killed SSM in committee in consecutive sessions. Our Dem. gov was firmly opposed to the notion when it was a political issue he might have to deal with at some point, but now that the imperial judiciary has issued its decree, he's all in favor of it and says it won't be an issue in next year's gubernatorial election (since the gov. has no formal role in the very arduous process of overturning the Court by amending the State constitution).

Nothing can top judges for relieving politicians of the need to make difficult decisions.

Horrible process aside, it's been delightful to say goodnight to my husband for the last week.
6.1.2009 8:18pm
Owen Hutchins (mail):

By the way, Loving v. Virginia's holding is that--all things being equal, marriage is a right. The color of one's skin is different than whom someone is sexually attracted to.


How about gender? Under current law in most states, I (a man) am allowed to marry a woman, but a woman isn't.
6.1.2009 8:43pm
Bryan Long:
Randy R.: If you think I'm arguing against SSM, I'm not. As I thought I made clear in my initial post, my contention was that SSM fulfills the underlying public policy reasons for recognizing civil marriage to an extent no greater than that of polygamous marriage, or cohabitation between blood relatives, or cohabitation between two people generally. On a policy level, I would support SSM if it represented a complete (rather than partial) uncoupling of civil marriage from the 'traditional understanding of one man and one woman.'
Contrarily, if equivalent rights are not extended to those arrangements, neither should SSM be allowed. Any other legal standard (two people, but only if they love each other romantically?) wouldn't be workable.

One thing I did want to clear up: anti-SSM shouldn't have argued on religious grounds, not because America has turned away from God and isn't that a shame, but simply because mass public opinion is no longer susceptible to 'God says so' arguments on any issue. It's a one-way trip to the public policy ghetto, which is why even those whose beliefs are fundamentally rooted in religious views recognize the need to tart them up with at least marginally plausible pseudoscientific FUD. (Economics, having obviously been created by Satan for the purpose of clouding men's minds and setting them violently against one another, is particularly effective.)
6.1.2009 8:46pm
Bruce Hayden (mail):
Uh oh. Darth Cheney Offers Support For Gay Marriage
Dick Cheney rarely takes a position that places him at a more progressive tilt than President Obama. But on Monday, the former vice president did just that, saying that he supports gay marriage as long as it is deemed legal by state and not federal government.
6.1.2009 9:11pm
Randy R. (mail):
Byran Long: Thanks for the correction.

Meanwhile, here's this tidbit of info from another thread:

"Mrs. Hopkins, who grew up in a family of 10 children, did laundry and cleaned house for William Cantrell, an elderly Civil War veteran whose wife had died years earlier.
When he offered to leave his land and home to her if she would marry and care for him in his later years, she said yes. She was 19; he was 86."

If that's a valid marriage, why can't SSM be valid as well?
6.1.2009 9:28pm
Bob VB (mail):
Contrarily, if equivalent rights are not extended to those arrangements, neither should SSM be allowed. Any other legal standard (two people, but only if they love each other romantically?) wouldn't be workable.
You are misunderstanding the base situation - most of the current marriage laws have a sexual orientation clause in them, the movement is to remove the clause which opens no doors.

It is not straight + gay = a door opened justifying other doors, it is

- straight = a door removed, i.e. getting the state out of the sexual orientation business altogether.

Remember we already allow some citizens to license with men, and others to license with women - this is about just letting all citizens do what some citizens can already do.
6.1.2009 11:34pm
Cornellian (mail):
I'm perfectly fine with this. I'd be willing to bet this doesn't make any real waves, either.

Nothing can, in a state with no water . . .
6.1.2009 11:42pm
zuch (mail) (www):
Bryan Long:
In other words, Loving held not that there was a right to marry, ...
Why not take Loving's words for it:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."
... but that (with marriage laws as with any other) there is a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race.
And a right to be granted equal protection of the laws and a right to due process. The Fourteenth Amendment, while enacted in the context of racial discrimination, made no limitiation as to just race.
Had the Court meant more than that, it had ample opportunity to take up numerous post-Loving invitations to recognize a legally enforceable marriage right separate from otherwise unrelated federal law, and it has never chosen to do so.
Not many people have thought, since Loving, that it's keen and peachy to deny people the right to marry ... outside of the present brouhaha. Loving pretty much settled that. So no cases. Which makes some sense ... because denying people such a right doesn't make any sense. If you have some actual cases to the contrary, out with them.

Cheers,
6.2.2009 12:06am
cmr:
@cmr: I don't think that's what Cheney said. He doesn't want some federally enacted SSM, which seems to me to be the correct position. I don't think he's against the federal government recognising in various ways same sex marriages lawfully entered into in those states that have SSM.


That may not be what he meant, but it is what he said. He said it should be done on a state-by-state basis and that he doesn't think it should be a federal statute.

That's a great argument to use against any group that wants equal rights. Women asked for equal rights. Blacks asked for equal rights. Religious minorities asked for equal rights. The disabled asked for equal rights. Did you resist all of these groups for fear that, if they got equal rights, they would only ask for more? Equality apparently is not acceptable to you. We have to deny equality to those who are demanding it because, if we don't, they'll ask for more than equality. The absurd logic of this formulation boggles the mind. Coming from you, however, it is far from surprising.


Pluribus, I understand SSM supporters don't have a ton of good arguments, but this entire shtick where you mention other social movements when someone expresses disagreement for gay marriage as if you're defending it when all you're doing is making pointless non-sequiturs...has really gotten old.

You're asserting for me two highly contested statements: "same-sex marriage is a civil right" and "people are seeking to deny people this civil right for no good reason". Problem is, we've not established same-sex marriage is a civil right, and thus, you can't claim we're denying it to you.

You're not demanding equality. You never were. You're asking for sameness among monogamous heterosexual and homosexual couples. True equality would include every other form of marriage not allowed by most states. And more importantly, you're demanding equality for something I don't believe should be subject to such a litmus test. The purpose of state-sanctioned marriage is solely based on the heterosexual model of marriage, presumably to perpetuate that model of marriage (and not just any conception of heterosexuality, either).

In any event, gays ultimately want society to be more tolerant of them (which is a noble cause) by forcing them to do so under the law. I don't agree with that. I never will. People love being victims, and anytime we've allowed a group to consider themselves to be victims, it hasn't turned out all that great. It's created a generation of shiftless, lazy, trifling blacks who think they can blame whites for a lot of their social stigma, and they perpetuate the problem by co-opting the worst of their cultural stereotypes, and contribute numerous social pathologies to their culture that has really not capitalized on the promise of the civil rights movement. Women have created several generations of women who think they're entitled to eschew any traditional gender roles all while demanding men keep theirs, they're not supposed to have children, they have created a family court system that is largely pitted against fathers, they have created a stigma such that even an accusation of rape or physical/emotional abuse could cause someone to go to jail and lose their job.

And trust me, that's just the tip of the iceberg in both their cases. They both started out with legitimate complaints, and still have a few of them, but they have largely bastardized that consideration and taken advantage of it. Gays will be no different.

Ummmm ... beg pardon to bother such a busy mind, but what were the substantive arguments against gay marriage again? Thanks in advance.


Zuch, you've been around these threads for a long time. I know you know what the substantive arguments against gay marriage are. Don't be disingenuous. I'm not going to repeat myself so you can either 1) act like you've never gotten a good argument against it a week from now, 2) so you can dismiss them all as bigotry because you know WOMEN AND BLACK PEOPLE, 3) dismiss them based on your biased understanding of the issue (and not any objective facts), or 4) respond to a long post by yours truly by quoting one sentence and ignoring the rest of it, or 5) all of the above.
6.2.2009 12:59am
cmr:
And a right to be granted equal protection of the laws and a right to due process. The Fourteenth Amendment, while enacted in the context of racial discrimination, made no limitiation as to just race.


The 14A doesn't promise equal protection to any premise you come up with. It's based on life, liberty, and property. Under traditional marriage policy, gays and lesbians are threatened with losing any of those things. People were under anti-miscegenation statutes, though, which is why that was a Constitutional issue and this isn't.

State-sanctioned benefits can't be denied on an invidious basis, but because they're not freely given to anyone who wants them doesn't make them discriminatory. The state regulates to varying degrees every single group of benefits it grants, and marriage is no different.
6.2.2009 1:22am
cmr:
That should say "Under traditional marriage policy, gays and lesbians aren't threatened with losing any of those things.
6.2.2009 1:23am
AnthonyJ (mail):
Contrarily, if equivalent rights are not extended to those arrangements, neither should SSM be allowed. Any other legal standard (two people, but only if they love each other romantically?) wouldn't be workable.
There is some reason to think that both bigamy and incest are associated with abuse, including child abuse, which is adequate cause to legislate against them. Incest is also indubitably associated with a considerably elevated risk of genetic diseases, plus blood relatives have a number of the rights normally granted by marriage anyway. Civil union between two people who are not romantically linked is already legal -- there's no 'romance test' in the marriage or civil union laws.
6.2.2009 1:40am
zuch (mail) (www):
cmr:
Zuch, you've been around these threads for a long time. I know you know what the substantive arguments against gay marriage are. Don't be disingenuous.
I'm not. I'm still waiting. If you don't want to repeat, feel free to simply link. That's acceptable.

FWIW, the "hets can breed and we need people to breed for the good of the species" one is not such. It fails even the Cleburne smell test.

Cheers,
6.2.2009 12:41pm
zuch (mail) (www):
cmr:
The 14A doesn't promise equal protection to any premise you come up with. It's based on life, liberty, and property....
No. That's the "due process" portion. The "equal protection" portion doesn't say that.
... Under traditional marriage policy, gays and lesbians are[n't] [sic] threatened with losing any of those things. People were under anti-miscegenation statutes, though, which is why that was a Constitutional issue and this isn't.
Huh? The Virginia anti-miscegenation laws not only invalidated marriages from other states ("threatening [loss]") as was true of the Lovings, but also affirmatively prohibited any such new marriage within the state. I think you're confused here.
State-sanctioned benefits can't be denied on an invidious basis, ...
Thanks. Which makes the anti-SSM laws suspect, as the California Supreme Court found.
...but because they're not freely given to anyone who wants them doesn't make them discriminatory.
Indeed. But when they're invidiously denied, they are.

Cheers,
6.2.2009 12:50pm
cmr:
FWIW, the "hets can breed and we need people to breed for the good of the species" one is not such. It fails even the Cleburne smell test.


Well, that distortion likely wouldn't, but the fact that these benefits were and still are based solely on the heterosexual model of marriage, to incentivize biological couples to be together for the purposes of having and raising children, is a substantial argument. It's certainly a more textualist claim than saying marriage is just about two people who love each other as a way to totally justify altering policy to include SS couples.

And no, saying that because not all couples have kids that purpose is meaningless isn't a legitimate rebuttal. The law doesn't have to fit perfectly for it to be purposeful. As with any other benefits package or social program, the government reserves the right to regulate who receives them, with the understanding that not everyone who qualifies actually needs them. Problem is, we don't enshrine those exceptions into the policy itself; we simply tolerate the ones left over after we've regulated it as best as possible.

Also, there's no overriding purpose to give gay couples legal marriage when there exists an alternative: civil unions. That of course relies on people making the case for them, and we all agreeing that gay couples actually deserve all the legal instances of marriage as well. As of now, there's no consensus for either one of those claims.
6.2.2009 1:13pm
cmr:
No. That's the "due process" portion. The "equal protection" portion doesn't say that.


It says: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

There is no "equal protection portion". It's referring to the portion before it.

Huh? The Virginia anti-miscegenation laws not only invalidated marriages from other states ("threatening [loss]") as was true of the Lovings, but also affirmatively prohibited any such new marriage within the state. I think you're confused here.


No, I think you're a little confused. The Racial Integrity Act of 1924 (Virginia's statute) made marriage between whites and nonwhites a felony. The penalty with the Lovings was that they were facing banned from the state or jail time (or both, I don't remember). Generally speaking, that's what anti-miscegenation statutes did. They outlawed interracial marriage.

Thanks. Which makes the anti-SSM laws suspect, as the California Supreme Court found.


Well, it might've made it "suspect", but it should not have. It simply codified how that state, and every state before it (before MA in '04) and the federal government has always defined marriage. While you can conclude, to some extent, that it ought to be expanded, I don't think you can lightly conclude it was defined that way based solely on animus.

Indeed. But when they're invidiously denied, they are.


For you to conclude that, there would have to be something more to go on than a simple codification of the way we've always understood marriage.
6.2.2009 1:25pm
Bob VB (mail):
[b]For you to conclude that, there would have to be something more to go on than a simple codification of the way we've always understood marriage.[/b]
But that's what's changing - there was this long list of supposedly unique qualities that used to be presented, they've been whittled away to just 2:

1) it always used to be between opposite genders (ignoring Rome pre 342 AD and Native American cultures and probably more)

2) one of of hundreds of times opposite gender ones have sex they might get procreate. 16% of contracts licensed already go to those who are mutually infertile, and almost 50% of contracts licensed go to couples that will not themselves produce children (getting by with those from previous marriages or procreative events).

Other than that citizens who marry have the same desires, wants, benefits, burdens, as do their families as does their society regardless of the gender of their spouse.

Look at the Iowa decision - the old justifications for special rights for some citizens just don't hold water anymore and are slipping out of the consensus reality.

Yes it is now correctly being seen as an invidious denial of equality especially by those who have friends with same gender relations and realize their relationships are no different then anyone else.

Its just a matter of time.
6.2.2009 1:44pm
cmr:

But that's what's changing - there was this long list of supposedly unique qualities that used to be presented, they've been whittled away to just 2:

1) it always used to be between opposite genders (ignoring Rome pre 342 AD and Native American cultures and probably more)


I'm referring to how we've always legally defined marriage. I could've sworn that was obvious, but I guess when you don't have an actual rebuttal, but disagree anywhere, you take what you can get.

2) one of of hundreds of times opposite gender ones have sex they might get procreate. 16% of contracts licensed already go to those who are mutually infertile, and almost 50% of contracts licensed go to couples that will not themselves produce children (getting by with those from previous marriages or procreative events).


Your attempts to parse out the frequency of which people have children is irrelevant. 100% of same-sex couples wont procreate. Period. It also doesn't change the basis for us having these benefits in the first place.

Other than that citizens who marry have the same desires, wants, benefits, burdens, as do their families as does their society regardless of the gender of their spouse.


Good for them.

Look at the Iowa decision - the old justifications for special rights for some citizens just don't hold water anymore and are slipping out of the consensus reality.


As evidenced by the state initiatives last year who legalized gay marriage? Oh, right. No. Judicial activism has zero to do with consensus. And Iowa's decision was particularly ridiculous in how they interpreted the EPC, but I'm not surprised.

Yes it is now correctly being seen as an invidious denial of equality especially by those who have friends with same gender relations and realize their relationships are no different then anyone else.

Its just a matter of time.



But those people are fools if they believe that. And honestly, it's being seen that way only because more and more people devalue real marriage to where they don't care anything about it as a social institution. You'll deny that, but we all know a big reason why there's this "consensus" for gay marriage is because so many people these days are effectively anti-marriage anyway.

But I will say I see myself sympathizing more with the claim that gay couples deserve the same benefits than I do with the claim that they "deserve" to call their unions a marriage.
6.2.2009 1:53pm
cmr:

I'm referring to how we've always legally defined marriage. I could've sworn that was obvious, but I guess when you don't have an actual rebuttal, but disagree anyway, you take what you can get.


*fixed
6.2.2009 1:54pm
Bob VB (mail):
I'm referring to how we've always legally defined marriage.
'we've'? Which of the infinite 'we' you talking about here? The one that forbid people of different races from licensing the contract? Or the sterile? Or the mentally disabled?

100% of same-sex couples wont procreate. Period.
100% of couples including a woman who's had a hysterectomy won't procreate. Period. And there are more of those than there are of the same-sex couples. Sauce: Goose: Gander. AND people that have children who are licensed have them from any other sources other than procreation, again the change is a minor incremental. But it does illustrate the change that is happening that you can't fight - the people are seeing their fellow citizens right to marry as a meter of the gender of their spouse more and more irrelevant, you aren't.

As evidenced by the state initiatives last year who legalized gay marriage?
Equal rights? I know Washington just did, California just took the opportunity to say the rights were all citizens regardless of the mere word that is at the top of the contract they licensed. Again, you just can't perceive a loss when you see it. All that's happening is that the word 'marriage' is becoming just a word - the fight to keep it 'special' is what's destroying its special nature - ironic eh?

You'll deny that, but we all know a big reason why there's this "consensus" for gay marriage is because so many people these days are effectively anti-marriage anyway.
Ah when logic can't cut it bring out the straw men. They are easier to knock down, aren't they?

But I will say I see myself sympathizing more with the claim that gay couples deserve the same benefits than I do with the claim that they "deserve" to call their unions a marriage.
And that's the biggest belly laugh of all - they will still be marriages no matter what the state calls the contract licensed. This is America, the government is BELOW the citizenry, not above it. Having a state that calls some of its married citizens 'domestic partnered' is just an imperfect state, nothing more. All this belly aching about what the state will legally call its married citizens as same gender couples will be being really married across it regardless.

Hilarious.
6.2.2009 2:10pm
zuch (mail) (www):
cmr:
[T]he fact that these benefits were and still are [in some bass-ackwards states] based solely on the heterosexual model of marriage, to incentivize biological couples to be together for the purposes of having and raising children, is a substantial argument....
... perhaps for allowing marriages. What's the purpose in denying marriages (and doing so in such an invidious fashion)? Are we concerned about the impact of tree-cutting for marriage licenses on global warming? Still smells like the City of Cleburne warmed over.

And I couldn't help noticing: When did the human population drop reach Endangered Species status?

Cheers,
6.2.2009 2:11pm
zuch (mail) (www):
cmr:
And no, saying that because not all couples have kids that purpose is meaningless isn't a legitimate rebuttal. The law doesn't have to fit perfectly for it to be purposeful. As with any other benefits package or social program, the government reserves the right to regulate who receives them, with the understanding that not everyone who qualifies actually needs them. Problem is, we don't enshrine those exceptions into the policy itself; we simply tolerate the ones left over after we've regulated it as best as possible.
It has to be rational. Last time I looked, there was:

a). no need to encourage breeding

b). no need (and certainly no legal requirement) of marriage to breed

c). no evidence that marriage encourages breeding

Not to mention: Even if the above weren't true, that may explain "rationally" why marriage should be allowed. It doesn't explain why marriage should be prohibited.

Let's just be honest, shall we, and allow that the opposition is based on the fact that bigots don't want to encourage (or even tolerate in many cases) Teh Gay.

Cheers,
6.2.2009 2:21pm
zuch (mail) (www):
cmr:
There is no "equal protection portion". It's referring to the portion before it.
Your interpretation of constitutional law here is at variance with established jurisprudence. Well and fine, but don't pretent your view holds sway (and there's good argument -- even from a pure texualist standpoint using standard canons of statutory interpretation -- that it doesn't).

Cheers,
6.2.2009 2:25pm
zuch (mail) (www):
cmr calls me an eedjit:
But those people are fools if they believe that. And honestly, it's being seen that way only because more and more people devalue real marriage to where they don't care anything about it as a social institution. You'll deny that, but we all know a big reason why there's this "consensus" for gay marriage is because so many people these days are effectively anti-marriage anyway.
So I'm a fool or a hypocrite for getting married last June (happily, at a time when California allowed gays as well to marry)? The same to you, buster.

Cheers,
6.2.2009 2:31pm
Joseph Slater (mail):
cmr:

I'm very much pro-marriage. I've been happily married to my wife for almost 19 years. Of course it's my first and only marriage -- unlike some prominent conservative opponents of SSM -- but I like to think I support the institution. Same thing for my parents and my in-laws, married for a long time and only once.

So when we all went to see my sister get married to her partner, along with some other straight married folk, we all thought it was a great day for marriage.

In other words, you can think whatever you want about what the purpose of marriage is, or what you think the law should be. But don't you dare try to say that pro-SSM folks are "effectively anti-marriage." Because that's objectively a lie and a slander.
6.2.2009 2:54pm
cmr:
'we've'? Which of the infinite 'we' you talking about here? The one that forbid people of different races from licensing the contract? Or the sterile? Or the mentally disabled?


Yeah, basically. We.

100% of couples including a woman who's had a hysterectomy won't procreate. Period. And there are more of those than there are of the same-sex couples. Sauce: Goose: Gander. AND people that have children who are licensed have them from any other sources other than procreation, again the change is a minor incremental. But it does illustrate the change that is happening that you can't fight - the people are seeing their fellow citizens right to marry as a meter of the gender of their spouse more and more irrelevant, you aren't.


I guess it would've been too much trouble to quote all of what I'd said, but in any event...

You're still trying to make as many desperate excuses as you can. Marriage is defined as a man and a woman. So irrespective of how many of the couples that fall under that definition will not procreate in their lifetime, it will see be higher than the same-sex couples who will.

People have always understood marriage as a social institution is about more than that. Not much more, but...more. Problem is, we're talking about the state's interest in marriage, and not our individuated motivations for marrying.

Equal rights? I know Washington just did, California just took the opportunity to say the rights were all citizens regardless of the mere word that is at the top of the contract they licensed. Again, you just can't perceive a loss when you see it. All that's happening is that the word 'marriage' is becoming just a word - the fight to keep it 'special' is what's destroying its special nature - ironic eh?


I'll take this as a no comment non sequitur. Moving on...

Ah when logic can't cut it bring out the straw men. They are easier to knock down, aren't they?


I didn't straw man anything you said. The whole "the government needs to get out of marriage altogether" "I don't see the point of marriage" "let gays be as miserable as straight people are" sentiment is as pervasive as the arguments for marriage. But like I said, you'll deny that has anything to do with anything.

And that's the biggest belly laugh of all - they will still be marriages no matter what the state calls the contract licensed. This is America, the government is BELOW the citizenry, not above it. Having a state that calls some of its married citizens 'domestic partnered' is just an imperfect state, nothing more. All this belly aching about what the state will legally call its married citizens as same gender couples will be being really married across it regardless.

Hilarious.


Oh, OK. I think it's convenient that so many feel that way, and yet, the gay community makes very little noise about civil unions and domestic partnerships when state's pass them. So why that's supposed to undercut my support of them eludes me. Well, no, it doesn't. It's hypocrisy and talking-out-of-both-sides-of-your-mouth, but OK.
6.2.2009 3:09pm
cmr:
... perhaps for allowing marriages. What's the purpose in denying marriages (and doing so in such an invidious fashion)? Are we concerned about the impact of tree-cutting for marriage licenses on global warming? Still smells like the City of Cleburne warmed over.

And I couldn't help noticing: When did the human population drop reach Endangered Species status?


I don't need your addendums to my quotes, and it's not a "denial" of marriage because the state acknowledges exclusively one thing. The state isn't in equal measure criminalizing other "marriages" people get into. Again, go back to what I said about the difference between interracial marriage and SSM. There is no anti-miscegenation equivalent against gay marriage. The belief is that marriage being defined this way works best for society and creates a good social model for future generations. It's an affirmative premise. It's not that heterosexual monogamous marriage is legal BECAUSE everything else is illegal. That's never been the justification for our defining marriage.

And low population rates and the fact that people are going to have kids (thus the incentive isn't just for them to actually have children, but for them to raise their children together) has nothing to do with humans not being an endangered species. But, I get why you'd want to distort my point.

It has to be rational. Last time I looked, there was:

a). no need to encourage breeding

b). no need (and certainly no legal requirement) of marriage to breed

c). no evidence that marriage encourages breeding


This would be where my initial statement to you comes full circle -- where you're confronted with a legit argument, but because of your ignorance and biased and arbitrary dismissal of it, you claim you've yet to see a substantive argument against gay marriage.

Not to mention: Even if the above weren't true, that may explain "rationally" why marriage should be allowed. It doesn't explain why marriage should be prohibited.

Let's just be honest, shall we, and allow that the opposition is based on the fact that bigots don't want to encourage (or even tolerate in many cases) Teh Gay.


Y'know, I know I sometimes come off abrasive and like I have ice water running through my veins when it comes to this issue, but people like you and Randy just prove my point time and again...that under the veneer of "I'm just tolerant and can't understand why people would want to deny someone equal rights" lies a petulant seven year old girl. You act like children. You think like children. You want to believe the worst in order to make yourself feel better for being, in general, an asshole to people with whom you disagree. That's why I don't waste my time, often times, rehashing rationalizations for claims, because even if I do, you're just going to give me the sort of answer you gave above. So it's a waste of time even debating anything with you. Believe whatever you want to believe. That's what you're going to do anyway, and it has nothing to do with lacking substantive arguments.
6.2.2009 3:20pm
Bob VB (mail):
Marriage is defined as a man and a woman.
No, just the legal contract in its support have licensing restrictions like that in some localities. Same gender couples marry just fine all over the place, thank you very much. Again, that's what you've missed - people are recognizing that the gender of your spouse is hardly the important part about your life-long relationship.

I didn't straw man anything you said. The whole "the government needs to get out of marriage altogether" "I don't see the point of marriage" "let gays be as miserable as straight people are" sentiment is as pervasive as the arguments for marriage.
Those are two very opposite arguments that you've just lumped together - see why I'm seeing straw men?

I think it's convenient that so many feel that way, and yet, the gay community makes very little noise about civil unions and domestic partnerships when state's pass them.
Are you that unaware? Being given full benefit domestic partners is a big milestone here in Washington state. Maybe you are only seeing what you want to see to present your argument in a favorable light? I mean 'undercutting my support' as if this were at any time about you. ;)

As your answers illustrate you don't understand the underlying foundations that are changing and so your arguments miss the mark. Whether you 'support' it or not, an increasing portion of the population is realizing that the need to marry is universal regardless of the gender of the spouse. Some would like to reserve the 'word' but the institution as some like to call it is entered into by all kinds of people, even those with same gender spouses.

We are at the stage where the majority recognize this, the realization that there is no substantive difference warranting separately named contracts by the state is just around the corner. These are arguments you can't win because you are making cases no one listens too any more.
6.2.2009 3:23pm
cmr:
cmr:

I'm very much pro-marriage. I've been happily married to my wife for almost 19 years. Of course it's my first and only marriage -- unlike some prominent conservative opponents of SSM -- but I like to think I support the institution. Same thing for my parents and my in-laws, married for a long time and only once.


That's nice. I don't care about you, your wife, your in-laws, or what you all want to think you care about. Don't waste my time, please.

So when we all went to see my sister get married to her partner, along with some other straight married folk, we all thought it was a great day for marriage.


...or your lesbian sister and her partner.

No, you all thought it was a great day for your sister. None of you thought, "wow, this is a great day for this five-thousand year old social institution".

In other words, you can think whatever you want about what the purpose of marriage is, or what you think the law should be. But don't you dare try to say that pro-SSM folks are "effectively anti-marriage." Because that's objectively a lie and a slander.


I can and have and will say that. I don't think many of them give a damn about marriage, only affirming their attractions and their often times transient relationships. They don't care about "marriage equality". They care about "marriage sameness" for gay couples. Which is fine, but I'm not falling for it.

Even though, I should come clean, I wasn't exactly saying pro-SSM folks are "effectively anti-marriage". At least, that's not entirely what I meant. A lot of people don't really see the point of defining marriage as a social institution, or a handful of legal instances, that define a relationship. They see it as a totally individuated choice, and to some extent they're right. Of course, though, marriage has and will continue to exist as a social institution that pertains to everyone in some way, but they're ignorance and denial of that is why they see no problem with gay marriage, because they don't see a heterosexual individual choice as being any different than a homosexual individual choice.

Personally, I disagree with it largely because of the motives of the gay community and the arguments they use to justify it. I don't know if it will ultimately be better or worse for society, but I submit it could go either way, and I don't think it's a social experiment we should embark upon on specious, pie-in-the-sky reasoning.
6.2.2009 3:32pm
Bob VB (mail):
No, you all thought it was a great day for your sister. None of you thought, "wow, this is a great day for this five-thousand year old social institution".
But wait! You said it was only about the 'we' marriage - if it goes back 5000 years than it includes all those forms along the way, the Roman same-gender, the Native American same-gender?

I think even you realize 'we' is more inclusive than you'd like to pretend ;)
6.2.2009 3:35pm
Randy R. (mail):
Bob, zuch et al: Thanks for trying, but arguing with cmr, as I've learned, is a useless activity. Basically, he thinks gays are all Marxists and that our whole purpose for pushing SSM is to actually destroy marriage. And that the only straight people who support SSM are a handful who no longer care about marriage, despite Jos. Slater's marriage. He also thinks that the state legislatures that passed SSM did so only because there are 12 lesbians in the state that somehow twisted everyone's arm.

You can't have a rational argument with someone like this, and I've given up.
6.2.2009 3:39pm
cmr:
No, just the legal contract in its support have licensing restrictions like that in some localities. Same gender couples marry just fine all over the place, thank you very much. Again, that's what you've missed - people are recognizing that the gender of your spouse is hardly the important part about your life-long relationship.


And I contend those people who are doing so are either very foolish or have bought into a load of propaganda and have forgotten how to think for themselves. You, coincidentally, think you're seeing the light. Or, the rainbow.

Ahem.

I'm speaking from a premise that marriage is still widely defined as between a man and a woman. They marry "just fine"? How do you know? I don't think it's been long enough to say it's going to be just fine, and I don't think you would be honest enough to even acknowledge gay marriage playing a role in any other social pathology, except maybe gay divorce, but you'll just excuse that away because, you know, straight people divorce too.

Those are two very opposite arguments that you've just lumped together - see why I'm seeing straw men?


No, I see how you gave a hurried answer without any explanation in order to repeat your empty criticism.

Are you that unaware? Being given full benefit domestic partners is a big milestone here in Washington state. Maybe you are only seeing what you want to see to present your argument in a favorable light? I mean 'undercutting my support' as if this were at any time about you. ;)


I doubt you all made that big a deal about it, but I was referring to your accusations of second-class citizenship and all that. None of you are going to petition your state legislature to overturn civil union/DP statutes, and you know it. So let's not throw out this lame horse manure about why you getting these benefits in a different packaging is still a travesty. You and I both know you don't believe it.

As your answers illustrate you don't understand the underlying foundations that are changing and so your arguments miss the mark. Whether you 'support' it or not, an increasing portion of the population is realizing that the need to marry is universal regardless of the gender of the spouse. Some would like to reserve the 'word' but the institution as some like to call it is entered into by all kinds of people, even those with same gender spouses.


Well, no, I understand many people (present company included) want to scare people like me into shutting up so you all can just petition our representatives (or our ignorant masses) into legalizing gay marriage without opposition because ooooh, people tell pollsters that they are for it. Going by votes, 30 states in four years have banned gay marriage by constitutional amendment. There is no red-blue state divide. I think a lot of people lie to pollsters and tell them they support gay marriage because it's the PC thing to say, and it's easier to just be like "eh, do whatever you want" or "I'm for it" than stand against it. Even still, most people still say they are against it, or that they're "on the fence". I don't think anybody's coming around to anything. I think people are still as against it as they always have been, and the liberal news media will make you all think support for it is growing. Like it has anything else to do.

We are at the stage where the majority recognize this, the realization that there is no substantive difference warranting separately named contracts by the state is just around the corner. These are arguments you can't win because you are making cases no one listens too any more.


Yes, this is evidenced by the liberal legislatures that have enacted gay marriage, the un-elected state supreme court Justices who have enacted it, and the desperately needing approval gay lobby who has to take a poll every week to see if all of their propagandizing is working.
6.2.2009 3:46pm
cmr:
I knew you'd show up sooner or later.

Bob, zuch et al: Thanks for trying, but arguing with cmr, as I've learned, is a useless activity. Basically, he thinks gays are all Marxists and that our whole purpose for pushing SSM is to actually destroy marriage. And that the only straight people who support SSM are a handful who no longer care about marriage, despite Jos. Slater's marriage. He also thinks that the state legislatures that passed SSM did so only because there are 12 lesbians in the state that somehow twisted everyone's arm.


BobVB, take notice: THIS is what a strawman looks like.

You can't have a rational argument with someone like this, and I've given up.


Thank goodness. I find it hard to have rational debates with someone as silly and put-upon as you, too. Glad we're FINALLY on the same page.
6.2.2009 3:48pm
Joseph Slater (mail):
No, you all thought it was a great day for your sister. None of you thought, "wow, this is a great day for this five-thousand year old social institution".

No, you're wrong. Of course we thought it was a good day for my sister and her partner, but we also specifically thought it was a good day for marriage as an institution. We discussed it at the time.

You may disagree with our assessment but my point was that you shouldn't misrepresent our beliefs. And there are a lot of us. Soon we will be more numerous than folks like you. But you shouldn't despair, because we really, sincerely are pro-marriage.

It's ironic that you go out of your way to act indignant when people accuse you of being a bigot, but you have no problem in impugning the motives of those who disagree with you. Or maybe the better word is hypocritical.
6.2.2009 3:51pm
cmr:
But wait! You said it was only about the 'we' marriage - if it goes back 5000 years than it includes all those forms along the way, the Roman same-gender, the Native American same-gender?

I think even you realize 'we' is more inclusive than you'd like to pretend ;)


I know this might be a kick in the pants of epic proportions and you might not ever recover, but I'm afraid I'm just going to have to tell you straight up:



I'm pretty sure I wasn't talking to you, or referring to anything you'd said.
6.2.2009 3:51pm
Bob VB (mail):
I'm pretty sure I wasn't talking to you, or referring to anything you'd said.
Ok let me get this straight - when I am talking about marriage in the way you just did I am using it wrongly, but when you are talking to someone else about marriage my way is the way you meant to use it all along.

Oh I understand perfectly - if you were just introspective enough to do the same.
6.2.2009 3:54pm
cmr:
No, you're wrong. Of course we thought it was a good day for my sister and her partner, but we also specifically thought it was a good day for marriage as an institution. We discussed it at the time.


I think you're lying. But OK.

You may disagree with our assessment but my point was that you shouldn't misrepresent our beliefs. And there are a lot of us. Soon we will be more numerous than folks like you. But you shouldn't despair, because we really, sincerely are pro-marriage.


I believe you believe that.

It's ironic that you go out of your way to act indignant when people accuse you of being a bigot, but you have no problem in impugning the motives of those who disagree with you. Or maybe the better word is hypocritical.



Claiming that many people don't care about marriage and thus don't really care about any alterations to it isn't impugning them. I just think it's what's underneath the surface. It's fine if they feel that way. I just wish they would be more forthcoming. The people who think marriage should stay the way it always has been get a harder time than those who think no one should get benefits. Again, whatever, but don't think I don't notice that.

OTOH, calling someone a bigot because they think marriage is a unique union of a man and a woman is impugning them based on their beliefs. And I don't get indignant when people call me that; it's annoying when people can't make their point sans invective when they know they couldn't handle even a third of it being lobbed at them. I'm cool with whatever you have to say and however you say it. I just know that isn't a mutual sentiment.

But you have nothing to worry about. You're completely useless to everyone. You get to be pro-marriage (so you're not like any of the mean old people I've made mention of), but you're for gay marriage (so now Randy R. and BobVB will like you...mixed blessing, that is). It's just like people who are pro-choice but contend they hate abortion just as much as pro-lifers...they just think people should have the legal choice to do it. Uh huh.
6.2.2009 4:00pm
cmr:
Ok let me get this straight - when I am talking about marriage in the way you just did I am using it wrongly, but when you are talking to someone else about marriage my way is the way you meant to use it all along.

Oh I understand perfectly - if you were just introspective enough to do the same.


I was speaking in general terms to Joseph Slater, and I was speaking in more specific terms to you. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
6.2.2009 4:03pm
Joseph Slater (mail):
No, you're wrong. Of course we thought it was a good day for my sister and her partner, but we also specifically thought it was a good day for marriage as an institution. We discussed it at the time.


I think you're lying. But OK.


Of course I'm not lying. Why would I make something like that up? I'm an average heterosexual married guy. But it does underscore your need to demonize people with whom you disagree -- they can't REALLY be pro-marriage, right? Which again, is ironic or more accurately hypocritical on your part.
6.2.2009 4:05pm
Joseph Slater (mail):
Oh, and this is especially priceless:

But you have nothing to worry about. You're completely useless to everyone. You get to be pro-marriage (so you're not like any of the mean old people I've made mention of), but you're for gay marriage (so now Randy R. and BobVB will like you...mixed blessing, that is). It's just like people who are pro-choice but contend they hate abortion just as much as pro-lifers...they just think people should have the legal choice to do it. Uh huh.

I don't see how me being pro-SSM makes me any more or less useless than you being anti-SSM or for that matter anyone else on this thread. I see myself as providing a useful corrective to some of the falsehoods you spread about pro-SSM folks being anti-marriage -- and indeed, you've backed off that a bit.

And you think I'm posting here because I want other posters whom I've never met and probably never will to "like me"? If getting strangers on the internet to like me is my goal, why don't I post anti-SSM stuff? Then you and Clayton Cramer will like me!

You see how contorted your logic has to get when you are determined to attribute opposing views to bad intentions? And that's not even getting into your bizarre comparison to abortion rights.
6.2.2009 4:10pm
Bob VB (mail):
It's just like people who are pro-choice but contend they hate abortion just as much as pro-lifers...they just think people should have the legal choice to do it. Uh huh.
That's what tolerance is - letting people believe and do things that you do not. Like my dad used to say "This is America and everyone has the right to do 10 stupid things before breakfast", the lesson being that 'stupid' is totally subjective and everyone gets to make their own decisions even if you think they are making bad ones.
6.2.2009 4:11pm
cmr:
Of course I'm not lying. Why would I make something like that up? I'm an average heterosexual married guy. But it does underscore your need to demonize people with whom you disagree -- they can't REALLY be pro-marriage, right? Which again, is ironic or more accurately hypocritical on your part.


I didn't say you couldn't be pro-marriage. In fact, my initial statement to which you responded wasn't a full-on indictment of every single straight pro-SSM person. I just know that you wont have to look very far for someone who doesn't care about marriage, and you likely wont find that person getting a hard time from anybody for feeling that way.

I think you'd lie because you're on the defensive and because you already believe certain things about me and so, you're going to play close to your vest. "What?! Me lie?! I'm just your average John Q. Heterosexual who believes in equal rights!" Yes, I think you're lying. I think you were glad for your sister and partner, which is fine by me (they're family), but I don't think, generally speaking, you thought then nor do you think now about marriage as an institution overall. You care about how it directly pertains to you or people you care about.
6.2.2009 4:15pm
Joseph Slater (mail):
I just know that you wont have to look very far for someone who doesn't care about marriage

No, you don't know that, because you don't seem to know or understand people who disagree with you on this issue.

I think you'd lie because you're on the defensive and because you already believe certain things about me and so, you're going to play close to your vest. "

No, I'm not the least bit on the defensive and my post had nothing to do with what I "believe" about you (understand this: I don't believe or care much). I was countering your point with a specific experience I had, and that was my first foray into this thread. How could I be "on the defensive" before I had posted anything?

You are, in fact, wrong about what my family thought about the institution of marriage. Again, we discussed that fact very specifically on that day. I'm sorry you can't understand that, but I believe that you accusing me of lying shows that it's you being defensive.
6.2.2009 4:20pm
cmr:
I don't see how me being pro-SSM makes me any more or less useless than you being anti-SSM or for that matter anyone else on this thread. I see myself as providing a useful corrective to some of the falsehoods you spread about pro-SSM folks being anti-marriage -- and indeed, you've backed off that a bit.


You're useless because you don't stand for anything. You want to play both sides of the fence (for likely disingenuous reasons) so you don't have to contend with a side not liking you. Of course, that's not true, though, is it? You're for SSM, you'll stick your neck out to defend it, but you don't care about marriage as a social institution, nor do you care about any other groups getting marriage rights who currently don't have them.

And you think I'm posting here because I want other posters whom I've never met and probably never will to "like me"? If getting strangers on the internet to like me is my goal, why don't I post anti-SSM stuff? Then you and Clayton Cramer will like me!


Somehow I doubt it, but it's easier to deal with people like me and Clayton Cramer than it is to deal with BobVB and Randy and zuch. We're not going to start whining and crying because you don't agree with us. We might think you're full of it, and make some less-than-polite comments alluding to that, but that's as far as it goes. With the pro-SSM crowd, you have "deal with" them and their liberal complaining. Of course, you concur with much of it, so that might not strike you as anything other than righteous conjecture.

You see how contorted your logic has to get when you are determined to attribute opposing views to bad intentions? And that's not even getting into your bizarre comparison to abortion rights.


My logic isn't contorted at all. I gave and explained my reason for claiming that many who support SSM are anti-marriage. You may or may not agree with that, fine, but it's not "contorted" logic.
6.2.2009 4:24pm
cmr:
That's what tolerance is - letting people believe and do things that you do not. Like my dad used to say "This is America and everyone has the right to do 10 stupid things before breakfast", the lesson being that 'stupid' is totally subjective and everyone gets to make their own decisions even if you think they are making bad ones.


No, that's what complacence is.
6.2.2009 4:26pm
cmr:
No, you don't know that, because you don't seem to know or understand people who disagree with you on this issue.


Oh, trust me, yes I do. I've been around these, and other boards long enough to know that sentiment isn't too far beyond the gay marriage rallying cry. You think I'm too much of an ideologue; no, you're just ignorant to your own side.

No, I'm not the least bit on the defensive and my post had nothing to do with what I "believe" about you (understand this: I don't believe or care much). I was countering your point with a specific experience I had, and that was my first foray into this thread. How could I be "on the defensive" before I had posted anything?


Simple. You know I don't believe in gay marriage, so you're going to come at me as someone who doesn't believe in gay marriage because you do. You'll give my views the most uncharitable reading possible, because you disagree with what my bottom line is.

You are, in fact, wrong about what my family thought about the institution of marriage. Again, we discussed that fact very specifically on that day. I'm sorry you can't understand that, but I believe that you accusing me of lying shows that it's you being defensive.


I usually am on the defensive, but I read more than I post, and have for a long time here. I'll even admit part of the reason why I don't like Randy now is because I'd seen many of his posts (some dating back to '06) where he'd get into it with people, and I got to the point where I'd just completely skip his posts because I knew what it would say (and how he would say it). I mean, hey, as long as you know the truth, that's all that matters. Yes, I think you're lying to make a point, and I think you repeating that you all "talked about it" without actually saying what it was you said is further proof of that, but it's fine.
6.2.2009 4:33pm
Joseph Slater (mail):
You're useless because you don't stand for anything. You want to play both sides of the fence (for likely disingenuous reasons) so you don't have to contend with a side not liking you. Of course, that's not true, though, is it? You're for SSM, you'll stick your neck out to defend it, but you don't care about marriage as a social institution, nor do you care about any other groups getting marriage rights who currently don't have them.


That's complete, desperate, B.S. I quite clearly stand for something on this issue: I'm unambiguously pro-SSM and I'm unambiguously pro-marriage. And I'm quite aware that your side doesn't like me, and I don't care.

Listen to yourself carefully and pay attention to how you have totally devolved into personal attacks: I merely said I and my family believed that my sister's marriage was good for marriage in general, and your response has been to call me a liar who doesn't stand for anything. Is this what you want your side to be?

it's easier to deal with people like me and Clayton Cramer than it is to deal with BobVB and Randy and zuch. We're not going to start whining and crying because you don't agree with us.

No, you'll just say I'm "useless" and a liar. Again, do you honestly think I'm opposing your position because you would be nicer to me in disagreeing with me than Randy would be? Does that even sound sane to you?

I'm pro-marriage and pro-SSM. That fact in and of itself seems to make you almost comically irrational and hostile.
6.2.2009 4:59pm
Bob VB (mail):
[b]No, that's what complacence is[/b]

Well one that [b]is[/b] what tolerance is:

tolerance: the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with

and two that isn't:

complacence: a feeling of smug or uncritical satisfaction with oneself or one's achievements
6.2.2009 5:33pm
zuch (mail) (www):
cmr:
I don't care about you, your wife, your in-laws, or what you all want to think you care about. Don't waste my time, please.
The feeling is mutual, let me assure you. So you'll pardon us when we say we have no problems with gays marrying, and you want to stick your nose in, "Please futt the buck out". Capece?

The good news is that, more and more, people are coming to see that this is the proper attitude and that your attitude is just raiments on the bigotry it really is underneath. And this regardless of the actual personal predilections of these people. Which means that sooner or later you will be left a sorry little man, howling at the moon.

Cheers,
6.2.2009 6:00pm
cmr:
You're useless because you don't stand for anything. You want to play both sides of the fence (for likely disingenuous reasons) so you don't have to contend with a side not liking you. Of course, that's not true, though, is it? You're for SSM, you'll stick your neck out to defend it, but you don't care about marriage as a social institution, nor do you care about any other groups getting marriage rights who currently don't have them.


That's complete, desperate, B.S. I quite clearly stand for something on this issue: I'm unambiguously pro-SSM and I'm unambiguously pro-marriage. And I'm quite aware that your side doesn't like me, and I don't care.


Falling for everything means you stand for nothing. And "my side" doesn't really care about you. Why should we? You're half on our side, remember? Well, you're supposed to be, but we all know you're not. It's really cool with me that you don't give a damn about traditional marriage beyond your own. I'm not saying that to be passive-aggressive, but I hate when people feel they have to be disingenuous to make a point.

Listen to yourself carefully and pay attention to how you have totally devolved into personal attacks: I merely said I and my family believed that my sister's marriage was good for marriage in general, and your response has been to call me a liar who doesn't stand for anything. Is this what you want your side to be?


You said that in response to a mischaracterization of a point I'd made, though. I didn't say, "Joseph Slater and his whole family hate marriage". I merely said that there are a lot of people who are only pro-SSM because they don't care anything about the institution itself, and that when people don't care about something, they don't care what happens to it. I think the fact that to many people there has been a noticeable devaluation of marriage in general has lead to a lot of straight people "supporting" gay marriage. Does that pertain to you? I don't know. I didn't have you in mind with my initial statement, though, yet you took it personally.


No, you'll just say I'm "useless" and a liar. Again, do you honestly think I'm opposing your position because you would be nicer to me in disagreeing with me than Randy would be? Does that even sound sane to you?


Funny you say this right after I said this:

You'll give my views the most uncharitable reading possible, because you disagree with what my bottom line is.


I've said it before, but ANOTHER reason why I think there's this illusion that gay marriage has more and more support is because a lot of people find it easier to just lie and say they support it, or just be like, "eh, let 'em get married, who cares?" than to do what I do and stand up for what they believe in and not just kowtow to the populist opinion. A lot of people don't think it's important enough to get into an argument over.

You don't want me and Clayton to be "nice" to you. It's easier to dissent with us, openly, than it is other people who are pro gay marriage. Most of us who disagree aren't going to bring out really nasty rhetoric and make all-encompassing statements like when supporters call people bigots, homophobes, etc etc. We're not babies.

I'm pro-marriage and pro-SSM. That fact in and of itself seems to make you almost comically irrational and hostile.


Not really. I'm used to empty, useless people like you with empty, useless opinions. It's not particularly upsetting. It's just sort of sad. If I thought less of you, it wouldn't be anything really. But you'd think people who can somewhat concur with the other side would talk about that side sometimes, but they never do and they never will.

Same with my abortion analogy. It would be nice to hear pro-choice advocates make just a tiny bit of fuss about how bad and morally revolting it is, since that seems to be part of their overall opinion. But, same thing. Their bleeding heart liberal side never lets that come out.
6.2.2009 7:31pm
cmr:
How about the other definition, BobVB:

a feeling of contentment or satisfaction; complacency; Pleasure, delight; Complaisance; a willingness to comply with others' wishes
6.2.2009 11:03pm
Mark_in_NY:
This back and forth is getting exhausting. Let me sum it up:

Cmr: pro-marriage and pro-ssm are mutually exclusive positions, mainly because I say so (or because I cannot possibly see how opening marriage to gay couples could strengthen the institution.. oh wait, I also said I don't know if it will ultimately be better or worse for society, but I submit it could go either way.. so maybe it is possible for a rational person to believe it could be a net positive.. but no, you guys are just trying to be on both sides of the fence... wait now I'm trying to have it both ways.. please ignore this parenthetical)

Others: no they're not, i'm pro-marriage and pro-ssm and thus they're not mutually exclusive positions (I won't bother with concrete examples of how SSM could be good for gays, good for straights, and good for America.. wait isn't there a book about that?)

...And repeat (but now with kindergarten claims of "liar liar!")


Now that we have that cleared up. Cmr, would be nice if you dropped the line about most pro-ssm support being due to political correctedness. Throughout the history of time "PC" has done far more to prevent SSM than to further it. One might flip your red herring and point out that most anti-ssm support today is due to religious/personal antipathy of gays and has nothing to do with protecting the institution of marriage. Both of these assertions are questionable to a certain degree, but more importantly, both are really beside the point. In any event, they cancel each other out, so please focus on the meat of the issue.
6.3.2009 12:18am
cmr:
Cmr: pro-marriage and pro-ssm are mutually exclusive positions, mainly because I say so (or because I cannot possibly see how opening marriage to gay couples could strengthen the institution.. oh wait, I also said I don't know if it will ultimately be better or worse for society, but I submit it could go either way.. so maybe it is possible for a rational person to believe it could be a net positive.. but no, you guys are just trying to be on both sides of the fence... wait now I'm trying to have it both ways.. please ignore this parenthetical)


Cute.

Others: no they're not, i'm pro-marriage and pro-ssm and thus they're not mutually exclusive positions (I won't bother with concrete examples of how SSM could be good for gays, good for straights, and good for America.. wait isn't there a book about that?)


Who is "others"? The only person who has said that is Joseph Slater.

Now that we have that cleared up. Cmr, would be nice if you dropped the line about most pro-ssm support being due to political correctedness. Throughout the history of time "PC" has done far more to prevent SSM than to further it. One might flip your red herring and point out that most anti-ssm support today is due to religious/personal antipathy of gays and has nothing to do with protecting the institution of marriage.


One "might" flip my "red herring"? That's all pro gay marriage advocates do is flip and distort arguments made, or simply ignore them for their just-add-water conclusion that we're all just anti-gay bigots. I'm merely pointing out that not everyone on their side is completely forthcoming either, and that all this talk of people coming to their senses when it comes to SSM is largely based on people either not speaking out against it (because that would be non-PC) or lying about their support.

Both of these assertions are questionable to a certain degree, but more importantly, both are really beside the point. In any event, they cancel each other out, so please focus on the meat of the issue.


Not really. See, a lot of people on "my" side of the issue believe in a compromise, where SS couples get the benefits, but keep the definition of marriage intact. They can concede the idea that gay couples deserve these benefits (I don't, but you know). However, it's SSM supporters who reject the idea of compromise (for true equality under the law) and take the "all or nothing" stance and yet complain when their opposition does the same thing...as if there isn't a viable alternative likely wouldn't cause that much friction from either group, but would give them what they want.
6.3.2009 12:55am
Danny (mail):
CMR:
Someone who is uncomfortable with SSM as such but is OK with civil unions and the benefits of marriage to SS couples has nothing to do with your side. There is a world of difference between the two positions. One is for oppression, one virtually for equality. A pro-civil union position is much closer to "our" side than to your side.
6.3.2009 1:41am
cmr:
No, not really. There are plenty of people who eschew any idea that CU's are a good thing when you mention them, and yet, there are plenty of people who completely reject gay marriage but will support civil unions. Trust me we're not the only ones incapable of compromise.

Though, I would reject the idea that wanting to keep marriage between a man and a woman is oppression, but I get why you'd want to frame it that way.
6.3.2009 7:32am
Joseph Slater (mail):
Mark in NY has it exactly right.
6.3.2009 9:36am

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.