Question of the day
Thursday, Feb 22, 2007 - Posted by Rich Miller
First, the setup…
A Chicago Democrat wants Illinois to be the second state to legalize gay marriages.
State Rep. Greg Harris plans to introduce legislation today that will permit same-sex couples to get married. Although four states recognize civil unions among gays, only Massachusetts provides for gay marriages.
“It would extend the same rights and obligations of marriage to same-sex couples in Illinois as are previously enjoyed, or not enjoyed, by heterosexual couples,” Harris said. “If you look at recent polls … people of Illinois very thoroughly understand that same-sex couples deserve the same rights and benefits” as heterosexual couples.
David Smith, executive director of the Illinois Family Institute, disagreed.
Smith’s group collected over 300,000 signatures to put an anti gay marriage question on the November ballot. The group didn’t have enough valid signatures, however.
Anyway, to the question: Could you support this idea? Could you support a variation on this proposal, like civil unions? Why or why not?
And, please, keep it civil. Over the top stuff will be dealt with harshly.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 9:41 am:
With regard to the proposed legislation: I could not possibly care less. However, the political aspect of the matter is a different matter entirely:
What in the world is this guy thinking?
We have the weakest GOP in any state, and this person wants to give them an easy issue to rally the base?
What is it about Democrats that they have this need to take the gun and aim it right at their own feet? The only brightside to this is that usually the Democrats do this sort of thing in October of presidential years. At least this time the guy has chosen an off year for his political blunder.
- Leroy - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 9:52 am:
I do not support the state discriminating in any way as to who should get married or not.
That being said, I would not support a law allowing gay marriages in Illinois, simply because such a law would do nothing to allow a man to marry two women, if they were all in love, consented and it made perfect economic sense to do so.
I want to see gays be able to get married, but I do not want the state to perpetuate discrimination. The only law I support is one that takes the cuffs off for everyone, not just some favored classes.
Discrimination is discrimination.
- Honest Abe - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 9:53 am:
Is the sponsor the same State Representative who helped the Scientologists set up a booth in the State of Illinois Building to debunk psychiatry?
Just asking since I cannot remember for sure.
This is wedge issue that could reanimate the paralyzed GOP.
- dan l - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 9:59 am:
I liked this Dave Smith quote, which shows you just how out of touch with reality the opposition is on this one:
I’m not going to dignify the polygamy comment with a response.
Suffice to say kids, kick, scream, and yell all you want. Same Sex Marriage is an inevitable conclusion. You can’t stop it.
With fortune 500 companies offering SS-Domestic Partner Benefits, state after state recognizing SS civil unions, ample economic arguments to support that this is a good thing, and the sheer buying power of the LTBTQI community, not even mentioning the fact that it is the right thing to do - it’s going to happen.
And like Sully says, make all the noise you want, but all you’re doing is alienating people who might otherwise have a whole lot of interest in voting republican.
- dan l - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 10:00 am:
Abe:
All I know is that Greg Harris is openly gay and HIV +
- The Horse - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 10:03 am:
Given the seperation of church and state, the issue isnt one of morality, its one of legal protections and tax policy. If you can accept that, than whats the big deal.
- Ghost - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 10:03 am:
It should be allowed. Marriage is primarily a religious ritual, as marriage “ceremonies” vary by religion. The government should not be regulating religious ceremonies. The “civil union”‘ debate is just a de facto argument for allowing the government to regulate religious ceremonies. After all, if you support providing the legal benefits of the union, everything else is just parsing the religious method of creating the union. Given the legal rights that attach to unions, Insurance coverage (it would help provide coverage if people could be covered as a spouse where one partner has the coverage), legale rights if the partner is murdered, inheritance, rights relating to children etc all cry out under equal protection and just plain deceny to allow these rights to be obtainable by partners. Ultimatly the government should stay out of the private love life of people and take a neutral stance allowing any couples who desire it to be married.
- Objective Dem - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 10:07 am:
First and foremost it is the right thing to do.
In regards to proposing it while the GOP is weak, do you want Rep. Harris to wait until they are strong to do it?
This won’t lead to a revival of the GOP in the state. It will bring out the right wing social conservatives. We saw how strong they are with those amazing vote totals for Keyes and Overweis. Face it folks, those right wingers who pick and choose verses of the bible to enforce alienate people.
As a long term trend, younger people are much more positive about gays and gay marriage. That means even if the GOP wins a few more votes now, they will be linked to a long term loser.
- Robbie - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 10:10 am:
I am definitely in support of civil unions because of the legal impacts. I personally am fine with gay marriage, but understand its still hard for many people to grasp. At least we are making progress. Someday we will all look back on this issue and realize how dumb it was. Similar to how we can look back and see how wrong things like slavery and racism were stains on society.
- cermak_rd - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 10:11 am:
What the state can grant to some (civil marriage) it can grant to others. What the state cannot grant (the Sacrament of Marriage), it can’t grant to anyone. So given that this is about civil marriage and not the Sacrament of marriage I don’t see why not. Given the tax, insurance, and inheritance rights wrapped up in marriage, it does become an issue of fairness.
At any rate, I see this legislation as a good bargaining position to start with to try to bring about civil unions.
- babs - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 10:17 am:
Sorry Objective Dem but Skeeter is right. This will energize the GOP giving them back the Reagan Dems. It is the right thing to do - government should not be offering a “separate but equal” civil union acceptance. Leave marriage to church and government should only issue civil union documents to all - or it should issue marriage certificates to SS couples. Discrimination in any quise should not be how our government operates.
I don’t know when it will be a “good” time to bring this up. Perhaps we should wait and see how “truly” accepting this country is of a black man and a woman running for President. We will learn alot about the state of the union in the coming year and a half. Remember, we still don’t even have an equal rights amendment.
- Jerry - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 10:20 am:
Sure. Gay people should certainly be allowed to marry. Why should gays not be afforded equal protection under the law?
- Pat Hickey - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 10:21 am:
Robbie, Come on! Slavery and Gay Marraiage the Same?
Two guys love each and pledge their troth - great. Civil Union will not lead to Civil War. The House divided is up to the two guys to sort out - Jeesh!
- Objective Dem - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 10:22 am:
I would like to see one of the “bible believing” legislators to really get in line with the bible and introduce legislation which bans gay marriage. But to be truly biblical they should start with 10 commandments (homosexuality doesn’t make it into this list). That means they should start with laws that criminalizes adultery, working on Sunday, using God’s name in vain, coveting your neighor’s house and wife, lying, and making idols. (We already have laws regarding murder and stealing so those are covered.)
Once they cover the 10 Commandments, they can go down to the level of the the laws in Leviticus. That means we need legislation banning red dresses, eating shellfish, wearing clothes that mix wool with cotton, etc. etc.
They probably should also introduce a Constitutional amendment regarding separation of church and state, since enforcing these laws would be a theocracy (like Iran and Saudi Arabia) rather than a modern democracy.
- Levois - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 10:22 am:
I’d give gays civil unions and I’d let the churches determine who can or can’t get married. I think this is a better solution than to outright give gays the right to marry. Under Civil Union both hetero and homosexual couples will get the same priviliges of marriage.
- Fan of the Game - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 10:27 am:
Couldn’t support gay marriage. Marriage has always been defined as a union of man and woman, and all religions (where the idea of marriage started) see it that way.
I could, however, support legal unions, though that brings a whole list of other issues.
- Leroy - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 10:35 am:
Dan L said:
“I’m not going to dignify the polygamy comment with a response.”
So you decides who who deserves dignity or not, huh? Funny, back in the 1970s, the idea of allowing homosexuals to marry was laughable. Homosexuals were not deserving of dignity back then. In fact, if I recall correctly, they were treated as people with psychological problems.
Dan L is committing the same hate think today against polygamists that was done against homosexuals back then.
Shame on you for hating and being a hypocrite, Dan L.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 10:43 am:
Leoy, please, stick to the question. Let’s not allow this to devolve into a flame war. I really do think I’m gonna ban the phrase “shame on you” because it’s so over-used.
Move along…
- cermak_rd - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 10:50 am:
The difference with polygamy is that polygamy would open a lot of different cans of worms that gay marriage simply wouldn’t because we already have a structure of one spouse to a customer. Among the cans of worms, which spouse gets the disability payments? If two of the partners die, who gets custody of children that they alone were the biological parents of (the remaining spouses?), how is divorce handled, are alimony and child support still based on the same formulas? Which spouse gets the insurance benefit? Would it be fair for a person in a polygamous union to cover all 4 (say) of their spouses, should that be enforced by the state? I could go on and on, but the idea I’m trying to get across is that tactically, gay marriage is a lot easier to allow than legal polygamous unions.
Now, in IL, any number of people, of legal age, can choose to live together and even have religious ceremonies to be “married”, we don’t have police investigating to ensure no de facto polygamy is happening as I understand they do in Utah.
- Bill Baar - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 10:58 am:
I favor Marriage; not Civil Unions. Gays should not get a pass on a contract before God. They need to take the same vows before the allmighty straights do, and face the consequences like the rest of us. Let S/He sort it out; not you, me, or Illinois.
re Leory: I do not support the state discriminating in any way as to who should get married or not.
Me too, so lets just get Illinois out of the marriage licensing business i.e. marriage discrimination business all together.
If people need to designate a partner for insurance, hospital purposes, etc… how about a register for a one-time, irrevocable, declaration of who that is.
- dan l - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 11:03 am:
No. Not quite.
What I am saying is that polygamy and SSM are two completely different subjects which require completely different discussions. While I realize that the there are wingers in the world who would like to go ahead and couple what is becoming less and less of an 3v1L (SSM) with what is still deemed culturally bizarre (polygamy)in order to make it less palatable to the average American, it’s simply not based in fact for anybody.
Frankly, since unlike most people, I actually know real polygamous couples with like…kids and houses and stuff calling me a multi-partnered family unit hater isn’t exactly the game you want to play.
As, polygamy does not necessarily imply anything related to LGBTQI rights or Same Sex Marriage it’s off topic and probably a little bit trollesque, hence my lack of responding.
If you’re honestly curious as to whether or not I would support similar legislation for polygamous families (::tweak tweak::), your answer is a positive:
Yes.
Although, I would not lump polygamous couples in with same sex couples.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 11:05 am:
After reading through the comments, it appears that these well meaning sweeties don’t fully understand a number of things.
Homosexuality isn’t new. Most likely there has always been appx 5% of humans who are. A person’s sex life can be a complicated process. So history is full of societies that have dealt with issues that arise from this. Like most basic societal traditions, what you see today has been based on what works, in that what perpetuates a society and keeps it surviving. What we have seen happen in dying communities is often due to them turning their back on proven survival traits, or being exterminated by another stronger group.
After thousands of years, we know that gay couples and their lifestyles are not sustainable. There is no biological justification for it. Gay couples do not have biological offspring. Evolution points clearly to what history has proven - homosexuality doesn’t work, regardless of what society and laws have tried in the past to do to make it so. It is basic biological science.
So what we are currently seeing is a society that is wealthy enough to start creating an artificial environment capable of supporting an unsustainable lifestyle. We may be at a point where we are rich enough to do this for a long time. But this society will not always be this rich, and will not always continue with policies that make this environment possible. Things change.
Do you think if we were a struggling society, we would use our resources to maintain a concept with no productivity? Of course not. That is what history clearly shows regarding homosexuality. If it worked biologically, it would be the norm, right?
You can’t fight biology. You can’t fight evolution. Societies evolve too so that they can perpetuate themselves. If you are not a part of that perpetuity, you will not have a future.
Finally, being opposed to gay marriage is not being opposed to homosexuality. It isn’t discrimination either. Those that argue it is have confused the definitions deliberately in order to shame the opposition’s stands. Comparing gay marriage to interracial or interethnic marriage overlooks the obvious biology at work. Biology trumps politics. Interracial and interethnic heterosexual couples produce children and they in turn help define the future society.
It is simple. No biological children - no future. What made you genetically dies too if you have no children. Within one lifetime, we will see societies fail due to a lack of reproduction. It is in our best interest to do whatever it takes to produce more children which maintains the health of our society.
That is why conservatives thrive while liberals don’t. Liberal churches are dying out and conservative ones are growing. Islamic societies with societal ties centuries old are outproducing Parisians and replacing them in their own city.
Go ahead and try gay marriage. It will flop like it always has.
- Objective Dem - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 11:11 am:
Leroy,
You may be right, 20 or 30 years from now, we may be saying polygamy should be allowed. I don’t think so and I also don’t think it makes any sense now.
Currently straight people have the rights to marry one person of their choosing, gays do not (unless they move to a more progressive country or state). Our laws, taxes, and work-related benefits are based on the concept of marriage to one person, so this is an issue of equal rights. These laws, taxes, and benefits will not function if there are multiple partners. As a pre-emptive comment, it is also why the stupid argument of “what’s next marrying animals?” is so stupid.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 11:19 am:
As to polygamy -
We have seen many pro-gay marriage groups internationally saying that supporting gay marriage doesn’t create a slippery slope that starts allowing any kind of marriage. However, facts show differently.
After convincing the Netherlands that gay marriage wouldn’t create other strains of marriage - it took only two years before the federal government in The Hague had to start recognizing polyamourous and polygamous marriages. Two years. That slippery slope was a lot slipperier than anyone invisioned.
Same thing is happening in Canada. After gay unions were approved, a leading think tank has already generated a report that opens the door to polygamous marriages too. I loved the statement made by one of it’s leading staffers, something on the order of, “if we discriminate against polygamous families, it hurts those children too”.
We know. Once we start redefining marriage to reflect our current political beliefs, we get stucked with unintended consequences that cannot be fixed and end up being far worst.
It is time to stop second guessing thousands of years of intelligent thought and reason behind our basic institutions. We are no smarter, no kinder, or any more perfect than our ancestors. There is a reason - a great reason - why we have proven traditions.
- Objective Dem - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 11:19 am:
Vanilla Man,
The issue of evolution and the survival of the fittest actually supports homosexuality. Homosexuality has always been with us. The evolutionary theory I have heard is you don’t need every single man to procreate. If a group has a small segment of adult men who perform special functions and watch out for the group collectively, the group will not only survive but prosper.
You are only correct in saying a group will die off if everyone gives up procreative sex. Based on the people I know, I don’t think we have to worry too much about that happening.
- vise77 - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 11:21 am:
Well, Vanilla, it seems the flaw in your logic is that not all straight couples have kids.
I don’t understand this: No one will force churches to marry gay couples. No one will force people who dislike gays to suddenly start liking them, or to visit Boystown in Chicago on a Saturday night. Rather, gay couples who marry or enter into civil unions will have the same basic rights and protections as straights. What’s the problem?
- schenked - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 11:23 am:
Vanilla Man-
Fine point. In fact, let us amend our marriage laws so that only those couples able and willing to have children are able to access that institution. Since the sole purpose of marriage is to support your skewed Darwinistic view, why not ensure that we use our laws to perpetuate it?
- Objective Dem - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 11:26 am:
Another falsehood is the idea of marriage being the same throughout history. It constantly changes. If you want evidence all you need to do is think about our lifetime, read a bit of history or a novel, watch an old movie, or read the bible.
- dan l - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 11:39 am:
There’s so many things wrong with VanillaMan’s argument….
First of all, the argument is a rehash of the same base level “Anatomy of Silly” arguments you see from Fundie Christians whom reject every notion of science possible to spew Creationism and deny basic sociological principles, yet when they have some bit that they can twist into a shank job to support their world view of homophobia, bigotry, and hate they happily embrace science and sociology—but only when it’s convenient for the purposes of perpetuating cyclic elements of that world view. In the end it’s just an attempt to make the discussion more complicated than it has to be. There are people who want to get married. These people want the same rights as other folks in a committed life long relationship. Since there’s nothing up front wrong with it, they attempt to fabricate these vast fantasy lands where civilization fails because of queer folk, where baby making is our number one goal, and where the government should be monitoring things to make sure we’re producing enough kids.
Now, that’s not saying that Vanilla is one of those whackjob fundies (in fact, I don’t know him from Adam), rather it is telling you the origins of his argument and it’s contemporary usage.
The “Past Civilizations of Debauchery Failed” argument is always a fun one, because it virtually ignores the notion that ‘homophobia’ was infinitely more violent and more nasty than it is today in the past.
Homosexuality doesn’t work for what? Producing babies? Question: So is that justification for not allowing them to get married? The fact that they have no biological means to have kids within the traditional structure of marriage (although are more than capable of seeking a sperm donor or adopting)? So, what if your fiance is unable to have kids? Should we be able to reject that marriage?
What are you talking about? SSM requires virtually no resources. And even if it did, how does your whopping 5% strain those resources?
No. Actually Vanillaman, supporting the idea that “the queers shouldn’t get married” is saying that you don’t believe that LGBT folks should have equal rights under the law (which if you forget, is kind of ya know…big…on equal rights), thus perpetuating the notion that LGBT folks are not equal. That is distinctly homophobic.
So if the gay folks get married, society fails? Because of 5%?
- dan l - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 11:41 am:
Strike what I just said.
Definitely sipping the Porno Pete KoolAid.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 11:42 am:
What special functions have we seen from our gay community that helps perpetuate our society? If what you say is true, why do we not see anything like that - or ever have?
I don’t claim that marriage hasn’t changed. Obviously it has. What we have now is the evolutionary results today. Gay marriage, along with other forms of marriage have been tried - and they have died out for a real reason.
As to non-productive couples or aged-couples - please come up with real challenge here. Sure, people married for non-productive companionship. There are emotional reasons for marriage. But there is also physical reasons for marriage, and I don’t hear too many pro-gay marriage proponents recognizing this. They want to see marriage as an emotional issue only. Well sure, you would, since the physical reason doesn’t exist, does it?
Finally, please note that I am not bringing up religion into this debate. Our religions often reflect what has also been proven biologically. OR they would have died off too.
Call me a Darwin, or whatever, but PLEASE don’t call the the “h” word that is so unfashionable today. I love my gay friends. We have had a lot of informed discussions about gay marriage. I am not anti-gay.
Please recognize that there are real reasons why traditions exist. When you break traditions that are based on biological and scientific reasons, then you are driving off a cliff. You no longer recognize the geniuses that have lived before you and view today only through shallow, unproven eyes. There are conditions in life. You don’t mess with Mother Nature, or you also not an environmentalist either?
- Bill Baar - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 11:44 am:
I just no longer see a reason for Counties and States to license marriage; any kind of marriage…straight, gay, or multiple. Churches free to solemnize whatever unions the wish. People should be free to live in combinations they chose. The only reason we license marriages is to sort out benefits from the State and inheritance… given DNA testing and the sophistication of contracts in our society…they are plenty of ways for people contract whatever relationships they want.
Illinois no longer has a good reason to license marriage. The Churches should Evangelize and preach morality and ethics.. People should be free to live their lives… Illinois and the Counties should just get out of it. We’d need the lawyers to tell us how, but I really think that’s the way to go instead of creating more rights in law… we don’t need that.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 11:45 am:
I am also not a Republican, so come up with better excuses to dis me.
Thank you.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 11:48 am:
Vanilla,
There seems to be some confusion on your part.
The bill was to ADD people to the list of people who can marry. Nobody is going to PREVENT heterosexual people from marrying.
As a result, I am not clear on your biological argument.
Heteros like me are still going to get married and have kids, whether or not the 5% of homosexuals do also.
Perhaps you can clarify your argument to explain why the fact that some homosexuals marry will lead to a decline in population.
- dan l - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 11:50 am:
Why is perpetuation of society an issue? There’s plenty of us breeders to keep society going. 95%, according to you.
If you’ve got a hair on your arse, tell me exactly why gay folks shouldn’t get married? Despite the fact that you’re clearly creeped out by people having sex when there aren’t babies coming out of it.
- Robbie - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 11:50 am:
Pat Hickey - I never compared this issue to slavery. I only noted that there was a time that slavery was controversial and now looking back we can see how skewed our views were. In a few decades we will look back at this current debate in the same way.
Vanilla man - that is a terrible argument as to why gay marriage is wrong. If gay lifestyles are not sustainable as you claim, why are there still gay people? If it is an inferior trait in the Darwin sense, should it not have bred itself out of human genes by now? Why does it show up in animals that show an affinity to the same gender? Aside from that point, since when is pro-creating the only purpose of life? I recall seeing a show on the discovery channel a few years back that was looking at large cats. I can’t remember if it was cheetahs, jaguars, lions, or what. But in that show they were talking about the social structure. There was the alpha male who went around and mated with everyone. They also made mention of a brother of the alpha male who didn’t get to breed but stayed around and helped to protect the pack. His role as a strong male was not to pro-create, but to help ensure the survival of the pack through protecting and raising the young.
With that analogy in mind, many gay families provide the same system. They may not pro-create as a couple, but they raise families from a variety of sources. Perhaps one of the partners had a child from a heterosexual relationship, perhaps they adopted a child, perhaps they went through artificial means. Regardless of circumstance, there are many ways that gay couples can still contribute to your very minimalistic view of human life.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 11:52 am:
Also, my theory helps explain why when put on ballots, pro-gay marriage amendments almost always fail big-time.
Stop the name calling too. Homophobia has an evolutionary purpose while we are still trying to determine the purpose of homosexuality. Give the name calling a rest.
- zatoichi - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 11:55 am:
Funny thing, several of the gay couples I know have kids. However it happened, they have them and everyone seems to be doing very well. Guess it is not such a dead end. Leave the civil marriages follow the state rules, leave religious marriages follow their religion. After that, leave people alone and get out of their lives.
- dan l - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 11:59 am:
DING DING!!! We have a winner.
“My homophobia is justified by biology, thus any and all byproducts of homophobia is such as…I don’t know…Matthew Shepard, is just Darwin’s way of keeping us making babies”
- dan l - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 12:02 pm:
P.S. Homophobia is a result of societal forces - most notably constructs of masculinity and are thus - the result of sociology, not biology.
Love,
Dan
- Boone Logan Square - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 12:04 pm:
I have no objection to the state extending the opportunity (either using marriage or civil unions) to recognize full legal partnerships between two consenting adults. It doesn’t hurt me or my marriage.
- schenked - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 12:14 pm:
Vanilla Man-
What I find fascinating is you have a clearly biased argument cloaked in biological objectivity. As other posters have pointed out, pro-creation is not and should not be a pre-requisite for accessing the institution of marriage, (which is a social construct, just like homophobia.)
Bill Barr - Your idea is not without merit. I have not thought through all the pros and cons, but the elimination of the state’s role in marriage could only work if it was coupled with a regulatory infrastructure that would ensure the contractual relationships you speak of would be free of discrimination, e.g. same-sex couples being treated in the same manner as hetro couples in insurance issues, custody issues, etc.
- paddyrollingstone - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 12:16 pm:
This is not a rhetorical question - I really do not know the answer - but is there really a burning desire among gays to get married?
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 12:18 pm:
To return to the point of this question - if the Democrats in Illinois wish to publically endorse this stand on gay marriage, they may pass it within the General Assembly and make it law. But to expect the majority of voters to accept this is questionable. When put on ballots for popular vote, gay marriage fails. If the General Assembly passes it, they will need to understand that there will be serious opposition and they may suffer a blowback politically for it.
Skeeter asked a good question. Why should we believe marriage would suffer if gay marriage is passed?
All we know right now is what has happened in countries that have passed gay marriage laws. All data has to be sorted through, so we don’t have any “final” answers to that question. But what we do know right now is that the number of people marrying in the Scandanavian countries that have gay marriage laws has dropped significantly since gay marriage has been approved. We are trying to sort out the reasons for this, but it is definately happening.
In the course of history, we don’t know what happened to other societies before, during and after their decline regarding this either. But what we do know is that we don’t have surviving societies today that have a long history of gay marriage tradition. That has to say something, right? What? We don’t know yet.
What we are seeing are rich societies separating marriage from children. They can do this because after a few generations of social governments, there is a belief that a safety net has been established to replace the proven traditions of family.
Marriage is discriminatory legally. I was discriminated against regarding many laws and taxes when I was single that I enjoy because I am now married. Why? Because we know that families are the birthplace of societies. To ensure societies, governments give families special recognition and money saving gestures. So what happens when we stop discriminating? Then there would be even less reasons to be married, right?
Perhaps that is what we are seeing in other rich countries that have legalized gay marriage and are seeing the number of marriages, gay and hetero, decline. We really don’t know and we really should get a clue before we join them, shouldn’t we?
- cermak_rd - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 12:21 pm:
Might I point out also that evolutionarily, we haven’t always had the science and technology we have today. Which means that today, gay marriages no more have to be sterile than anyone else’s marriage. I would also add that just about anyone alive in America today is living a better life than the monarch of England in the 700’s so I’m not sure I care what that or any past society decided. Heck in our own young nation at one time a person could be a slave owner and considered a good Christian. Past societies have been wrong. Someday we’ll be proven to be wrong on who knows how many points.
- dan l - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 12:24 pm:
I really do not know the answer - but is there really a burning desire among gays to get married?
Uh. Yes. In fact.
- Rocky Road Homo Man - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 12:29 pm:
As a Homo here… I feel compelled to respond to this interesting conversation.
To Vanilla Man, (I personally like Rocky Road, as stated above): Gay men and women have children. It may be a shock… but they ACTUALLY can procreate. It may not be in the typical Man/Woman marriage situation (though many times it is) but yes Vannilla Manilla, the homos do reproduce… quite often.
Your Darwinian argument doesn’t stand up because a) homos are still here after thousands of years, and b) we have SIBLINGS who also procreate. and pass on 99.999% of the genes. Homosexuality is not reserved for Humans… nay, there is a whole Homo Animal Kingdom that is out there… Every species of Mammals (which include humans) has displayed populations of homosexual individuals… even Bats! So… whats going on!
**** Continueing on ****
Lets talk about the History of Marriage right quick. Originally, according to the Judeao-Christian writings (ie the Old Testament/Torah), a woman was nothing more than property, and that this property must be transferred from one man to another… usually with land and/or animals (Because a woman by herself was not worth a whole lot really). Remember the Commandment? Thou Shall not Covet another man’s Wife? Not because it was cheating… it was because it was the OTHER MAN’S PROPERTY. The same could be said for coveting another man’s COW. Women were similar to slaves/livestock in this respect.
The sacrament of Marriage really didn’t become big until the Great Evangelical Awakening in the 1700’s. Thanks to the puritan minded New Englanders (They start ALL the Social Change in this Country!), they began placing Marriage as a holy sacrament, and began guilting people even more into following gods law. (the Catholics started doing this too around the same time… They were worried about losing the Guilt battle with the masses) They still however, made sure that the Woman had no rights in the decision. her father must give approval to hand over his daughter to another man (property transfer… approved by God!)
This belief (not love, but property) persisted until really… the early 20th century, when Divorce became something that women could realistically go for. This coupled with the Feminist movement, where women gain “more equal” status in our country and have the ability to survive outside of a marriage, made marriage more an institution of “love” than “property transfer.”
Of course, marriage between the races was banned in some states until the 1970’s.
AS a Big ‘Mo myself. I would love for the institution of Marriage be regulated to the Church. It is a world of semantics, and I know that marriage is such a loaded word that my uttering it causes southern baptists to dry heave and pelt me with holy water. I wish we could take the word “marriage” out of every law in this land, and replace it with “Civil Union.” You want your tax breaks, family insurance, name change, death tax, inhearatance all consolidated into a legally binding union regardless of Race, Gender, religious affiliation? go to the courthouse and get a Civil Union. Like any other legal document, you can restrict it as a contract between two people of legal age. Not groups, not animals, not objects, not children with no legal rights… two people of legal age. If you want to get hitched in a Church? have a ceremonial marriage which is what it ALWAYS HAS BEEN. Let the church argue about “marriage” just take the government out of it.
I know it is pie in the sky, uber liberal thinking… but seriously… it is a just a word… and if you remove the word from the lawbooks, the issue becomes moot. THEN all you have are bigoted people who do not want gay and lesbians the same legal Rights and protections as they do… and THAT, my dear Milli Vanilli, is a Civil Rights issue.
- dan l - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 12:31 pm:
And when an original football team wins the super bowl, the stock market gets better.
And what does that have to do with gay marriage?
I’m not sure, but I don’t think that makes any sense.
If you feel like you’re argument is being destroyed here Vanilla, it’s because everybody else trivial things like ‘facts’, ‘rationality’, ‘reason’, and ‘reality’ on your side.
Your argument basically boils down to:
“The sale of ice cream cones goes up when it rains, but I don’t know why”
- paddyrollingstone - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 12:34 pm:
Vanilla Man has a good point:
Marriage is discriminatory legally. I was discriminated against regarding many laws and taxes when I was single that I enjoy because I am now married. Why? Because we know that families are the birthplace of societies. To ensure societies, governments give families special recognition and money saving gestures. So what happens when we stop discriminating? Then there would be even less reasons to be married, right?
It is and always has been in society’s interest that people get married and have children. Does that mean that all people have to get married and have children? Obviously, no. It doesn’t mean that people who don’t get married and don’t have children are bad people either. It just means that society believes that since it is generally a good thing when people get married and have kids, that it will give “special recongintion and money saving gestures” as Vanilla put it.
If society believes that gays should have this right, then people will vote for it, either directly through ballot initiatives or indirectly through the legislature.
At this point, it has zero chance of getting through the legislature and less than zero chance
on the ballot.
- PalosParkBob - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 12:36 pm:
For decades I’ve been renting apartments to gay couples, and have pretty much considered what goes on in their bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchen table, etc. pretty much none of my business unless it damages me or someone else.
That’s why I’m against acknowledging gay “marriage” as a relationaship worthy of deriving the benefits of a legal union but not the responsibilities.
I’m also against granting hetero “shack ups” marriage benefits, unless common law marriage RESPONSIBILITIES apply as well.
For example, if one member of a gay “married” couple has a legal judgement against them, does the “spouse” have legal liability for damages?
If one partner goes into the hospital for expensive treatment for which they cannot pay, can the “spouses” assets be attached to pay the bills before the state or county taxpayers have to pick up the cost?
I believe that religious freedom has a high priority in our culture. If a religion sanctions same sex marriage, the couple, or triple, or quadruple, should be allowed the personal freedom to practice that culture as long as it doesn’t abuse or damage others.
I suspect, however, that the real motivation here is financial. The gay couples want to take more resources away from “straight” taxpayers to support their lifestyles, and I’m dead set against that.
Gays should have he Liberty to practice their lifestyle, and I should have the Liberty not to subsidize it.
- dan l - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 12:37 pm:
Probably true Paddy. But it’s a matter of time. You can’t stop it. I couldn’t stop it. And the howlers can’t stop it.
- Archpundit - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 12:37 pm:
Errr..homosexuality occurs in many different animals
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
The entire discussion of evolution is horribly, horribly wrong in so many ways I don’t know where to begin, but the most basic point is that homosexuality occurs in the wild. Some conservatives have attacked researchers for pointing this out under the principle of “We don’t want to believe that” but it doesn’t change reality.
- Rocky Road Homo Man - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 12:40 pm:
I LOVE this talk about Scandivavian counties declining marriage rates.
Did you know that ICELAND has the highest percentage of single mothers per capita in the developed WORLD? OMG, it must be the GHEYS!
Actually, no. Marriage rates in Scandivanian counties has ALWAYS been low. Many of their Socialist-based programs and assistance laws mean that women do not NEED to get married because they are not finacially required to. This leads to more single family societies.
*********** Continueing on **************
And Vanilla Bean… You are trying to apply the fall of Rome, and the Decline of the British Empire on elites losing their moral compass.
The reality is that Rome fell long after the exploits of Caligula and Nero. They insanity was not tied to their sexual appetities, or lose of Moral character. The Roman empire declined because it could no longer protect its vast empire. The British empire declined because it could no longer subjegate people from far away colonies.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 12:43 pm:
Finally, dan l you have a very nasty game you play that discredits your postings. You like to put your bigoted statements into quotes as if I said them. If this is unintended, please review the purposes of using quotation marks so that you are not seen negatively.
However, if you are aware how quotations are correctly used, then it is time to call you out on this. It is not right.
Finally to all those posters that want to crawl all over me and give me all these itty bitty bites, please read with an open mind what I have previously posted. I tried hard to sincerely bring to this blog an opinion that would help explain another side to the gay marriage debate. The fact that others are so quick to dismiss it with name calling or other ridiculous comments doesn’t dilute it, in my opinion.
There are real reasons why folks do not like gay marriage. They are in the majority. They are not evil, they are not stupid, they are not religious nuts, they are not backwards, they are just as smart as the pro-gay marriage side. I believe we should respect what others say, even when said poorly. Lets look beyond unfashionable reasons for their support and look deeper. You will find good reasons people believe what they do.
- schenked - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 12:49 pm:
_______________________
I suspect, however, that the real motivation here is financial. The gay couples want to take more resources away from “straight†taxpayers to support their lifestyles, and I’m dead set against that.
________________________
It is true. I was told that that was item 3 on the agenda at the last meeting of the gay people. – “How do we take the straight taxpayers money to support our lifestyle?†It came right after item 2 – “How do we distance ourselves from Rosie O’Donnell?â€
- Rocky Road Homo Man - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 12:49 pm:
If society believes that gays should have this right, then people will vote for it, either directly through ballot initiatives or indirectly through the legislature.
At this point, it has zero chance of getting through the legislature and less than zero chance
on the ballot.
This is when the power of the Minority comes into play. if you made this statement about Blacks int he 1950’s and 1960’s, and you put the civil rights act to a vote. The South would still be segreagated, and African Americans would have trouble voting to this day.
To PalosParkBob: It is more than about money. It is about peace of mind. If I had a partner who died. Their family can take EVERYTHING away from me. If my home was in my partners name… I have no legal claim to the house, even though I have lived there for years. Even with a will, living wills, legal documentation and such… if I lived in the State of Virginia for instance, it is all null and void because I cannot even have contracts reserved for marriage people be valid.
“Legal marriage” is about equal protection under the law. That includes the tax breaks… why should you enjoy tax breaks as a straight person (why should you get a tax benefit because you stick your “Hoo hoo” into her “hey hey”) and I cannot? If you take “bedroom activities” out of the picture… why not give two women, or two men the same legal protections as a man and woman?
- Bill Baar - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 12:56 pm:
VM, Illinois’s concern is protecting our rights as individuals. Not our rights as couples.
What this legislation does is create a new right that Illinois Gov will use to hammer institutions (mostly Churches) who discrimnate on marriage differently than Illinois would e.g. Mass drove Catholic Charities out of the adoption business this way for not changing Catholic Doctrine to match the Commonwealth of Mass’s def of a family.
That’s why, I believe VM, you can only contemplate an alternative to licensing marriage that re-empowers the State to go after institutions that would discriminate against family combinations you prefer to view favorably.
We started license marriage partly to establish paternity (we already know maternity), and more importantly do allocate benefits. I believe it was the civil war pensions that started States licensing in the first place, and not until the 1920s that we got rid of most common-law marriage.
We no longer need a benefits system based on a women’s marriage to a man (give them both SSA ownership accounts instead…as equal citzens), or to add to it rights based on one man through another man, or one woman through another woman.
That’s why Illinois should get out licensing marriage completely and let individuals establish their own obligations to each other.
- Ghost - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 12:56 pm:
Vanilla your argument flows from a flawed premise. If your argumnet is to show why gay marriage should be disaalowed, then it containes the implied assumption that a gay person, denied the ability to “legally” marry another gay, will reuslt to hetorsexuality instead and produce children.
There is also another fatal flaw, you assume that same sex couples are not capable of reproduction. Women, biologically, regardless of to whom they are married, can and are able to reproduce. Atecdotally I know lesbian partners who have children, and gay men who adopt children.
Also, there are thousands of children who are wards of the state due to lack of families and having been removed from their heterosexual parents home because the heterosexuals could not raise them. Thus, socially a child born of a heterosexual couple does not advance the society if that couple can not keep the child alive, or it is a poor contributer to surviveability if they can not raise it to be productive.
- dan l - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 12:57 pm:
It’s called paraphrasing. If I’m quoting you, you’ll see it tagged with blockquote.
Your backpedaling and foul crying is telling. Now back under your rock.
- Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 12:58 pm:
Geez, some of you fellas are coming out of the proverbial closet today.
So, PeePee Bob, you’re happy to take that gay rent money, but you don’t want any of your precious tax dollars subsidizing that gay lifestyle. Marvelous.
And VM, I think you have possibly hit a new blog record for the use of ridiculous spin to justify a tenous position. Our pal Bill would be proud of you, in some respects.
AA thinks this bill is DOA. Perhaps civil unions would set off fewer extremists. IMHO, any 2 people who want to live in a committed relationship and formalize their commitment should be able to do that without the government being an impediment.
- Rocky Road Homo Man - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 12:59 pm:
Yes, Vanilla, there are a lot of people scared/against this… because people are uneducated on WHY they are against it. Ask someone WHY they are against gay marriage, and they give a lot of answers that either come from the church, or come from the fact that they are scared that “gay people will get them”.
There is a lot of ballhoo about “the Gay Agenda” and how we are trying to subvert this country, and our society. Gay people only want what they have been told they should want fromt he time they were children. “one day you are going to grow up and get married!” we have been told our ENTIRE childhood lives that Marriage is the pinicale of human relationships. That your goal is to eventually get marriage.
Then when they discover that they are gay, that option no longer exsist for you. The door slammed because, “We want you to get married… but not that way.” to many gay and Lesbian folk, this is devestating. They fear they will be alone forever, that they will never have that fulfillment that everyone has told them they will get ever since they were children.
But one day they find that person, that person who does fulfill them, and the want to show that love, that commitment, that great feeling that they always had heard about… Yes, there is that hard road. Yes, they want to have those simple benefits you take for granted. They want to fulfill that dream…
Whats wrong with that? Truely? Will society explode? Will the earth stop moving? Now… how will a marriage between two men or two women affect your own marriage with your different sexed partner? how?
- cermak_rd - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 1:04 pm:
“There are real reasons why folks do not like gay marriage. They are in the majority. They are not evil, they are not stupid, they are not religious nuts, they are not backwards, they are just as smart as the pro-gay marriage side. I believe we should respect what others say, even when said poorly. Lets look beyond unfashionable reasons for their support and look deeper. You will find good reasons people believe what they do.”
That’s your opinion. It’s not mine. I find people who are kneejerkedly against gay unions almost always have a religious motivation against it and many of them are small-minded and intolerant. That’s their right, but I don’t have to respect it or vote for them or have anything else to do with them.
- Bill Baar - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 1:06 pm:
Whats wrong with that? Truely? Will society explode? Will the earth stop moving? Now… how will a marriage between two men or two women affect your own marriage with your different sexed partner? how?
Catholic Charites had to get out of the adoption business. I think that’s the kind of punative way this law would be used. It’s move by the State aganist Churches. It’s why I think the State best get out of it.
- Rocky Road Homo Man - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 1:09 pm:
Baar-
Why would Catholic Charaties have to get out of the Adoption Business? Remember, the Boy Scouts openly discriminate against homosexuals… The Church, and private organizations can discriminate against anyone they want… but they have to accept the reprucussions of that decision.
- paddyrollingstone - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 1:16 pm:
” The Church, and private organizations can discriminate against anyone they want… but they have to accept the reprucussions of that decision”
RRHM - In this case (at least in Mass and in Great Britain) the Catholic Church is getting out of the adoption business. Who is accepting the reprucussions of that decision?
- Bill Baar - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 1:20 pm:
Rocky Road,
The Boston Archdiocese’s Catholic Charities said Friday it would stop providing adoption services because state law requires them to consider gays and lesbians as parents.
The rest here.
I favor same-sex marriage but would only support this law if there was assurance it wouldn’t be used to impose doctrine on Churches (or anyone else for that matter).
As I thought it about it more, I came to the notion there’s not good reason for States to be involved in licensing marriage in the first place.
That seems the best way to go.
- Rocky Road Homo Man - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 1:21 pm:
Alright. I guess I need more information on this… WHY is the Catholic Church getting out of the Adoption busines… in Great Britian? Is it in response to anti-discrimination laws which has nothing to do with Gay Marriage? Or is it for other reasons?
I know there is plenty of adoption agencies in the world, so we do not have to worry about some child not having an opprotunity to be adopted. So the children are not suffering.
I guess I am just missing the connection between gay marriage/Civil Union = closing down on religious adoption agencies.
- Objective Dem - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 1:23 pm:
I want to answer the the fundamental question of do homosexuals really want “marriage” or are they looking for just the financial benefits.
I cannot speak for every gay man, but I want the equivalent rights and responsibilities of straight people. I don’t really care what it is called. In fact, I like the concept that the state approves civil unions and “marriage” is left to religious institutions.
A study by the GAO in 1997 identified 1049 federal laws where marital status is a factor. Plus there are state level issues. Here is a partial list:
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits
After looking at the partial list above, it should be clear why gays view this as a big issue and feel like they are being treated as second class citizens. These are real issues, not hypothetical. People are denied custody of their children, bereavement rights, pensions, ability to visit a dying partner, etc. etc. on a daily basis.
- Objective Dem - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 1:26 pm:
I combined two lists of federal and state laws, so there is a little overlap. Sorry for the confusion.
- Rocky Road Homo Man - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 1:27 pm:
baar, gotcha.
Well, your article speaks more to non-discrimination laws set forth in the country. There are several states that specifically bar gay couples from adopting (but single gay people CAN adopt… figure that out). The law right now in the US is so fragmented… This will eventually be sent up to the Supreme Court Level.
In my opinion, if the Catholic church wants to discriminate… thats fine… but again, they have to follow the laws of the land, and if they are on the wrong side of it… tough poop. They have to adhear to the law, and the law in Mass. is such they have to consider G&L families for adoption.
- So-Called "Austin Mayor" - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 1:36 pm:
Vanillaman is right.
Because evolutionary reproduction is the sole reason for marriage, we should only allow marriage between a man and a pregnant woman.
Anything else — like the childless marriage of mine — would be anti-evolutionary.
No wait, that’s stupid…
And although I find it baffling to be in this position, I think that — to the degree that I understand his position — I probably agree with Baar on this:
State civil unions for all, Church marriage for those in accord with those churches.
I’m sure Bill will correct me — with multiple Churchill quotes and links to overseas newspapers — if I have mischaracterized his position.
– SCAM
- Robbie - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 1:36 pm:
From Palos Park Bob:
“I suspect, however, that the real motivation here is financial. The gay couples want to take more resources away from “straight†taxpayers to support their lifestyles, and I’m dead set against that.
Gays should have he Liberty to practice their lifestyle, and I should have the Liberty not to subsidize it. “
That is one of the most sickening and pathetic opinions I have ever heard. Homosexual couples are merely trying to gain the same rights as other Americans. The day we stop discriminating against other Americans based on their sexual preference will be a beautiful day indeed. Though I think the day we can get rid of intolerant bigots would be much more beautiful.
P.S. vanillaman - I like how scientifically entrenched you were in your first post only to be proven wrong and have to abandon the position totally.
- Rocky Road Homo Man - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 1:39 pm:
SCAM-
State civil unions for all, Church marriage for those in accord with those churches.
That is what I said in my first post! (albeit in a more drawn out…a nd funny way)
- Pat Hickey - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 1:40 pm:
Robbie,
Civil War and now outrage? Civil union. No jackboots at the door; no pink triangles; no real sweat. Lighten up the rhetoric - talk to Bob - Man to Man.
- Robbie - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 1:42 pm:
So it is homosexuals faults that the catholic church in Mass. discriminates against homosexuals? The church is not above the law in America. We have saw that with the priest/boy cases all across the country. Just because it is the all powerful catholic church doesn’t mean laws don’t apply to them. With that said, it is sad that they are stepping out of the adoption ‘business.’ It certainly needs all teh help it can get. (though I think good families willing to adopt is the biggest need) But the church has a choice, they can treat people fairly, or pack up and go home.
- Patriot - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 1:44 pm:
“NO” to same sex marriage. “YES” to same sex civil union. This is a legal contract issue.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 1:44 pm:
“That is one of the most sickening and pathetic opinions I have ever heard.”
You need to get out more, Robbie. I hear more sickening and pathetic opinions than that every day.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 1:45 pm:
Everybody, please take a deep breath…
OK, now slowly exhale…
Close your eyes and count to ten…
Now, try not to insult each other too much. This bill most likely ain’t gonna even pass. Just relax. Try to be respectful.
Thanks.
- Pat Hickey - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 1:51 pm:
Robbie,
Most folks vast majority Dem. Repub. Greens and whatever wish only to make this a better and more tolerant world - then language and agenda get involved. This stuff hurts any cause - and some have more immediacy for some more than most - civil union - great God bless! Social engineering take a hike!
‘Though I think the day we can get rid of intolerant bigots would be much more beautiful.’
Now did a bigot say this?
- Robbie - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 1:55 pm:
skeeter - good point, I do make it outside very little.
hickey - I have no idea what your talking about. I think your last message was lost in translation.
Rich - ain’t ain’t a word cuz it ain’t in the dictionary!!! Though the reason I get so upset is because your right, the bill won’t pass. And to me I find that un-American. We have spent so much of our history talking about freedom and equality only to have to struggle at every impasse for it. ‘All me were created equal’ apparently only applies to heterosexual men. Some may think I am being over the top about this. But they most likely aren’t being discriminated against based on their sexual preference.
- zatoichi - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 2:01 pm:
“The gay couples want to take more resources away from “straight†taxpayers to support their lifestyles, and I’m dead set against that.”
What specific resources are gay couples taking away and which resources are decreasing because of it? Since gay people pay the same taxes (and maybe more without the special tax breaks marriage provides), can’t the reverse statement of “straight people want to take more resources away from gay people to support their lifestyle” also be true?
- Robbie - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 2:02 pm:
hickey, you have been distorting my words since my very first post. I wish you would quit doing so. You say most want to make this a tolerant world, then why as many posters have stated, do most people still believe in treating homosexuals as 2nd class citizens? As to many of your posts, I don’t know where your social engineering stuff comes from. My comment about intolerant folks was not pointed at any one person, and I certainly could be found guilty of being in that category. (I really hate old people when driving, I can’t help it, they possess me with rage) But in this context I am merely calling a spade a spade. There are many folks posting in these comments that are full of misconceptions and bad information. You apparently think I am one of them, while I apparently think you are one of them. Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
- paddyrollingstone - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 2:29 pm:
Robbie - you say “But the church has a choice, they can treat people fairly, or pack up and go home” and “The church is not above the law in America,” but these statements ignore the fact that because our constitution and laws protect freedom of religion, the government cannot and should not tell a religious group what they can and cannot believe in and largely what they can and cannot do. Legally, it is not nearly as simple as you suggest and politically, it is suicidal to make statements like yours, unless you plan on never being elected to anything. Ever.
- Rocky Road Homo Man - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 2:38 pm:
Robbie - you say “But the church has a choice, they can treat people fairly, or pack up and go home†and “The church is not above the law in America,†but these statements ignore the fact that because our constitution and laws protect freedom of religion, the government cannot and should not tell a religious group what they can and cannot believe in and largely what they can and cannot do. Legally, it is not nearly as simple as you suggest and politically, it is suicidal to make statements like yours, unless you plan on never being elected to anything. Ever.
I’ll take this Robbie. You are absolutely right Paddy, the government should not dictate the belief structure of a Church. However, they are still beholden to laws of the land, just like any private organization. The Boy Scouts won the right fromt he supreme court to discriminate against gay people. It is their right to do so, however, many boy scout organizations lost the right to congregate in public buildings that forbid discrimination due to sexual orientation. The Boy Scouts fought against that… and have lost everytime. The supreme court basicalyl said, “You can discriminate, but face the consequences of those actions.”
In the Case of the Catholic Adoption Agencies… if there is a Law that forbids adoption agencies to discriminate based on sexual orientation, then the church (and every other private institution) must follow that law. If the Catholic Church wants to continue to discriminate, that is fine… but they cannot participate in adoptions in this state. It is a choice that the Church has to make… and they did. The government is not “forcing” churches to change, they are sumply enforcing the civil rights of indiviuals outside of religious situations… because in reality, Adoption is NOT confined to only religious organizations.
- Utility Infielder - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 2:41 pm:
Let the gays marry. Why should they not experience misery like the rest of us
- Robbie - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 2:48 pm:
paddy - just as RRHM said, the church can do what it wants as long as it abides by the law. According to your logic, priests should be able to do what they want with little boys. But fortunately, clearer minds have prevailed and held the church and its members accountable to the same laws that govern the rest of us. It should be the same with adoption policies. There should not be one set of policies for churches and another set for everyone else.
That issue is a bit off topic. But it still holds to the main point here. We should not discriminate against homosexuals just to please conservative christians. As I have said before, (and hickey this is not a comparison of issues) there was once a time that the church hid behind the old testament to justify slavery and discrimination. For just about everyone, that is the problem now. We have the preconceived notion of what we should believe based on these terribly antiquated moral laws.
- Utility Infielder - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 2:48 pm:
Just kidding. Robbie said it this morning. We remember when others had to..sit in the back of the bus, have seperate drinking fountains ect. and we see that footage on the history channel and cringe that that was the accepted thinking of the day and how wrong that is today. In 50 years our Grandchildren will be viewing this situation the same way saying, “what were they thinking” not letting people of the same gender marry.
- cermak_rd - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 2:48 pm:
I think there’s a lot of misunderstanding here. The state of MA never directly mandated that Catholic Charities get out of the private adoption business if they couldn’t comply with anti-discrimination laws. The reason the Church was under the gun in MA regarding adoption is because they had been facilitating state adoptions for a couple decades and in facilitating state adoptions they were taking state money and providing state service and therefore couldn’t discriminate.
In addition, Catholic Charities had been processing a small number of gay adoptions until an article about these adoptions appeared in the Globe. Then the 4 Bishops in the area intervened and stopped the practice. In fact, 8 members of the Catholic Charities board stepped down rather than go along with the Bishops and all 42 members of the board had voted to continue considering gay couples for placement.
The other reason they stopped providing services is because the United Way, which provided a lot of funding to Catholic Charities adoption services would likely have dried up if they had chosen not to adopt to otherwise qualified gay couples.
- paddyrollingstone - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 2:49 pm:
RRHM - I see what you mean regarding the Boy Scouts but I think the Church and adoption is a much different kettle of fish. Ultimately, what will or will not happen is a political question - i.e., will the legislature approve of a bill like Representative Harris’ or will the people approve a ballot intitiative to legalize same sex marriage. I believe the answer is no, partly because of the Church and adoption issue and others like it. On balance, at least for people like me, it is not worth it for me to support same sex marriage because of repurcussions such as the ones discussed in this thread. But live and let live.
- Rocky Road Homo Man - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 2:58 pm:
Paddy,
I see where you are coming from, and I respect your feelings, regardless of how popular it may or may not be.
The danger you have when you get involved with the law and religion is manyfold. We cannot pass legislation where you say, “It is unlawful to discriminate against someone who is gay/lesbian… unless your god says it is ok to.” This would set precedent for other orgaizations to go, “I don’t need to allow women to work in my company because we are a fundementalist christian organization that believe the woman’s place is at home.” or, “the religious affiliation of this company dictates that all jews are heathens and shall be pushed out of business.”
I may be goodwin-ing the conversation, but I feel it is a salient point. The law recognized no religion, period. Not Catholic, Not Protestant, not Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, or any other. The Law applies to all, and in the eyes of the government, an organization is an organization, doesn’t matter what god they believe.
I also believe that Most Americans are not against gay marriage because of the reprucussions of adoption law. I think they are against gay marriage because they are told to be against it.
- paddyrollingstone - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 3:08 pm:
RRHM - You have a good point and in the end I cannot see same sex marriage effecting me at all, and I am a Democtrat and really try and tolive and let live, but I am still deeply troubled by the spectre of governmental interference with religions.
- Archpundit - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 3:17 pm:
Allowing gay marriage wouldn’t require a church to perform gay marriage. The law allows interracial marriages, but Matt Hale’s ‘church’ would not have to perform one if approached. In fact, the Civil Rights Act doesn’t apply to churches other than if they are taking money from teh government. When the Presbyterian Church in America formed a big reason was resistance to segregation in those churches in the south. The government never forced them to integrate–eventually they just did.
- Rocky Road Homo Man - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 3:17 pm:
Paddy,
I agree… all too often, the Government gets too involved in people’s lives. I believe in personal freedom and the right to express that, whether it is religious belief or the proclaimation for your love of someone else, regarless of gender.
We must continue to be a fair and just country, one that ignores the color of your skin, the clothes on your back, the amount of money in your bank account, your religion, sex, oritentation, belief structure. We must be a nation that proves to the world that democracy can work, and flourish, that we are not a nation of hypocracy, a nation that is unable to back up the contract our forefathers set forth. We, as a nation, must recognize that freedom of choice, freedom from want, freedom from need are not just words of a liberal president, but that of an American president, and we must apply it to ourselves, and to people around the world.
… wow… I need to get off my soapbox. Thank you paddy for the good conversation.
- Bill - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 3:27 pm:
Hey Arthur,
Leave me outta this!
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 3:47 pm:
NO, Under no circumstance.
- PalosParkBob - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 5:02 pm:
Rocky Road: If “peace of mind” is really your concern, there are a myriad of ways through joint tenancy, trusts and partnerships that one person of any sex may bequeath virtually all their assets to their “partner” regardless of gender.
You don’t need marriage to do that. As “Objective Dem” showed, the real additional value comes from government and corporate “family” benefits.
That’s what’s driving this thing.
If your “partner” isn’t willing to put his house, assets, and estate in order to give you the right of survivorship, maybe the relationaship isn’t as “committed” as you think.
Art Andersen: Doing business with someone and collecting a fee for a service is a lot different than subsidizing a taxpayer handout. Both parties gain value from a business transaction.
The undeserved government subsidy is a parasitic relationaship.
Robbie: You say you want the same rights as “any other American”. You already have them as an individual, regardless of sexual orientation. The only question is whether you should qualify for “family” benefits from a gay relationship, just as a hetero couple would.
If I were Tsar of Illinois, I’d decree that only couples committed through legal union, and legal obligation, would share in “family” benefits.
“Marriage of convenience” for no purpose other than to gain citizenship, benefits or property should be fraud regardless of gender.
By the way, Bill isn’t telling the truth.
- HoosierDaddy - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 5:13 pm:
Y’know… if the Christian conservatives really want to cut down on the amount of immoral homosexual sex going on, they should promote gay marriage, ‘cuz as soon as the honeymoon’s over they’ll only be doing it about once a month on Fridays when they’re not too tired, etc. anyway…
- Oldie - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 5:17 pm:
Unless gays are exempted from paying taxes in this country, they should be give the full rights that we all enjoy. Only civil marriage will give them the equal rights, civil unions will not do.
- Lovie's Leather - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 6:08 pm:
I really don’t care what two men, or two women, or 3 men, a goat and a pizza place want to do with each other in the bedroom. But when it comes to “marriage,” I am against changing what the word means. Come up with your own word, your own ceremony, etc. If you want to call it civil union, I don’t give a crap. But find your own tradition instead of trying to take mine. Now feel free, morons, to compare me to Hitler or whatever because I think the love between a man and woman is a good thing. Remember, I am not saying anything bad about homosexuality, I am just saying something good about heterosexuality. So go exchange vows with another man, who really gives a crap???
- Rocky Road Homo Man - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 6:10 pm:
Palso,
Rocky Road: If “peace of mind†is really your concern, there are a myriad of ways through joint tenancy, trusts and partnerships that one person of any sex may bequeath virtually all their assets to their “partner†regardless of gender.
You don’t need marriage to do that. As “Objective Dem†showed, the real additional value comes from government and corporate “family†benefits.
Sure, if I want to spend thousands of dollars in lawyer fees and court costs in order to set up a living will so that my partner can visit me in the hospital, power of attourney for my partner to handle my finances if Ia m incapacitated, mupliple legal documents to make sure that my partner and I has all the rights that straight married couples have.
You can go to Vegas and get married in 15 minutes and get all of those rights… immediately… without costing thousands of dollars potentially. I ask for the same right.
Of course, I could STILL do all of that, and STILL have my partners rights thown out the window if a State (Virginia being the most strict) decides to arbitrarily void out any contracts, wills, deeds, arrangements of any legal standing that my partner and I may have on the basis that we are gay, and we were trying to “imitate” straight couple’s rights.
The reality is… many states give Next to Kin the ultimate say in a person’s death despite documents saying otherwise (because they can be contested), and since most states do not recognize a gay relationship as a valid relationship of any sort, the deceased person’s family has full control.
That sucks. You are committed to someone for years… they suddenly die, and you chance to lose your home, your life, everything, because the US believes that your relationship means nothing. you may say it is hyperbole, but it happens a lot, especially with families who are unapproving of their childs orientation.
- Gregor - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 7:27 pm:
Civil unions with all the same legal rights, sure. Just as we have now with hetero “commonlaw” marriages. What churches allow or call it is their business.
- Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 9:39 pm:
Hey Pee Pee, several people I know, male and female, that married (in part, now) for the “convenience” of family money should be thrown in the pokey under your definition of “fraud.”
BTW, don’t pick on my friend Bill.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 10:11 pm:
PalosParkBob said:
___________________
If I were Tsar of Illinois, I’d decree that only couples committed through legal union, and legal obligation, would share in “family†benefits.
“Marriage of convenience†for no purpose other than to gain citizenship, benefits or property should be fraud regardless of gender.
______________________
Exacttly. Civil marriage rights. That’s what we’re talking about. I’m pleased that you agree.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 10:19 pm:
Sorry, there just so much material here with what PalosParkBob posted.
_____________________________
If your “partner†isn’t willing to put his house, assets, and estate in order to give you the right of survivorship, maybe the relationaship isn’t as “committed†as you think.
__________________________________
Maybe if she just married her, she wouldn’t need a lawyer to file all of the paperwork that, instead of simply “marrying,” must be filed in a series of sort-of-human-merger-and-acquisition type of transaction.
That’s what I meant to say.
- Sahims2 - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 7:06 am:
Granting same sex marriage the same status as normal heterosexual couples would be the government condoning a deviant sexual lifestyle, and I am against it. I’m not “homophobic” either.
If people decide to live that way, that is their choice, but should not be given the nod by the government. Those people can have a “wedding” if they desire, but it shouldn’t be given a “legal” status equivalent to the tradional marriage of a man and a woman.
If this is granted, what’s next? Someone who wants to marry their horse wants it legalized? Why not? What’s the difference? To me, that’s just as deviant as the gay lifestyle.
- dan l - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 8:03 am:
Nop. You’re pretty much a homophobe.
- Robbie - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 8:21 am:
Isn’t he pretty much the textbook definition of a homophobe???
Name calling aside, basically what he is saying is that HIS religious principles should guide the law in this country. That is fundamentally against what this country was founded upon. I like the over the top example of a horse marriage. And while gay marriage could possibly lead to gray areas with polygamists, I seriously doubt anyone will consider a horse marriage as legit.
- dan l - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 8:37 am:
Robbie, it’s less important to consider the religious values and the fact that they want to stick the rest of the country with their ‘values’ - rather to recognize that the queer bashing religious movement is a result of people looking to justify their hate.
Don’t give them the benefit of the doubt on that one either.
- Fan of the Game - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 8:40 am:
This is only tangentially connected to the subject at hand, but:
————————————————
Rocky Road Homo Man - Thursday, Feb 22, 07 @ 2:38 pm:
However, they are still beholden to laws of the land, just like any private organization. The Boy Scouts won the right fromt he supreme court to discriminate against gay people. It is their right to do so, however, many boy scout organizations lost the right to congregate in public buildings that forbid discrimination due to sexual orientation. The Boy Scouts fought against that… and have lost everytime. The supreme court basicalyl said, “You can discriminate, but face the consequences of those actions.â€
————————————————-
Does that mean that every organization that discriminates must be banned from public facilities? Should the AARP be banned from congregating in public facilities because they do not allow young people to join? Should the LPGA be banned from using public courses because they do not allow men to join the tour? Should the Congressional Black Caucus be tossed out fo the Capitol because they do not allow whites to join?
In short, are some forms of discrimination less equal than others?
- dan l - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 8:52 am:
Fan Of the Gam:
You’ve got to be careful with that one. It comes dangerously close to the White Privileged Male standby of:
“Well there’s a Ms. Black America pageant, why can’t we have a Ms. White America pageant? ”
It has several other incarnations:
“What? We can’t call our mascot an indian because it’s racist? Well I’m offended by the “Fighting Irish”