|
|
| Author |
Message |
richard
|
|
The Gay Marriage debate
| 
Dec 2 10:20 UTC 2003 |
Interesting column on the gay marriage debate by William Safire in the
New York Times today:
"On Same-Sex Marriage
By William Safire, The New York Times
I'm a "libcon." To that small slice of the political spectrum called
libertarian conservative, personal freedom is central.
With a consistency that strikes some as foolish, I'm pro-choice on
abortion before the quickening, pro-choice on my investment in Social
Security and pro-choice on private competition to Medicare.
That also explains why libcons demand that government protect rather
than intrude on privacy, and why we excoriate government officials who
permit media mergers that limit public access to all shades of opinion.
The libcon credo: respect majority rule and deeply ingrained cultural
custom unless they step on individual freedom, at which point wave the
Bill of Rights and holler.
That mind-set, so helpful in providing instant certitude on everything,
is generating the jangle of cognitive dissonance on same-sex marriage.
The issue is often posed as one of simple legal fairness: why shouldn't
two adults of the same sex who want to become life partners have the
same opportunity and gain the same legal rights of government
insurance, pension protection and hospital visitation as a couple who
choose op-sex marriage?
That encouragement to making homosexual relationships more permanent is
the primary argument for "civil union," the euphemism for "legal
marriage but don't call it that because it makes most straight people
angry." Many gay people, like many casually cohabiting heterosexuals,
will embrace the principle but not the practice, as it would involve
the consequences of dissolution of such a contract: alimony, child
support when applicable, division of assets, and the law firm of Nasty,
Brutal and Short.
The libertarian in me says: civil union corrects an inequity in the
law. There should be no legal or economic discrimination against
homosexuals anywhere in the U.S. And what is lawful in Vermont or
Massachusetts should be recognized in every other state because we are
one nation when it comes to basic rights, popular statutes to the
contrary notwithstanding.
That's the easy part. More difficult is the argument that the primary
purpose of society's bedrock institution is to conceive and rear
children in a home of male and female role models known as caring
parents. But now that there are adoptive and scientific substitutes for
old-fashioned procreation, and now that 43 percent of first marriages
fail, the nuclear family ideal is not what it used to be. Little lock
is left in wedlock.
But what about the religious dimension to marriage? The ceremony
performed by clergy in a house of worship involves a sacrament, invokes
God's blessing on a man and a woman who take a solemn vow on entering a
spiritual and not just a physical union. Won't pressure to marry people
of the same sex split denominations, dismay millions of churchgoers and
infuriate many ardent believers?
Yes. Divisive it would surely be. Proponents of s-s-m who want more
than a city hall wedding who want more than a civil union would
seek clergy and congregants who welcome them. It would be a source of
bitter doctrinal debate in many neighborhoods. So was racial
intermarriage; but this faces scriptural admonitions as in the doomed
city of Sodom.
That brings us to the Supreme Court decision striking down anti-sodomy
law in Texas. That victory for privacy slammed the bedroom door in the
face of prosecutors who disapproved of forms of consensual sex engaged
in by homosexuals and others. The stinging dissent by Justice Antonin
Scalia, however, was prescient: the court decision opened the door to
agitation for same-sex marriage. It may not be the slippery slope to
polygamy, polyandry, incest and bestiality, but s-s-m is surely upon us.
The conservative in me wonders: if equal rights can be assured by civil
union, why are some gays pushing so hard for the word "marriage"?
The answer is that the ancient word conveys a powerful message. Civil
union connotes toleration of homosexuality, with its attendant
recognition of an individual's civil rights; but marriage connotes
society's full approval of homosexuality, with previous moral judgment
reversed.
The pace of profound cultural change is too important to be left to
activist judges. As moral-political issues go, this big one deserves
examination in communities with minds that can deal with internal
contradictions which is the libcon way.
12-01-03 06:50 EST
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company."
|
| 293 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 1 of 293:
|
Dec 2 10:22 UTC 2003 |
I think Safire is waffling. Early in that piece, he says that our
country ought to have one set of basic rights, and that the right of
two consenting adults to be able to get married ought to be such a
right. He also says it is teh responsibility of the courts to uphold
those rights. But then at the end, he seems to contradict himself, and
says judges shouldn't decide this, that states and communities need to
decide. Also, at one point Safire says:
"marriage connotes society's full approval of homosexuality, with
previous moral judgment reversed."
I think Safire is wrong here as well. That is the same faulty logic
right wingers use in the abortion debate. They argue that iif you are
pro-choice you APPROVE of abortion. In fact, one can strongly
DISAPPROVE of both abortions and gay marriages, and still vote that
those things ought to be legal because they think people should have
the right to make their own decisions in those matters.
I can be against a bill to outlaw smoking, and it DOESN'T mean that I
approve of smoking.
Also, I disagree that there need be religious grounds to oppose gay
marriages. The courts can only make gay marriage legal under the law.
They CANNOT force any church to perform gay marriage ceremonies, if
those marriages are against church doctrine, or temple doctrine. All
legalizing gay marriage means is that a gay couple who are in love, can
take out a marriage license, and can legally try to find a church, any
church-- even the church of Elvis in Vegas or whatever-- that might
perform a ceremony for them if they so choose.
You are not approving of gay marriage by agreeing to such a law. You
are simply saying that two consenting adults in this free country ought
to be able to make their own decisions about their own lives. That
ought to be, as Safire says before contradicting himself, a basic
right.
|
richard
|
|
response 2 of 293:
|
Dec 2 10:31 UTC 2003 |
And this is by the way going to be a big issue in the upcoming election year.
Bush and his advisors are just salivating at the idea of turning the general
election into a referendum on the "institution of marriage" Particularly if
his opponent is Howard Dean, who as governor of Vermont, signed the first such
law in the country to legalize civil unions for gays. The Bush people will
argue that Massachusetts legalizing gay marriages is some proof that the
country is going to hell. They will say that we ought to cling to a highly
religious, highly idealized concept of "marriage" as only being between a man
and a woman, and that somehow our society will decay if we allow gay couples
the right to get married. I believe Bush is going to propose a constitutional
amendment to outlaw gay marriage, which the Democrats' nominee would almost
certainly oppose, and try to use that as a way of trying to make the election
into a cultural debate instead of a political debate. It stinks but its going
to happen.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 3 of 293:
|
Dec 2 12:55 UTC 2003 |
Safire isn't waffling: "As moral-political issues go, this big one
deserves examination in communities with minds that can deal with internal
contradictions which is the libcon way."
This is both a legal issue and a cultural issue, as you note. The culture is
not going to change because the law changes.
|
remmers
|
|
response 4 of 293:
|
Dec 2 13:43 UTC 2003 |
"The culture is not going to change because the law changes."
Well, I don't know about that. Around 1953 one might have said the same
thing about racial segregation in the American South. Then the law changed,
and the law was enforced. There was much resistance to change within the
culture, but cultural change eventually did follow. Without the impetus
provided by the changes in laws, I very much doubt that this would have
happened.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 5 of 293:
|
Dec 2 14:04 UTC 2003 |
The two chase each other and at other times they push each other.
Sometimes things get really nasty and they pull against each other but I
really can't recall a time when law and culture ever ignored each other
for any significant amount of time.
|
jep
|
|
response 6 of 293:
|
Dec 2 14:40 UTC 2003 |
Safire doesn't take a stand. He dances around some of the various
issues but he doesn't give his view. He says he wants to see local
communities discuss the issue and decide what they think. He can
neither encourage that nor stop it. They do it all the time. Nice
that it gives him some warm fuzzies to see it occurring. I guess.
|
other
|
|
response 7 of 293:
|
Dec 2 14:48 UTC 2003 |
Nice item, Richard.
|
gull
|
|
response 8 of 293:
|
Dec 2 15:35 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:0: I think Safire is right about most things in that piece, but
wrong about the Texas sodomy ruling "opening the door" for agitation for
gay marriage. People were agitating for gay marriage long before that
ruling. In fact, the ruling seems to have provoked a backlash.
Re resp:2: I keep hearing that this is going to be a big issue in the
upcoming election, but I don't see why. The Democrats are not going to
make a big deal about gay marriage, because they know the majority of
the public isn't going to support it. The people who *are* strongly for
gay marriage will still vote Democratic because, let's face it, they
have no other options. Likewise, Bush already has a lock on the
Religious Right's vote, so he doesn't really need to play to them on
this issue. At most it'll be a sidenote the Republicans will attempt to
use in an exaggerated way as a scare tactic. (<serious announcer
voice>The Democrats want to force your church to marry queers! Vote
Bush 2004.</voice>)
Re resp:6: Still, Safire is a conservative commentator. It's pretty
striking, to me, that he doesn't come right out against the whole
concept of gay marriage. Cal Thomas, for example, would have approached
the subject very differently.
|
jep
|
|
response 9 of 293:
|
Dec 2 16:27 UTC 2003 |
I think Safire made a good point in comparing homosexual marriage to
interracial marriage. Both have been outlawed in the past. Legalizing
interracial marriage went a long way toward humanizing minorities.
I think he's exactly right when he said:
[T]he ancient word conveys a powerful message. Civil union connotes
toleration of homosexuality, with its attendant recognition of an
individual's civil rights; but marriage connotes society's full
approval of homosexuality, with previous moral judgment reversed.
Legalizing homosexual marriage removes the force of society's angry
frown of disapproval from homosexual relationships. People will still
be uncomfortable and unhappy about homosexuality. Many, maybe most,
people still feel awkward about interracial marriage. So what? Some
feel uncomfortable about interfaith marriages. Those have been legal
for a century at least, and I don't know anyone who thinks they should
not be. People said interracial marriages were proscribed by the
Bible, too. I for one still think legalizing them was a good idea.
I'm for legalizing homosexual marriages. If they have to be
called "civil unions", then so should heterosexual marriages. There
shouldn't be any legal distinctions between the two, such as tax
advantages.
Like Safire, I'd describe myself as somewhere between a libertarian and
a conservative. I wouldn't draw the lines quite where he does, so I
guess I'm not a "libcon". I can live with that.
|
jep
|
|
response 10 of 293:
|
Dec 2 16:53 UTC 2003 |
I am sure the GOP leadership would like to make homosexual marriage
into a campaign issue, much like they tried to do with flag burning a
few elections ago. It'll be more likely to be a big issue if Howard
Dean is nominated.
Homosexual marriage is a big, important, critical issue to a lot of
people. If the Democratic Party allows it to become a central campaign
issue, then they'll lose the next election, because it's the sort of
issue that will get a lot of people out and voting. I hope that
doesn't happen.
|
klg
|
|
response 11 of 293:
|
Dec 2 17:22 UTC 2003 |
re: "#10 (jep): . . . Homosexual marriage is a big, important,
critical issue to a lot of people."
How many?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 12 of 293:
|
Dec 2 17:25 UTC 2003 |
I also am unclear on what Safire is "proposing". Perhaps he just had a
column deadline to meet but hadn't any new (or old) ideas.
I'm inclined to think that if "civil unions" of homosexuals were widely
permitted, essentially equal to marriage in law, those so united would
themselves still say they are "married" (that could not be outlawed), and
slowly the distinction would melt.
|
vidar
|
|
response 13 of 293:
|
Dec 2 17:59 UTC 2003 |
I'm getting tired of politicians making big deals out of what I see as
non-issues. Of course, I also know that they play to whomever is
giving them the most money. The Religious WRONG in Bush's case. I
also don't understand why people get so worked up about things that are
going to have absolutely NO impact on them.
Politicians need to focus on politics. My grandmother, a lifetime
Repiblican, stopped voting Republician because of making abortion the
major issue. One of the founding principles of this country is
religious freedom, and the Christian theocracy that the Religious WRONG
is pushing for makes me sick. After all, one of the reasons the
colonists left England was to escape religious oppression.
Again, why worry about things that don't affect you?
|
jep
|
|
response 14 of 293:
|
Dec 2 18:52 UTC 2003 |
re resp:11: I'm not sure what you want. Are you disputing what I said?
|
richard
|
|
response 15 of 293:
|
Dec 2 19:26 UTC 2003 |
re: #8....the reason the GOP and Bush's folks will run hard on the gay
marriage issue is that polls consistently show that there is a distinct gender
gap on this. Younger voters, who grew up in a more accepting culture, are
far more likely to have less of an issue with legalizing gay marriage. But
older voters, over age fifty, grew up in a different time and a lot of them
see legalizing gay marriage as another instance of the world changing from
what they know and the world they grew up in.
The Bush people are making a big run at getting larger chunks of the senior
citizens vote next year. With a proposed consitutional amendment to outlaw
gay marriage, they figure they will not only rally their base, but also
attract a lot of older voters who might place extra importance on such
cultural issues. Also they figure such an amendment will play well in the
south, which is the region traditionally most resistant to cultural change
(see civil rights era) So if they think they have a hot button issue sure
to help them among older voters and in south, what does that add up to? ONe
word-- Florida. The state that decided the election last time. Also the Bush
folks presumably think they can use this issue to bring out rural white
voters-- who polls show strongly oppose gay marriage-- in key states like
Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
|
richard
|
|
response 16 of 293:
|
Dec 2 19:38 UTC 2003 |
Think about what happened when Clinton became president and he tried to
fulfill a campaign promise to change the rules so openly gay people can serve
in the military. There was a huge hue and cry, people-- military veterans,
older voters-- saying that you can't force cultural change on the military.
The reality is that you COULD have gays in the military now because younger
people aren't as homophobic as their parents or grandparents. But the old
guard that still runs the military couldn't see that, and they rallied a lot
of support among older voters, white male rural voters, conservative southern
voters. The result was "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", a sham of a policy which
encourages gay people to stay in the closet and doesn't promote acceptance
and understanding.
The same sort of factors are in play with legalizing gay marriage. The same
people who don't want to know that gay people might be in their troops, are
the ones who don't want to know that gay people are getting marriage licenses.
|
scott
|
|
response 17 of 293:
|
Dec 2 19:40 UTC 2003 |
Oh, I agree the Republicans will make an issue of gay marriage. Regardless
of what the Democratic position is, they'll be accused of supporting it.
|
slynne
|
|
response 18 of 293:
|
Dec 2 21:04 UTC 2003 |
If we ever find ourselves in a position where we have a draft, I have a
feeling that homosexuals will be allowed to serve openly in the
military. Either that or you'll have a whole lot of young men
pretending to be homosexual in order to avoid going to war. If they
drafted women and didnt allow lesbians in, I would be french kissing
some chick while waiting in line.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 19 of 293:
|
Dec 2 22:18 UTC 2003 |
can i have polaroids?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 20 of 293:
|
Dec 2 23:49 UTC 2003 |
(Apparently, homosexuality was NOT used to avoid the draft during the Vietnam
War. Of course, homosexuality was not as acceptable then as it is now.)
|
slynne
|
|
response 21 of 293:
|
Dec 3 03:01 UTC 2003 |
exactly my point
|
richard
|
|
response 22 of 293:
|
Dec 3 03:36 UTC 2003 |
If you read historical accounts, you wouldn't believe how Harry Truman was
attacked when he ordered the military de-segregated. The old guard military
leaders screamed that it was against the military culture, that blacks had
to be in black troops and whites in white troops. Truman, to his credit, told
them basically, "get over it" Truman signed Executive Order #9981 in 1948
and unilaterally de-segregated the army. And you know what? the military DID
learn to live with it, and became more tolerant as a result. Sometimes people
WON'T accept cultural change unless it is forced upon them. That's just life.
There is no question that people would get used to gays in the military and
gays getting married, and after a while not even think about it anymore.
|
russ
|
|
response 23 of 293:
|
Dec 3 05:00 UTC 2003 |
Re #20:
If one guy comes in, sings a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walks
out, they'll think he's really sick and they won't take him.
And if two people do it... if two people walk in, sing a bar of
Alice's Restaurant and walk out, they'll think they're both
faggots and they won't take either of 'em.
-- Arlo Guthrie (errors mine)
|
gull
|
|
response 24 of 293:
|
Dec 3 14:47 UTC 2003 |
Leonard Pitts, Jr. did a column about gay marriage recently, too:
http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/pitts28_20031128.htm
He thinks that the focus on gay marriage is a misdirection ploy by the
Republicans, meant to distract people from the war and the budget
deficit. He also thinks that Republicans will focus on "gay marriage",
not "civil unions", because including the word "marriage" gets more of a
visceral reaction from people.
|