I’ve said it many times in this forum; Gay Marriage isn’t the biggest issue to me.
Oh, I believe “marriage” is about a guy and a gal and having kids, sure enough. I believe that marriage is something sanctioned by the God I believe in. I believe the religious reason is rooted in an evolutionary reason – children need both male and female parents to grow and develop as best they can (and, with that in mind, I’ll also say that I support gay adoption, in preference to single parenthood, if only because the stresses of single parenting are so very very intense). There is not a single significant religion in the world that sanctions same-sex marriage. Not that all of the world’s religions are internally unified on the idea of same-sex marriage, as with any other political issue.
You, naturally, don’t have to believe in my God, or believe in Him in the way I do, which is why our government separates church and state. And why I believe there’s a case to be made to allow single-sex couples to sign contracts with each other (and, for that matter, to allow any religious denomination to find some way to theologically justify it).
But while it’s not a big issue for me, personally – I’m here, I’m straight, and I’m not going away – it certainly is a defining issue for a lot of people, including quite a few that aren’t traditional Republicans.
Earlier this week, Archbishop Nienstedt, the top Catholic in the Minneapolis/Saint Paul area, released a video – on Youtube, and on a DVD that is being mailed to Catholics throughout the region via the good graces of an “unnamed donor” – that pretty much laid down the ecclesiastical smack on single-sex marriage.
Now, Nienstedt is a social conservative, in contrast with his predecessor. His message is far from unexpected.
What is unexpected is the regional social left’s response to Nienstedt’s video. They are outraged.
It almost seems out of proportion to the video; after all, Nienstedt has been a social conservative all along; as such, among largely traditionally left-of-center Twin Cities Catholics, he’s been a known quantity since long before he became Archbishop.
No – they are outraged because same sex marriage, even in traditionally “purple” Minnesota, is not just a loser for the Dems; a new poll shows it’s a potential game-changer.
Lawrence Research carried out a poll three weeks ago, among 600 likely voters. The poll, by way of level-setting, discovered Minnesotans feel the state is on the wrong track by a 57-31 margin.
And, as befitted a poll taken in August, two weeks after the primary, as Tom Emmer’s campaign was just getting started, the initial poll result looked good for Mark Dayton, who pulled out to a 40-33 lead, with Horner drawing 14%.
Then, and only then, the pollsters brough same-sex marriage into the picture. The Minnesotans polled say “marriage” should be between a man and a woman by a 58-36 margin, with very few – 6% – undecided.
The sample also overwhelmingly believe that future legislation about the definition of marriage should be carried out by the voters, rather than the Legislature or the Federal courts (62%, 6% and 19% respectively, with 13% undecided).
Here’s where it got interesting. I’ll quote from the Lawrence poll:
5. Have you heard or read anything about efforts to have the state legislature legalize same-sex marriage in Minnesota?
Yes, aware……………………………….. 51
No, unaware…………………………….. 49
Initially I was surprised the “Yes” was that low. Then I realized – the DFL and media (pardon the redundancy) have wanted to soft-pedal this news. After reflection, I’m surprised it’s that high.
Because I suspect they knew how this next question was going to break out:
6. Gubernatorial candidates Mark Dayton, DFL, and Tom Horner, Independence, both support same-sex marriage while Tom Emmer, Republican, believes that marriage should be preserved as only between a man and a woman. In light of this, if the election were held today, would you vote for … (ALTERNATE READING 1-2-3 AND 2-1-3)
Tom Emmer, Republican……………… 43
Mark Dayton, DFL……………………. 36
Tom Horner, Independence Party…. 11
[UNDECIDED]………………………… 10
Catch that? Among this sample, introducing the notion that the definition of marriage will be taken out of the peoples’ hands and given to the legislature or, worse, the courts causes a 14 points swing.
And the poll has ramifications down-ticket, in state legislative races, as well:
7. Let’s say you have decided to vote for a candidate for the state legislature because you agree with most of his or her positions on the issues. Then, let’s say you find out that your chosen candidate has the opposite position of yours on the marriage issue. Would you still vote for that candidate or would you switch and vote for someone who agrees with your position on the marriage issue?
Would still vote for original candidate………………….. 47
Would switch and vote for someone else……………… 38
[NO OPINION]…………………………………………….. 15
That means over a third of respondents would ditch a legislative candidate who favored legislating single-sex marriage from above (almost invariably DFLers).
Bear in mind, this poll was taken in a linear order. There’s a reason for this; it helps pollsters measure how ideas change peoples’ minds. The poll took one more look at the Governor race:
Looking ahead to November’s election for governor one more time …
8. If you knew that Mark Dayton and Tom Horner are opposed to letting the people vote on the same-sex marriage issue, and Tom Emmer favors letting the people vote on the same-sex marriage issue, would you then vote for … (ALTERNATE READING 1-2-3 AND 2-1-3)
Tom Emmer, Republican……………… 44
Mark Dayton, DFL……………………. 33
Tom Horner, Independence Party…. 11
[UNDECIDED]………………………… 12
Now, it’s only 600 voters. The margin of error is 4.1% either way.
But the overall impression – people want to decide the future of marriage themselves, even in “liberal”, “purple” Minnesota – is broad and unmistakeable.
And that’s why Nienstedt, his DVD, and his un-named mysterious donor are all public enemies-number-one for the regional left.
For my purposes, this election is about the economy, jobs and the role of government. But same sex marriage is a sleeping giant of an issue throughout this state.
Pingback: The Greenroom » Gay Marriage and the MN Governor Race: The Game-Changer?
Men marrying women? How provincial. That the majority of people would want to maintain their rights to affirm this sort of power – instead of handing it off to their legislators, speaks to the influence peddling being done by the gay community. What I don’t understand is whether the gay leadership really wants marriage – or the power to create a social crisis where none presently exists?
So what do we learn from this poll? Bigotry sells. Not exactly news.
Civil rights of the minority should never be at the mercy of the mobjority.
I’d be a lot more friendly to gay marriage, if I wasn’t absolutely positive that the majority of it’s advocates didn’t have as their ultimate (if unspoken) goal to persecute/prosecute with the full weight of the Federal Government, churches and church officials that refused to perform/recognize gay marriages. And anyone who tells you that is not a goal, will lie to you about pretty much anything else as well….
In Andrews view, any noisy group, regardless of size, advocating a “right” should have precedence over the majority, in all cases. Careful what you wish for there Andy….
A) Oh my goodness. The Catholic church decides not to change their 2000 year standard of what consitutes marriage. What a scandel.
B) Am think marriage is between one man and one women (at most), but would tolerate gay marriage if it wasn’t for what zipity says. The goal of the gay marriage crowd is to destroy everyone and everything that doesn’t submit.
Andrew, do you believe in civil rights for polygamists?
Gay “rights” has nothing to do with civil rights. It is about power and subversion of society. Case in point: the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America at their last convention voted to not only bless “same sex unions”, but also to ordain homosexuals in “committed relationships”. This despite the clear teaching of the Bible from which they draw their authority.
They have since ordained three lesbians as Lutheran pastors.
I suppose next they will address that silly notion of Jesus actually being divine and rising from the dead.
Gay people are welcome in the pews. They do NOT belong in the pulpits.
If we ever fall for this nonsense, next logical step would be lawsuits from the sand is food crowd, alleging discrimination because a doctor refused to implant a fertilized ovum into a gay “wife’s” rectum.
If I may (and since it’s my blog, I think we can all agree that I indeed may): this thread is less about discussion the pros and cons of gay marriage – about which I am personally conflicted, between my libertarian and Christian motivations – than about the potential the issue has to affect the governor race.
We’ve discussed gay marriage in the past, and we’ll do it in the future.
I wish it were that simple Mitch. Witness the s**t storm aimed at Target for donating to a pro-business candidate for Governor, who just happens to not toe the line in the view of the GLBT hate mongers. This, despite Target being one of the more enlightened employers in the country when it comes to this same group. When your opponents are engaged in no holds barred Total War, it makes no sense to play by Marquess of Queensberry rules….
Mitch, I love you, man. Will you marry me?
it makes no sense to play by Marquess of Queensberry rules…
Maybe, maybe not.
The point of this post is, it may be irrelevent. The voters may be ahead of all of us on this one.
Did the Lawrence Poll ask similar questions about abortion?
Not this poll, no.
Will you marry me?
Call from a Mr. Nienstedt on Line 2.
The catch is Mitch, you’d only be ONE of swiftee’s “wives”….
Can anyone explain how marriage is not a custom but a right? And if marriage is a right, from where does the “right of gay marriage” derive? From what I hear, it’s not one that the Creator endowed.
Mitch, how about Colbert’s debacle? Noteworthy, no?
The whole debate makes me ponder the wisdom of lands where a wedding is a religious ceremony performed before God and therefore properly treated as a big deal; whereas a marriage license is merely a form you obtain from the government upon payment of a fee, not much different from license tabs and therefore no big deal.
I don’t care if gays can buy license tabs, same as me. I only object to them demanding the right to defile my religous ceremony. If I could be certain they’d stay out of my church, I wouldn’t hesitate to approve gay marriage. But because I strongly suspect zipity has hit the nail on the head, I’m against it.
Hey, that’s what Conservatives do, right? Resist change? I’m down with that.
.
Swiftee….it sounds like it flopped. We have a liberal, who plays a caricature of a conservative, who, while in character of his caricature, testifies before congress.
Swifty, Mitch, what a cute couple. That would be very progressive.
How about a new policy? Don’t tell, don’t tell? I’m gay’d out.
The sad part is that we’re heading for a day when it’s only gays who will want to marry.
It’s interesting to note that 1 in 5 of those people polled seem to want to be ruled by the judiciary. Did they ask them if their answer would change if they were ruled by a gay judiciary?
Archbishop Nienstadt is a voice a reason here and we neglect his advice at our peril.
First of all, zipity, it’s “Andrew,” not “Andy.”
Marriage’s religious definition and its secular one should be separated. The state has no business — ahem — blessing any religious custom.
If the Republicans actually believed in small government, they’d add a civil-marriage-for-any-adults plank to their party platform.
What is marriage, legally? A blending of property and power of attorney. That civil contract ought to be available without discrimination to ANY number of sane adults for any or no reason, romantic, sexual or neither.
The government’s role is not to be Mrs. Grundy.
Oh, and anyone who thinks that marriage is necessary for children hasn’t checked out the single mother welfare stats, and should oppose marriage by couples too old or infertile to bear children.
anyone who thinks that marriage is necessary for children hasn’t checked out the single mother welfare stats
Of course I have. It proves the point, at least for purposes of psychology; single parenthood is a disaster for most kids. They need two parents.
Ideally of different genders; men and women bring different things to child-rearning; childhood obesity, the epidemic of poorly socialized children, and the horrendous aggression of so many young boys are direct consequences of the absence – via legal fiat or irresponsibility – of fathers in so many lives.
This is a big deal for me. I have friends, relatives and co-workers who are gay. As far as I am concerned, they ought to have access to the same privileges and responsibilities as heterosexuals.
While I know many of my gay friends will disagree with me here, I do not think it’s critical that it’s called “marriage” – or something different. Frankly, I think it might be better if everyone got partnership rights from the state – and marital status from their religion. But, as long as the system is what it is, committed gay couples that want it should be able to achieve the same legal status as I can as a heterosexual woman.
I am terribly conflicted when I must choose between two candidates, one of whom I perceive as being good for the economy and fiscal freedoms – but anti-gay partnerships – and one whom I see as being terrible for an economy that desperately needs help – but supportive of gay rights.
More than a few people I know also want to vote for a candidate that is fiscally conservative. If, however, that candidate does not recognize the inherent humanity of allowing all adults in MN to be able to share a legal bond as a partnership, then they are going to lose these people’s votes.
I wish that there were some way to make more of my conservaitve friends see the distinction between allowing legal partnerships for all – while preserving the right to have one’s religion teach whatever they believe is correct.
Mr Rothman, It is not about the state “blessing (ahem) a religious custom”. It’s about the state following human tradition, or overruling human tradition against the express will of the majority of the people. This is a republic, we rule ourselves, we are not ruled by an enlightened governing class. Or we should not be.
What is marriage, legally? A blending of property and power of attorney.
Before there was law or a state, there was marriage. The state exists to formalize existing social arrangements, not to invent or “give its blessing” to new ones.
Terry – we had a tradition in our nation for hundreds of years as not treating black people as “full” people – and of not allowing them to marry outside their race, once they were no longer slaves.
How long should black people have had to wait until the “will of the people” was overruled?
Peg-
Spare me the bad analogies.
Slavery was an institution in the US for less than a century, in a part of the union that was shrinking in comparison with the whole. What’s more the slavery issue was solved by a civil war that damn near destroyed the union. Slavery was not ended by vote or by judicial decision.
Your comparison of “gay marriage” rights to the civil rights of blacks is puerile and contemptible. Grow up.
Peg…can you name me ONE gay institution that non-gays want to destroy? Following are some that the gay lobby pledges to crush:
Salvation army
Target (which is a very pro-gay institution)
Catholic church (and other orthadox churches)
Boy Scouts of America
US armed forces
Hey, did you know that the Mpls central library has a room set aside for gays and gay literature? Did you know the Best Buy bans Christmas symbols, but on gay days, hangs the rainbow flag around their campus? So don’t give me any of that crap about how oppressed homosexuals are.
Peg, I shouldn’t have written “grow up”. That was uncharitable. I am so tired of hearing “gay marriage is like civil rights for black people”. It is not a valid comparison.
The wailing usually starts with the factoid about the ban on black/white marriage in VA not being overturned until the 60’s — with no mention of the fact that the ban had only been in place since the 1920’s.
Apples and oranges.
“A blending of property and power of attorney”
That is utterly incorrect. It is neither.
Terry – I’m afraid that the first slaves were brought to the U.S. in the beginning of the 17th century. This “peculiar institution” did not exist for a “mere” less than 100 years. And blacks didn’t get married for more than a short time to anyone – because they were considered property, and not free people.
I do not think that the condition of blacks and gays in our country are at all analogous overall. I won’t go into the details; I’ll just leave it at that. Still – some of the arguments about why blacks should not have been able to marry outside their race, and why people of the same sex should not be able to marry one another are similar. “It’s in the Bible,” or “it’s unnatural,” or “it’s always been this way.” That is to what I was referring.
People who hold opinions such as yours can continue to fight the right of gay folks to have the same legal status as straight folks. But, as long as you do, you will have more than a few people (far more than just gay people) who feel you are treating them as second class citizens. As a result, those of us who support smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and an end overall to the kind of regulation that is strangling our nation will continue to have a tougher time getting our candidates elected.
More than a few have told me, “I cannot support a candidate who essentially rejects who I am.” I have no good response for these people.
Peg
You are absolutely wrong!
If you use the July 4th 1776 date the tenure of slavery in the US was 87 years.
If you use the June 21 1788 date the tenure of slavery in the US was 75 years.
African slaves were first imported to North American roughly 1619-1620 by European powers (Dutch, French, English, Spanish, Portuguese, etc), but our government had no retroactive authority to influence that one way or another. So terry is correct in stating that the institution lasted less than 100 years.
And why was “not a whole person” written into the original constitution? Because then as now the party of racism, The Democratic Party, insisted upon it.
Was there slavery in the Americas prior to Columbus? Yes, centuries of it, I recommend as one example, for your consideration the event that took place at the summer Solstice of 1492.
Peg the question you need to ask yourself is do you want a responsible government of feel good Marxism?
sorry typo
Peg the question you need to ask yourself is do you want a responsible government OR feel good Marxism?
Peg, more than half of the blacks in America were not slaves. They lived in the free North. Your analogy is specious.
As for Mr. Emmer using homosexual “marriage” as an issue, it will be more of a positive than a negative. The majority oppose it, and in an election when the full horror of liberal policy is becoming manifest, homosexual “marriage” will be seen for what it really is.
Biting the hand that feeds you
Target shifts focus of giving to literacy
http://www.startribune.com/business/103762694.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUsZ
this has got to be a profound loss to the GLBT community that thought they were going to continue to get generous grants/handouts from Target in perpetuity that they could use to fund their attacks on Target, Best Buy, Catholic Church, etc.
Look for more large corporate foundations to follow Target’s lead and freeze out the identity politics parasites.
Call me crazy. But, those who are arguing that slavery in North America was not an established institution for centuries seems inaccurate. That we were not the “United States” does not diminish what happened on these shores.
And Kermit – what is your point (“More than half of the blacks in America were not slaves. They lived in the free North”)? Are you trying to state that slavery and racism in this part of the world and in this country was some blip on the radar screen?
Sorry. I grew up in Chicago in the 50’s and 60’s. It was “the North” – but I saw enough racism and prejudice and inequality to last me a lifetime. I’m someone who thinks we have come “a really long way, baby” – but for way too long, how blacks were treated was disgusting.
Like I said; the experience of blacks in this continent and the history of gays is dissimilar in many ways. I do not in any way intend to draw even rough parallels.
I just would like to see my gay friends and relatives be able to enjoy the same governmental rights that I can enjoy. And I hope that more people would be accepting of those who I strongly believe are simply born a little different from the majority.
No, I’m saying that advocates of homosexual “marriage” trot out the BS comparison to slavery all of the time, and it is, as has been pointed out, apples and oranges.
Blacks were treated badly in the North? What a shock. So were the Irish, the Italians, the Mormans…
The suggestion that this is unique to America (or even the Western Hemisphere) is naive or disingenuous.
You said “Like I said; the experience of blacks in this continent and the history of gays is dissimilar in many ways. I do not in any way intend to draw even rough parallels.“, yet you draw parallels. The homosexual lobby is a political agenda, and it has little to do with “civil rights”.
And – irrespective of the religious beliefs and/or philosophical-political beliefs of people, this cannot be disputed. There are many who do share “small government, fiscal responsibilty” viewpoints who will not vote for candidates they perceive to be homophobic or antagonistic to gay people.
Peg the question you need to answer is do you want a responsible government OR feel good Marxism? your choice. because that’s the agenda of the GLBT lobby.
and yes I will call you crazy, because there is good archaeological evidence that slavery was an established institution for nearly a millennium in North America. Do we take responsibility for that too? Remember before you answer that the descendants of those slave holders largely comprise the modern dayHispanic community.
And slavery would not have survived the drafting of our constitution were it not for the profound efforts of the Democratic Party.
Actually B/W marriage being illegeal isn’t true. A small number of racist societies enacted those laws as part of several race based laws, but society as a whole never had a problem with mixed race marriages. If I remember my Bibilical history right, Moses was married to an African American (yes, I am poking fun at the PC name),
Allow me to apply a little common sense, truth and logic against the notion that “sand is food”.
People have no control over the color of the skin they were born with. Further, skin color has no bearing on any aspect of anyone’s behavior, intellect or skill.
Homosexuality, whether cased by biology, environment, whim or any combination is inherently defined by behavior.
Unless directed by mental disturbances, behaviors involve choice.
It is illogical to reward choices that serve no positive purpose to society, and it is lunacy to reward choices that cause harm to society.
Homosexual behavior has no inherent benefit to society, but it results in rates of drug abuse, disease and mental illness wildly out of proportion to the number of people that engage in it.
People that advocate elevating homosexuality to a societal norm do so out of illogical self-interest.
Homosexuality, whether cased by biology, environment, whim or any combination is inherently defined by behavior.
If you are a progressive one of the crazy things you have to believe is that everyone who claims to be gay was born that way and has no choice, but everyone who claims to be heterosexual may really be gay and hiding it. Being gay is always an expression of the true self, while being heterosexual is always a contingent behavior.
When people self-identify as gay or heterosexual, they are only to be believed if that self-identification helps the gay cause.
Ironically, Father Nienstadt has a more subtle, nuanced, and humanist view of human sexuality than most gay activists or their defenders, because Father Nienstadt believes in moral agency.
There are many who do share “small government, fiscal responsibilty” viewpoints who will not vote for candidates they perceive to be homophobic or antagonistic to gay people.
And yet the vast majority not only believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, they resent the hell out of the self-righteous people trying to cram it down their throats.
As I said before, this issue is a net gain for Emmer, especially given the growing realization of the horrors that the Democrat party has been perpetrating.
Here in Hawaii the “gay issue” has risen to the level of state politics twice since the late 90’s. Both times it failed the test of democracy, and Hawaii is a “bluer than blue” state. The last things that gays want is to put the issue before the people.
The people of the United States are sovereign, not judges and certainly not politicians. If the judges and politicians don’t like it that way, let ’em go start their own country.
Like I said; I am not one to insist that legal partnerships for gays are called “marriage.” I do, however, think that it is important that legal partnerships are available. And – polling that I have seen for that is more positive.
My biggest bottom line, however, is trying to get rid of bigotry. Yeah, put me down as someone who believes that the vast majority of us are “hardwired” to either be straight or gay. Think not? Then how many of you who are heterosexual had to think long and hard about whether to be that way – or gay? I was not one of those who thought it a choice.
And – how about our friend Diana Williams – previously Doug Williams? Think that she went through a sex change operation because it would be a fun thing to do?
Having respect for the minority among us who is not heterosexual is not a choice between “responsible government” and “Marxism”! It’s just common decency.
Peg, it is not about bigotry. Some of the most vicious bigotry in print comes from gays and the intellectual class, and its target is the white working class and conservative Christians.
In my state the governor recently vetoed a civil unions bill that was passed by a lame-duck legislature by means that were underhanded even by the standards of Hawaii. Governor Lingle’s statement re her veto of the civil unions bill is here: http://www.khon2.com/mostpopular/story/Lingle-vetoes-civil-unions-bill-watch-read-entire/xSKRejAo9EiLlMvyeUgG4Q.cspx
It says in part:
For weeks after Lingle’s veto of the bill the Honolulu newspaper’s editorial section was filled with letters displaying vile bigotry by gays towards conservative Christians — even though Lingle is a practicing Jew.
It ain’t about bigotry. It’s about forcing people to go against their sincere and well-reasoned beliefs.
Peg, a healthy society owes its members a stable, safe environment. Society rewards and encourages behaviors that are beneficial to it’s growth and success.
Marriage is rewarded with tax and contractual benefits to provide a secure, stable environment for the raising of kids (and please don’t start tossing out the childless couple canard).
There is no benefit to society in rewarding same sex co-habitation. None. But there are plenty of negative costs.
It’s funny you bring Doug up. It’s an apples and oranges situation, but Doug’s overhaul isn’t something I’d be touting if I were trying to convince people that two guy should marry.
While the gay rights crew is out there trying to change the most core aspects of what we as a species have ever learned about ourselves (I call it the “sand is food” agenda), Doug put the onus of changing upon himself.
Can’t knock the guy for that. And as long as his decision doesn’t have any negative repercussions for others, I don’t see a problem.
Swiftee – the “canard” of a childless marriage is no canard at all. I, unfortunately not only have never had children, I was unable to ever have them at the age of 22. Nevertheless, the state has allowed me – twice – to marry. If the primary reason for marriage is child rearing, then why should someone like me – or the elderly – be able to marry?
I discussed this post and the comments with a good friend of mine. He’s a respected professional, very nice person – and gay. He has lived for ten years with his partner (also a successful professional); the two of them consider themselves married, even though I do not think that they have a legal marriage.
He sent me these comments below, and said I should feel free to post them here. So – here they are:
After reading the recent exchanges on this blog in response to Mitch
Berg’s “The Game Changer,” I felt a need to respond. First, two disclaimers:
1. I do not consider myself to be a Democrat or a Republican, though I
was registered with the Democrat party about 10 years ago.
2. I am gay.
Rather than trying to address everything written thus far, allow me to
pick up a few important points.
1. It’s really ironic that so many posting to this blog claim that gay
people use gay rights for a political agenda rather than, say, simply
believing in same-sex marriage for its own sake when the whole point of
the original post was, in short “Hey guys, look at this! Even though we
don’t really care strongly about same-sex marriage as an issue per se,
we can use it as a political football to get people to vote for our
candidate!”
I know hundreds of gay men and lesbians. Not a single one has ever
expressed or implied that s/he wants to destroy society; stir up chaos;
destroy Target, the Boy Scouts, the Salvation Army; or any of the other
ridiculous things propounded by posters to this blog. If you’re going to
nit pick facts (which is good to do if we believe our society and
government to be founded on rationalism and empirical evidence) then
don’t shoot from the hip with wild flights of fancy that are patently
false. [For the record gays and lesbians want the organizations listed
above to treat them the same as heterosexuals. They don’t want to
destroy them.]
2. The reason so many proponents of same-sex marriage bring up Loving v.
Virginia (the case in which the Supreme Court struck down
anti-miscegenation statutes across the country) isn’t because they
believe that the history of rights of blacks in America is isomorphic to
the history of the rights of gays in America. It’s because – and please
correct me if I’m wrong here because I don’t have the facts at my
fingertips – around 70% of Americans at the time of this ruling (1967)
believed mixed-race marriage to be wrong.
The point we’re trying to make is that our founding fathers, in their
wisdom, created the judiciary branch, in part, to protect the rights of
individuals and minorities. They recognized that throughout history
societal majorities have often done horrible things to minorities and to
individuals in the name of propagating social conformity. Thus, the
rights of individuals and minorities need to be subject to something
other than a simple majority vote. That’s why a court makes a ruling
about a child custody case, or a property dispute between neighbors, or
an individual’s right to vote, or the marriage rights of a couple rather
than having citizens vote on such things en masse.
3. There’s a lot of disingenuous argument going on here. Posters to this
blog seem to expect readers to swallow their contention that the
Democratic Party is the same now as it was over 200 years ago when the
Constitution was framed. First of all, the Democratic Party (so named)
didn’t even exist in the 1780s. Secondly, it, like the Republican party,
has undergone massive shifts in ideology and demographics since its
inception. Implying that modern-day Democrats are somehow culpable in
the slavery language written into our country’s founding documents is so
ridiculous as to be laughable.
Moreover, arguing that one-man-one-woman marriage is something timeless
and universal while same-sex marriage is a threatening new interloper
that has only emerged in recent decades is simply not true. Marriage has
been defined as many things by many cultures. We can all point to
historical and modern-day examples in which the norms of marriage
allowed for one man having many wives, one man owning his wife, girls
under the age of 15 being married, and so forth. Clearly, contemporary
American society tolerates none of these, even though many persisted for
thousands of years and are described in the Bible. (Want to throw that
stuff out cause it’s in the Old Testament? Then you better jettison
everything in Leviticus, too. You don’t get to pick and choose just what
fits your ideology or present argument.)
Finally, homosexuality has been documented in human populations for
millennia. In Western Europe alone, check out John Boswell’s _Same-Sex
Unions in Pre-Modern Europe_. Yes, social conservatives will want to
argue with Boswell’s contention that same-sex unions were sanctified and
celebrated by the Catholic Church. But no one is arguing that such
relationships didn’t exist! In all probability, men have been loving men
and women have been loving women throughout the history of the human race.
Given that that’s the case, some wish to argue that those born
homosexual still have the _choice_ to not act on their inclinations.
(For those who think it is a choice consider this, of the hundreds of
gay men and lesbians I know, not a one has ever remotely implied that
their sexual orientation was ever a choice. Just think for a minute.
Given the long history of society’s demonization of and violence toward
homosexuality, WHY WOULD ANYONE EVER CHOOSE IT???) It’s true, gays and
lesbians can choose not to act on their sexual orientation. But why
should we condone a society telling a sizable minority of its citizens
that the romantic love, affection, and desire for commitment they feel
should not be acted upon, that they should, in effect, live the celibate
lives of priests and deny themselves the definingly human joy of marriage?
I’ll close by saying that anyone who cites homosexuality as something
that contributes to disease, or drug usage, or other social ills simply
doesn’t know what s/he is talking about. The psychological damage done
to gays and lesbians by a society that tells them to either live in
enforced celibacy or to live a lie and try to be heterosexual is what
has led to so much pain and suffering in our society. If conservatives
believe that marriage and its attendant values: love, communication,
fidelity, monogamy, trust, family-building, child-rearing, and so forth
are good for our community (and I, having experienced them first hand DO
believe they are good for our community), why would they wish to shut a
segment of the population out of it? Forcing people to attempt a sham
marriage (most often doomed to a future of clandestine adultery and
eventual divorce) or forcing them to find sexual liaisons on the sly
outside of the bonds of marriage seems to me a much more damaging path
to take than encouraging two rational adults not related by blood to
celebrate and protect their relationships regardless of their gender.
Take the time to talk to someone gay or lesbian. Odds are s/he will tell
you that s/he simply wants to have pictures of his/her spouse and kids
up in the office and to talk about the day-to-day joys and challenges of
marriage and family just like any heterosexual. S/he will tell you that
s/he worries about legal rights (be they hospital visitation, funeral
rights, inheritance rights, parental rights, tax-law rights, or what
have you) and simply wants the same rights as any other couple. And s/he
will tell you that no religion should be forced into performing or
recognizing a relationship. (Heck, many Catholic priests won’t marry two
people if one is a non-Catholic. No one’s trying to pass laws to force
that to change.) S/he will simply tell you that the state and federal
governments are the ones that need to recognize our relationships. I’m
not saying Democrats don’t use gay rights for political purposes just as
Republicans do. I am saying that for the people to whom such things
TRULY matter, that is, gays and lesbianshe issues matter only in and of
themselves and not in service to any larger “liberal” or “homosexual”
agenda.
I’m not a political expert and I can’t speak to the validity of the poll
cited by Mitch Berg. But even hard-line social conservatives will tell
you: change is coming. Every year more and more people support same-sex
marriage. 2010 saw the first poll to indicate more than 50% of Americans
support it. And the number of young people who support it (even
evangelical Christians!) is off the charts. So, rather than fight a
losing battle or continue to use gay people’s marriage rights as a
political football for the short time that may still be viable, why not
try to change hearts and minds to embrace principles of
conservatism like state’s rights, small government, and personal
freedomhat will still be relevant 100 years from now.
Best,
Matt
Sorry that the formatting on my post above stinks. Copied and pasted from an email. I didn’t know how to fix it….