« Last Day to Donate, Plus Betting Pool With a Sweet Prize | Main | Quick Reminder About Creation Museum Donations »

June 15, 2007

And As Long As I'm Celebrating My Own Marriage...

... Allow me also to note that there are 8,500 couples who yesterday were celebrating the fact that others like them who want to get married will continue to be able to do so. It's nice to be married. It's nice to be able to get married, too. And most of all, it's nice when people trying to keep others from getting married don't get to.

(Updated for accuracy)

Posted by john at June 15, 2007 02:40 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.scalzi.com/mt2/mt-tb.cgi/4777

Comments

Clay | June 15, 2007 02:44 PM

Indeed. Bravo for Massachusets.

PixelFish | June 15, 2007 02:53 PM

I must admit, I am quite pleased with my new home state on this issue. :)

Vox | June 15, 2007 02:55 PM

A real victory for equality! And democracy!

Corby K | June 15, 2007 03:00 PM

The Baptist woman was great: "I think being gay is like being left-handed," Chandler said. "If we decided left-handed people couldn't marry, what kind of society would we be?"

What kind of society indeed? Time to write ...

Christian | June 15, 2007 03:09 PM

[SNIP]

Former Gov. Mitt Romney, now running for president, called the vote "a regrettable setback" and said it makes it more important now to pass a national amendment banning gay marriage.

[SNIP]

Governor Romney was also quoted as saying "Marriage should be between a man and a women, and a woman, and a woman".


/God I crack myself up!
//Slashies!!!

Dan | June 15, 2007 03:11 PM

Falwell must be turning in his grave. And this comes on the heels of the Loving v Virginia anniversary. It's nice when equality wins.

Pablo Defendini | June 15, 2007 03:25 PM

Hell yeah! Maybe John is right after all- we *might* be turning a corner?

I still think it may be too early to tell, though. We'll see...

Jeri | June 15, 2007 03:30 PM

It is good news - a small step for sanity. :)

Clay | June 15, 2007 03:32 PM

Unfortunately, as far as turning the corner goes, one state down, how many to go?

John Scalzi | June 15, 2007 03:51 PM

Well, 49.

JC | June 15, 2007 04:05 PM

Eliot Spitzer introduced legislation to legalize same-sex marriage in NY. It's not impossible that NY might join MA.

Of course, in the bigger picture, there are a large number of state-level "D"oMAs to deal with, not to mention the Federal one. MA recognizes same sex marriages but the Federal government does not. This can put some couples in awkward situations where they're trapped between state and federal law. (The most recent example I can think of, although perhaps not the best example, is Dean Hara, denied the Federal pension of his now deceased husband, former Rep. Gary Studds.)

Ultimately, this is not just a state by state thing. At some point, the Federal government has to get involved again. (Please let it not be an amendment to the Federal Constitution...)

nisleib | June 15, 2007 04:06 PM

I don't understand John, I thought during the last Presidential election they told me that if gays could marry my marriage would be in jeopardy. I don't feel jeopardized...

I don't have to divorce my wife and marry a dude now, do I?


Jason | June 15, 2007 04:08 PM

I feel like I have to disagree. From a more practical standpoint, the sheer number of heterosexual divorces per year will most likely pale in comparison to the number of divorces between same-sex couples. This would be relational to the number of marriages, of course, because statistically speaking there are more heterosexuals.

I guess it's a good thing I'm not running for political office because being against gay marriages isn't the "in" thing.

Jeremiah | June 15, 2007 04:18 PM

Jason- How do you know how many same-sex divorces there will be?

John- you said 49, and you're right, but don't forget everyone that California and New Hampshire (and I forget, there may be more) do allow civil unions. Which is at least *something*.

Corby K | June 15, 2007 04:21 PM

Jason, 50% of marriages end in divorce. If 50% of same-sex couples divorce, it's still 50% of married couples.

Where did you get your information? I'd like to see it, because all of my same-sex friends would disagree, considering they've been together for years, not hours.

Besides, what does any of that have to do with you? How is other people marrying or divorcing having an impact on whether or not you have Cheerio's in the morning or flapjacks? How does it stop you from buying consumer goods at the mall? Do divorced couples camp out on your lawn, and use your bathroom in the morning, making you late for work?

It is too bad you are NOT running for political office, because I would love to vote against you.

John Scalzi | June 15, 2007 04:26 PM

Jason:

"From a more practical standpoint, the sheer number of heterosexual divorces per year will most likely pale in comparison to the number of divorces between same-sex couples."

Even if there were empirical evidence which shows that Massachusetts same-sex married couples are divorcing at a higher per capita rate than opposing sex Massachusetts couples, which to my knowledge there is not (nor any legitimate studies that indicate such a trend in that population), so what? If we're going to suggest that people ought not be allowed to marry because they are likely to get divorced, then we ought not allow anyone in Arkansas to marry, as it has more than twice the divorce rate of, oh, Massachusetts, according to the US Census Bureau.

Whether someone might get divorced is neither here nor there for saying they should or should not be able to marry.

nisleib | June 15, 2007 04:28 PM

Interesting point Jason, I can't imagine where you got your statistics on the percentage of gay people who would divorce if they were allowed to marry.

Let us take your point as truth (I don't see how it can be true, but for the sake of argument let us assume it is) and go from there. Why don't right wing politicians want gays to be able to marry - Because it "defiles the sacred institution of marriage?" How can that be true? Many of these same politicians who rail against gay marriage have been married and divorced more than once themselves. If they (and you) really cared about the sanctity of marriage you would let anyone get married and NOBODY get divorced. Of course that won't happen because it is all B.S.

This is a wedge issue Republicans like to drag out every couple of years to fire up their batshit insane base and nothing more. Republicans need someone to hate. It used to be other races, only that isn’t such a good idea anymore because there aren’t enough racist morons left to win elections. Now it is gay people. Next, what, fat people?

Oh, oh – I need to lose weight…

Dan Bailey | June 15, 2007 04:38 PM

Jason -- Puh-lease. Rectal extraction is not a legitimate method of "fact"-finding.

If any of the idiots who think we need to "defend marriage", were honest about that statement, then they need to outlaw divorce, rather than codify discrimination into the Constitution.

Owlmirror | June 15, 2007 04:41 PM

If any of the idiots who think we need to "defend marriage", were honest about that statement, then they need to outlaw divorce, rather than codify discrimination into the Constitution.

Don't laugh — there are indeed movements to make divorce harder, presumably with outlawing it being their ultimate ideal.

Al Bogdan | June 15, 2007 04:44 PM

My wife and I know numerous same-sex couples that have been together way over ten years. Jason, don't believe the lies and propaganda.

nisleib | June 15, 2007 04:46 PM

Owlmirror says: Don't laugh — there are indeed movements to make divorce harder, presumably with outlawing it being their ultimate ideal.

Come on Owl, do you think those efforts will ever get past our Congress? Our congressmen, especially those most vociferous about being anti-gay, would never even bring such a bill to the floor.

They remember their first, second and third wives. They understand the necessity of divorce, you can trust that.

JC | June 15, 2007 04:47 PM

I guess it's a good thing I'm not running for political office because being against gay marriages isn't the "in" thing.

Hmm... apparently, your attempt to bolster your creds as a free, independent thinker who bucks the trend isn't working.

AFAIK, all anti-same sex marriage initiatives have passed in the polls except for one last year. That one would have merely taken the place of an anti-same sex marriage law already on the books.

Of course, free, independent thinkers shouldn't care how many people want to strip away other people's rights. Free, independent thinkers have the courage to stand up and insist that everyone have the same rights. In this case, it is the right to marry someone of one's own (not the government's) choosing.

Dan | June 15, 2007 04:52 PM

Hello Strawman!

Jason's got a point though. If people aren't allowed to marry, then they're obviously not allowed to get a divorce.

I too am curious where Jasoun got his "statistics" (*cough-focus on the family-cough*).

Clay | June 15, 2007 05:06 PM

"Well, 49."

Ha. I knew I'd left that hanging. But I hate serial posting, even in my own defense.
I wouldn't say 49 though. (Or 49 plus the District of Columbia.) It's more of a breakdown of how many states have actively worked or passed laws to block teh gheys from marrying. More in the 25-30 range from what I can tell with a cursory review. The rest either have some limited rights or have decided to focus legislation on roads, schools or other points that seem to outweigh gay marriage. Presumably anything not forbidden in the latter group of states is allowed.


marciepooh | June 15, 2007 05:19 PM

It will be (unfortunately) a very long time before Alabama allows same-sex marriages or civil unions. A few years ago (maybe ten) we finally admended our constitution to get rid of the ban on interracial couples. It passed 60-40. That's right 2/5 of Alabamaians voted against it. This wasn't even on of those really confusingly worded admendments. Inter-racial couples had been allowed to marry for years but it was still, technically, illegal. Yeah us, for righting that wrong, 3 decades later than the rest of the country.

I case you are wondering - just about everything in Alabama requires admending the constitution. Additional fun voting fact: before many local issues (say Sunday liquor sales in a county) can be put on the ballot, the legislature has to approve the measure and the whole state votes on it.

Chang, for rizzle. | June 15, 2007 05:28 PM

If memory serves, Massachusetts (my home state for 15 years until we moved to Maine) has the lowest divorce rate in the union. No idea what it's like for the newly gay and married.

This recent ruling has special significance for me as we had the wedding of our dear friends Dorene and Mary Bowe-Shulman right in our own backyard. Here's the photographic evidence. Alice, my wife is the gorgeous woman in the red dress and my daughter Sophia is the one in white and green. Mary Bowe-Shulman, who's wearing the dark suit, is my designated reader.

That day was one of the happiest in my life, in that I felt a part of history. Oh and because our friends were getting married! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go look over the pictures and weep cuz I miss my old home. And my old cars...

Corby K | June 15, 2007 05:29 PM

Marciepooh - it's obvious that if interracial couples were allowed to marry, the divorce rate would be out of control, causing the seas to boil and asteroids to wipe out civilization.

I guess it's a good thing I'm not running for political office because being against interracial marriages isn't the "in" thing.

hugh57 | June 15, 2007 05:52 PM

Being a confirmed bachelor, I have to go on record as being against all marriage. Statistics show that 100% of divorced people in the U.S. were married at some earlier point in their lives. ;-)

Carol Elaine | June 15, 2007 06:24 PM

Chang, what beautiful pictures! Thanks for making me tear up at work. Now where's my Kleenex?

Good for Massachusetts! I read about this in the LA Times this morning - exceptionally cool. Unfortunately, 26 states currently have bans against same-sex marriage in their constitutions, according to the article.

And Jason, unless you have studies you can cite to support your "statistics", you can bite my cushy white ass. And even if you can provide citations? Bite my cushy white ass.

CJ | June 15, 2007 06:27 PM

I liked the cartoon that I saw in the paper years ago:

"Gay Marriage! My God, haven't those poor people suffered enough yet?"


(Before I get killed, I've been married for 19 years).

Espana Sheriff | June 15, 2007 06:31 PM

But... but... if gays are allowed to marry our society will collapse in a fiery inferno! Just like what happened to Spain!!

Spain did collapse into anarchy in 2005, right?

Janiece | June 15, 2007 06:36 PM

Carol Elaine, I'm embarassed to admit I live in one of those 26 states, although I certainly didn't vote for that drivel. I keep hoping Coloradans will lighten up, but now that it's in our Constitution, it'll take a lot more work to get rid of the damned thing.

Laurie Mann | June 15, 2007 07:05 PM

You have to understand that facts don't matter to homophobes (hardly "free thinkers").

Carol Elaine | June 15, 2007 07:27 PM

Janiece, I live in California and it's in our constitution, too. Folks have tried to repeal it, but no luck. People think that Californians are so progressive, but most of the counties are pretty conservative. It's just that Los Angeles (where I live) and San Francisco have such huge populations that we balance out the rest of the state.

JJS | June 15, 2007 07:38 PM

Rather than try to outlaw divorce, it would make much more sense to put a 6-month or longer waiting period between applying for a marriage license and actually being allowed to get married. All the couples that are crazy in love but soon find out they can't stand each others' guts (like my brother and his first wife) would never make it to the marriage. They would be free to marry someone else when they get more mature, and escape unnecessary enrichment of some sleazy lawyer.

I would apply this even if there is a pregnancy involved. Accidental baby-making is a poor reason for marriage.

JCK | June 15, 2007 08:40 PM

Gay marriage has been legal in my province since '04, and across my whole country since '05. Still seems kind of quaint that there's a country attached to ours that hasn't caught on yet.

Get with the times, people. It turns out that if you allow other people to marry, it doesn't negate yours. In fact, there are not a finite amount of marriage certificates. They can print more.

Seriously.

PS: I know most of the people who hang out here are cool but, come on, get the rest of the people down there to start thinking. Even my friends and relatives that believe strongly against homosexuality understand that allowing everyone to have freedoms only ensures their own. The more people who have something to lose, the more people who'll get upset if the government tries to take yours from you.

Marriage rights for gays = religious freedoms = free speech = right to assembly = etcetera etcetera. Giving one group a right is good for _everyone_. Even if you don't agree with their cause.

Christian | June 15, 2007 09:07 PM

Personally, I think it would be good to pass a series of laws that keep people from being happy.

Honestly, life should be a miserable experience!

[Buddhist at heart]

/Kidding of course

PixelFish | June 15, 2007 09:31 PM

I guess it's a good thing I'm not running for political office because being against gay marriages isn't the "in" thing.

I resent the implication that any support of gay marriage is because it's the "in" thing, rather than a carefully thought-out decision made on moral grounds. Equal rights for everyone--even when it's not the "in" thing, it's still the right thing.

Patrick | June 15, 2007 09:32 PM

I just love my state. I'm kind of miffed that the vote even came that close, but I guess we can't all be liberals...at least until the next election.

Angelle | June 15, 2007 09:38 PM

My husband and I got married on our 10th anniversary, and hell, I like it so much I got licensed to marry other people.

I'm feeling curmudgeonly about the chances Ohio will repeal its constitutional-fucking-amendment banning gay marriage, but I'm busting out my good book to marry my best friend and her girlfriend the second it does.

Carla H. | June 15, 2007 09:47 PM

I am very proud to be a Massachusetts resident this week. I hope that this will set a precedent for other states to follow.

Brian Postow | June 15, 2007 09:54 PM

If you want a REAL free-thinking view point, you take my father's view. He thinks that ALL marriages should be outlawed. Well, sort of. Basically he doesn't think that it's the government's job to grant or refuse marriages. Make EVERY long-term couple get a civil union, and if your religion requires you do some ceremony to be "married" then you do that on your own time.

Angelle | June 15, 2007 09:55 PM

Brian, I think your father sounds sensible as all get out.

Patrick M. | June 15, 2007 11:03 PM

Screw marriage licenses - Let's make procreation licenses...

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770615009

Deb Geisler | June 15, 2007 11:08 PM

If memory serves, Massachusetts (my home state for 15 years until we moved to Maine) has the lowest divorce rate in the union. No idea what it's like for the newly gay and married.

Yep. Our divorce rate is about half the national average. And speaking as a married person in Massachusetts, I'm glad the divorce rate is so low and have no plans to increae it. :-) Those numbers are from 2004, it should be noted, and our divorce rate, I've read, is actually further declining.

Heather | June 16, 2007 12:04 AM

My first husband got re-married today to a WONDERFUL woman. Congratulations to Bobby & Stephanie Braum!!

Congrats to you too little brother & Krissy.

PEACE

mensley | June 16, 2007 02:35 AM

I've maintained for a while that civil unions and marriages should be separate for everyone. Civil Union is a matter for the state and Marriage is a matter for the church.

The state should handle legal contracts between two individuals who choose to merge their interests so far as income, property, insurance, medical, etc. This should be called a Civil Union.

Spiritual matters are between the couple and their chosen church / belief system. This should be called Marriage.

Separation of Church and State should mean that Civil Unions and Marriages should be different things.

No matter who you are as a couple, you should be able to merge legal interests so far as the state is concerned.

As far as Marriage is concerned, this should be a matter between the couple and their chosen church.

The State has no business with spiritual marriage, but the churches have no business with legal matters between two people.

So, a straight Methodist couple would have to file papers with the state to merge their legal interests, and they would also undergo a church wedding ceremony.

Couples who went through a church ceremony would have no legal connection unless they filed the proper papers.

Conversely, couples who filed for civil unions would have no spiritual basis for their marriage unless they engaged in such with a church.

The state cannot sanction spiritual unions and the churches cannot sanction legal ones.

Let's keep church and state separate.

D.Paul | June 16, 2007 02:36 AM

I find it amusing that Jason, after sharing his wit and wisdom (which sounded rather muffled, as his head was firmly planted in his ass), hasn't made a repeat performance to defend his stance. That's sticking to your guns, dad gum.

Corby Kennard | June 16, 2007 03:07 AM

mensley - Isn't that more or less how it is now? I went to the state, got the paperwork, could have had a justice of the peace sign off, negating the need for a ceremony, but instead had a beautiful ceremony at a Japanese friendship garden with an officiant. No religion required for the union. Light religion for the ceremony.

I think the only real difference is what we call the stupid things.

Steve | June 16, 2007 07:08 AM

I too am feeling good to live in Massachusets today, but it does bother me that the bill was only 5 votes away from passing. I console myself by hoping that if it had gone to a popular vote it would have been smashed (please oh please). We are a fairly Democratic leaning state. And if it was that close here, I worry about how things will go in more right leaning states.
Steve

John Scalzi | June 16, 2007 07:54 AM

D. Paul:

"I find it amusing that Jason, after sharing his wit and wisdom (which sounded rather muffled, as his head was firmly planted in his ass), hasn't made a repeat performance to defend his stance. That's sticking to your guns, dad gum."

Now, Now. One is allowed to say one's piece and have done with it.

TransDutch | June 16, 2007 08:16 AM

One can also note that Jason posted that at 4 pm on a Friday afternoon. Most blog reading occurs during the 9-5 business hours. He may have gone home, done whatever he does on a Friday night. He may not even read this thread until Monday morning.

Yay Internet for decreasing the productivity of workers!

Matt McIrvin | June 16, 2007 09:04 AM

If you want a REAL free-thinking view point, you take my father's view. He thinks that ALL marriages should be outlawed. Well, sort of. Basically he doesn't think that it's the government's job to grant or refuse marriages. Make EVERY long-term couple get a civil union, and if your religion requires you do some ceremony to be "married" then you do that on your own time.

All we'd really be doing there is changing a word--refusing to call the institution of civil marriage "marriage". Maybe it'd make the distinction between church marriage (or whatever non-church thing you want to call marriage) and the legal institution clearer in people's minds, but I'm not sure that's a sufficient compensation for the obvious political cost.

To understand the political cost, consider what gay-marriage proponents would immediately say: "I told you the liberals and gays really wanted to destroy marriage, and now they have."

Also, I've always sort of resented the parts of the arguments against civil marriage that imply that marriage is necessarily a religious sacrament. I'm not religious and as far as I'm concerned, I'm married, and would be regardless of how the law changed. I know the gist of these arguments is a plea to get the state out of it, but the unstated assumption that you should need a church to get married bothers me.

Dane | June 16, 2007 09:30 AM

If two dudes from Massachusetts are Army buddies and decide to get married for the BAQ, can they do that now?

I predict that at some point same-sex marriage will replace gay marriage as the expression meaning when two people of the same gender get married. I can see it becoming normal for friends to get married with no romantic or sexual relationship just for the colateral benefits marrige provides.

John Scalzi | June 16, 2007 09:46 AM

Dane, they have an Adam Sandler movie coming out this summer with just that premise.

Tim of Angle | June 16, 2007 11:50 AM

*sigh* I gather that it's my turn to be the grownup. Very well.

The reality is that homosexuals have exactly the same marriage rights as the rest of the population -- no more, and no less. They and their supporters keep hoping that by falsely characterizing it as less, they will eventually get more. Goebbels and his ilk have tried this Big Lie technique before, and it even works for a little while, but it always craps out in the end.

The actual agenda here is to get a privileged position that has never existed before in history and does not now exist outside of the pustules of perversity that occasionally erupt on the coasts of this continent.

The plurality of the population will ultimately lose patience with these constant attempts by a miniscule minority of aberrant activists to carjack their culture. To cast the conversation in terms with which I suspect the apparent arrested adolescents who frequent this forum are most comfortable: When the mob of angry peasants with torches and pitchforks appear outside your door, what's your plan? Eh? A shambling monstrosity built from decayed remnants of defunct ideologies will not be of much help. Nor will the intellectual Igors of the
informational elite.

Life is not a science fiction story where you can rewrite the plot to suit yourselves. Feel free to push the envelope all you want -- but don't be surprised when the day comes that the envelope pushes back.

Wakey wakey.

Corby Kennard | June 16, 2007 12:54 PM

Tim of Angle - how is no knowing any of the actual facts, and being completely wrong being the grown-up?

You have a different opinion. Fine.

You present nothing to support it but call everyone else, who at least have something to support their opinions, children, and by extension, Nazis.

I guess you voted against interracial marriage, I'm sorry, gay marriage, too, eh?

And Dane, while I hope you are trying to be funny, you know that is ridiculous for 2 reasons - 1) men and women who are friends generally don't just get married for the benefits. Why would you think two men would? Are you characterizing them as less principled because they have sex with their own gender? And if so, where do you get the proof of that? and 2) it IS an Adam Sandler comedy, so immediately we know it is an asinine idea.

Carol Elaine | June 16, 2007 02:57 PM

Tim of Angle, since when did being a grown-up mean being completely and mind-numbingly wrong?

Again I have to say, cite your sources that support that "homosexuals have exactly the same marriage rights as the rest of the population -- no more, and no less." As it stands, 26 states in the US specifically ban same-sex marriages in their constitutions. In other states, bans appear in the statutes. And most municipalities will not grant marriage certificates to homosexual couples. Ergo, homosexuals DO NOT have the same marriage rigths as heteosexuals.

Just because you believe something, Tim, doesn't make it fact. BTW, you've gone and pulled a Godwin. Debate done. You lost.

And, as with Jason, kiss my cushy white ass.

John Scalzi | June 16, 2007 03:38 PM

I believe Tim of Angle is making the argument that gays and lesbians have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as straight people (and alternately, that straight people have the same right to marry someone of the same sex as gay people).

James Nicoll | June 16, 2007 03:49 PM

"Jason's got a point though. If people aren't allowed to marry, then they're obviously not allowed to get a divorce."

Even if they are allowed to get married to each other, they may not be allowed to get divorced. It depends on how the divorce laws are framed.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/07/21/samesex_divorce040621.html

I believe we've since fixed that bug.

Clay | June 16, 2007 04:06 PM

I didn't get much from Tim of Angle beyond the nice use of alliteration. Which I thoroughly approve of.

If the point was that he thinks that gay marriage is a bad idea, it could've been said in fewer words.

Tim of Angle | June 16, 2007 05:11 PM

Corby, Carol, I realize that thinking doesn't come easily to you, but I have something for you to think about --

If you don't respect other people's principles, what makes you think that they'll respect yours?

If you're willing to force your beliefs on them, what makes you think they'll hesitate to force their beliefs on you?

Then it comes down to straight force. Do you really think you'll win that fight?

As I say, just something to think about. Give it your best shot -- no pun intended.

John Scalzi | June 16, 2007 05:28 PM

Tim of Angle:

"I realize that thinking doesn't come easily to you..."

Tim, avoid the ad hominem attacks, please. Carol and Corby addressed your argument, not you.

PeterP | June 16, 2007 05:34 PM

Tim, I don't think you actually responded to any of Corby or Carol's points.

If you're taking the position that there are more people who hate than like homosexuals, I would suggest that the history of the civil rights movement shows you to be on the wrong side of this fight. Ultimately, people who state that "things have always been done this way and thus should continue to be so" without any actually reason are usually wrong.

And fundamentally when your principles do not respect others, you can hardly expect them to respect your principles. As to your "equal rights" nonsense in the first post, that point has been kicked in the teeth so thoroughly and so often that it hardly needs to be rebutted, but here you go, just in case.

mythago | June 16, 2007 08:56 PM

So, Tim's argument is that people who support gay marriage are going to find angry mobs with pitchforks, guns and other weapons who have risen up to stomp out the uppity queers; am I missing anything?

Carol Elaine | June 16, 2007 09:38 PM

Tim:

1) Stop projecting your own insecurites onto others. I have no problem thinking. As a matter of fact, I enjoy thinking and do so very often, usually in a logical manner. You might want to give it a try.

2) If John was right and you're making the argument that gay people have the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex as straight people, then you need to express yourself in a clear manner.

3) Why should I respect the principles of someone whose principles don't respect humans on a basic level?

Frankly, I don't care what you believe. Believe whatever you want, but when your beliefs deny others the same rights as I would have, just because you think they're wrong for participating in consensual adult relationship with someone you disapprove of? You've lost all right to receive respect.

BTW, talk to me about forcing you to do something when the government says the only person you're allowed to marry is someone of your own gender, regardless of who you might love and want to spend the rest of your life with.

MWT | June 16, 2007 09:56 PM

It looks more to me like Tim is doing that projection thing in that second post of his. :p

There are people in the world who think same-sex marriage is a non-issue. There are people in the world who don't. The government should not be the one who decides whether it is or isn't okay. The government should allow everyone to make that choice for themselves. It should be legal for people to marry someone of the same-sex, because that way the first group of people can live their lives the way they choose. Having it be legal does not automatically mean that the second group of people must agree that it's okay; they are still perfectly free to not engage in same-sex marriage.

Therefore,

"If you don't respect other people's principles, what makes you think that they'll respect yours?"

is a wrong question because it isn't the same-sex marriage proponents who are being disrespectful. And,

"If you're willing to force your beliefs on them, what makes you think they'll hesitate to force their beliefs on you?"

is likewise wrong, because it isn't the same-sex marriage proponents who are trying to force beliefs.


As for the first post, where he says "gay people are perfectly allowed to marry people of the opposite sex, so why is there a problem?" - I've heard that argument from brutal logic before. It's so chock full of wrong givens that I don't even know where to begin.

Tim: can you explain why people get married in general? Let's start there. Why do we have marriage? What's it for?

mythago | June 17, 2007 01:21 PM

As for the first post, where he says "gay people are perfectly allowed to marry people of the opposite sex, so why is there a problem?" - I've heard that argument from brutal logic before. It's so chock full of wrong givens that I don't even know where to begin.

The Supreme Court began with that kind of pretzel-logic in Loving v. Virginia. It argue that there was no problem with a ban on interracial marriage, because nobody was allowed to cross the color line, therefore there was no discrimination because blacks and whites were treated identically. SCOTUS correctly called bullshit.

Corby Kennard | June 17, 2007 01:33 PM

Tim - I believe in my post I said "If you have a different opinion, fine." That means, if you have a different opinion, fine. I believe that means I respect your ability to have an opinion, even if the opinion itself makes me physically ill. Vice versa, while you have no reason, other than reason, to accept my position, you need to respect that I have one.

I questioned your absolutist, apparently baseless, and seemingly spurious position. You made ad hominem attacks on anyone who doesn't agree with you, likening them to Nazis and, by calling yourself the adult, pointing out that they are children. I asked for the proof. Where in that is me forcing my beliefs on you, or on anyone? I have a right, in discourse, to request the facts of your stated position. If you have none, well, that's a different topic.

I don't really understand what you mean by "Straight force". I am not forcing anything on anyone. If you come to a place of discussion, then cry foul when someone discusses something with you, well, I'm not sure how that is forcing anything on anyone. That's like going to a supermarket, then complaining when they charge you for a sandwich. What were you expecting, that your completely fact-less post would just slide by with no questioning? That we would just go "Oh, yeah. We forgot about that. Thanks!" and shut up?

By not adhering to the format of public discourse; by attacking the people instead of the arguments, by not having any facts at your disposal, by trying to distract instead of inform; you have proven you have no understanding of being an "adult" in this discussion.

In essence, when gay married men cannot go see their partner because their marriage does not "qualify" as legal, they don't have the same rights. When they are not allowed to file taxes as married, they do not have the same rights. When they can't get a marriage certificate, they do not have the same rights. These things are facts. I will not do your legwork for you, look them up. Ask an actual gay man. Educate yourself on the topic. Then come back and tell us what you learned. I bet, if you actually listen and pay attention, you will have a different opinion then next time.

Tim of Angle | June 17, 2007 05:13 PM

My apologies, John, and to you, Carol and Corby. That was uncivil of me.

Corby Kennard | June 17, 2007 06:19 PM

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Carol Elaine | June 18, 2007 05:40 PM

Thank you for the apology, Tim.

Jason | June 19, 2007 12:00 PM

I'm sorry for not posting more empirical evidence for the discussion. I was basing number on a generality of 50% of marriages (between heterosexual couples) end in divorce. As a whole, yes, 50% of all people, gay or heterosexual would still be a good assessment of the amount of marriages that would possibly end in divorce. But that 50% is now made of a larger pool of people.

If you have 10 heterosexual couples, the odds are that 5 will divorce. If you have 10 heterosexual couples and 10 gay couples, now the odds are than out of the 20 couples, ten could end in divorce. The total number of divorces would theoretically increase due to a larger number of people able to be married.

Being anti-gay marriage is not the same as homophobic. A phobia is an irrational fear and I'm not afraid of homosexuals.

Being a US military veteran I have a larger view of protecting the rights of individuals than you may take me credit for. I'm not advocating the oppression of a people or ethnic group.

Personally, I feel (no empirical evidence needed to support an opinion I hope) that a marriage is between a woman and a man.

To be perfectly clear, I think the real issue is if the government should regulate marriage through the law. In many regards the issue is similar to a woman's right to choose an abortion. Should the government have the right to regulate our personal choices. My answer is no, the government should not. I feel that a civil union should be supported for all people via the government, regardless of sexual orientation, and that marriage should be determined by the church.

Corby Kennard | June 19, 2007 12:45 PM

Jason - OK, so your opinion is that Gays should not be married, but should be able to get a civil union - assuming that entails all the same rights as a civil union for everyone. You are establishing that marriage is a religious institution, and should be treated as such, and that as a religious institution, gays should not have access to it. You are also saying the government should not regulate our personal choices. (I can get behind that.)

Fair enough. A few questions.

1) I still don't see how the divorce rate affects you personally, unless you are basing your actions on the statistical probability of being divorced. Other than that, I cannot see how it has any relation to your life in any way. It doesn't have any effect on mine - I am married and have a kid on the way. The divorce rate has not stopped me from being happy.

2) I am also a US Military Veteran, and so I see my responsibilities a bit differently. Yes, I feel it is necessary to protect the rights of individuals, but more than that, I feel protecting the UNPOPULAR rights of individuals, and especially the ones I don't agree with, assuming that they don't include human sacrifice or cruelty to animals, to be the civic duty of every American, and anyone who does not feel that has a different understanding of freedom than I do. That being the case, my opinion is irrelevant to what is right, which is NOT forcing my morals on others, and making sure others have the opportunity to "pursue happiness," etc.

3) If you do feel that marriage is only between a man and woman, and that it should only be in the church, then do you feel gays are lost, cannot be saved, that God has turned His back on them, and they cannot have any faith? That they are somehow lesser than religious folk? Because I believe somewhere in that book you all profess to believe in are some interesting passages about not judging others. (It's hard to remember the passage - when I went to Christian private school for 8 years, they all started to run together.)

4) Should atheists be able to get married? More to the point, should Scientologists, or scientists, or Buddhists? Pagans? Which church should the marriages be valid in? Should people have to get a civil union before being married in the church? If they did not, would a marriage in the church be valid outside of the church for purposes of filing taxes, for instance? If the government is to recognize these marriages, should they only recognize the faith you believe in, and if so, doesn't that support the idea of government sanctioned religion, which is diametrically opposed to the idea of the separation of church and state?

Jason | June 19, 2007 06:57 PM

Corby,
Excellent points! I'm going to make this short because I've got some things to do tonight but I wanted to post a quick reply.

I'm not saying it affects me personally in any way except for the indirect burden of paying more taxes to support a court system already burdened with divorce. Am I expecting to lose my pocketbook? No, not exactly.

I don't feel that God has abandoned homosexuals because of their orientation. I am not a theological guru by any stretch, but if you review the Book Of Romans in the Bible, everyone falls short of the glory of God and none of us are righteous. For anyone who considers homosexuality a sin, it's regarded as sin as much as someone who is prideful, hateful, a liar, murderer, etc. My own sins are as bad, if not worse, than someone who is gay.

There are many reasons the government may not want civil unions. One case could be that two men, or two women, of any orientation, could potentially abuse a civil union for tax benefits, support benefits, etc. even if they were not really in a civil union to, well, be in a union with someone they love. Should our tax dollars be spent providing breaks to heterosexuals who just want to abuse the system?

That's just a hypothetical, of course. I'm sure there are ways to put checks and balances in the system to protect against that sort of thing, but off the top of my head I know I can't think of any.

Truly, I am not about the government nosing around in the business of individuals.

Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little | June 20, 2007 03:05 AM

There are many reasons the government may not want civil unions. One case could be that two men, or two women, of any orientation, could potentially abuse a civil union for tax benefits, support benefits, etc. even if they were not really in a civil union to, well, be in a union with someone they love. Should our tax dollars be spent providing breaks to heterosexuals who just want to abuse the system?

Psh. They already are. Men and women can get married in order to secure one with the benefits of being married to the other already.

It's not like the gov't has any sort of "are you in love? really?" test to make sure the couple applying for a license aren't just gaming the system... and it's my impression that those who do it, are doing so because it's the only way the less-well-off half of the couple can get said benefits (say, health insurance?) at all.

I know of at least one such "non-couple" personally. He had a job with benefits. She didn't. What she had was muscular dystrophy (MS). Even if she could have afforded individual insurance, no one was signing her on. They're kinda leery about preexisting conditions. So they got married, and for a while she was able to get the meds she desperately needed to stave off the progress of the disease.

This is no one's idea of paradise, but 1) for some people it's the only readily available solution, and 2) it's already going on now. Truly equal civil unions for same sex couples won't change that. It just means that while this loveless couple I knew were able to "game the system," aka get married on order to get the lady the health care she needed, two women can't get married regardless of how true their love is in any state but MA. This state of affairs strikes me as unjust, an injustice which your rebuttal does not defend but instead underscores in bright neon highlighter.

Post a comment.

Comments are moderated to stop spam; if your comment goes into moderation, it may take a couple of hours to be released. Please read this for my comment moderation policies.
Preview will not show paragraph breaks. Trust me, they're there.
The proprietor generally responds to commenters in kind. If you're polite, he'll be polite. If you're a jackass, he'll be a jackass. If you are ignorant, he may correct you.
When in doubt, read the comment thread rules.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)