I’ve written about this before; I think the bill requiring a referendum on a Marriage Amendment is…:
- …a bad idea because I don’t think it’s the sort of stuff that should be in the Constitution.
- …a great idea because it’ll undercut the DFL in the 2o12 elections. “But you’re playing politics with civil rights, Berg!” Yeah, I’m the first person that’s ever done it, too. Cry me a river. The fewer representatives and the less power the DFL has, the better our state will be. That is an unalloyed good.
- …and, finally, a good idea because it will, for the first time, force single-sex marriage activists to make a case for their cause to the people, rather than lawyers, pols and judges. If there is any merit to the idea, they’ll have to be damn good at explaining it.
That last is an important one; the gay marriage activists I’ve been talking to are really, really bad at it.
Indeed – without exception, the best,most intelligent, most articulate cases I’ve heard for defeating the amendment have come not from liberals and gay marriage proponents, but from libertarian conservatives like Rep. John Kriesel and GOP Comms guy, Craig “Captain Fishsticks” Westover. Without exception.
As to the libs? These are the arguments I’m hearing:
“Proponents Are Nothing But Bigots!”: Well, some no doubt are. For the vast majority, myself included, it’s more a matter of “you want us to fundamentally change an institution that, for all of humanity’s infinite variations, and all of the institution’s zillion permutations, has one consistent feature throughout every society on earth going back to when time was recorded verbally; they all feature a guy and a gal, sometimes at least one of each”. There may be a reason to change our minds on that; being called a “bigot”, or any names, really, isn’t one of of them.
“You advocate a Jim Crow , “separate but equal” law!”: We who advocate civil unions, but leaving the state out of “marriage” as a religious institution, have been getting this one lately.
It’s nonsense, of course; “Jim Crow” was about taking peoples’ rights away; civil unions do no such thing. “Separate but equal” was about keeping populations from intermingling; it’d be absurd to claim that civil unions do any such thing, unless they’re performed at a “Gays Only” courthouse and could be adjudicated and dissolved only by gay judges.
This one leads us to the closely-related…
“You’re all hung up on a word“: There’s a smidgen of merit,here – and at least it veers away from browbeating. But it peters out just past “smidgen”.
Most of us who oppose, on some level or another, Single Sex Marriage do so on religious grounds – but not everyone cares about religion.
Atheists can marry in our society, and most don’t bother with churches or their traditions. They get married by justices of the peace, or by “Elvis” in Vegas, or ship captains or bus drivers or whatever authority signs civil contracts. It’s “separate but equal”; it’s indistinguishable in every way from a civil union. It confers no different rights than a church marriage – or a civil union.
There is no difference.
So I’m going to suggest that both sides are “hung up on the word” pretty equally.
“We do not vote on civil liberties!”: Now, we’re getting somewhere. It’s a good principle, in principle. It’s also rubbish; we vote on civil liberties all the time. It took activists eight years of nonstop smashmouth organizing to get the human and civil right to keep and bear arms put into Minnesota law in a meaningful way – and that’s a right that’s in the Constitution. The real one, I mean.
No, the big question is, is there a “civil right” to marry at all, much less someone of the same gender? On the one hand, someone – the tribe, the church/Islam/your tribe’s witch doctor/government/whatever people believe in – has always said who could marry, and how; outside of whatever the institution was, people pretty much just shacked up otherwise. Like they do now.
On the other hand, rights are not granted by the state; they are endowed to us by our creator, whatever you believe our Creator is. And if you are a Tenther, you know that rights not specifically granted to the Federal government are supposed to be reserved to the states and The People. Individual states have always taken on the whole notion of “who can marry whom”.
And so while in principle “we don’t vote on civil rights”, we do observe laws; we are a nation ruled by laws, not men (that’s another principle), even, hypothetically, if those men are judges. And so whether you believe it’s right or nice to vote on civil liberties or not, them’s the facts. Make your case.
———-
Anyway.
I’m ambivalent about the amendment,for reasons I’ve spelled out over and over on this blog. I support civil unions. And I doubt I’ll ever bother getting a state license to marry, even if I ever do marry again. I oppose real, actual hatred aimedat anyone, gays included – and I have put more on the line to back that up than most people, “progressive” or not.
And so when the DFL and the gay movement’s “best” line in support of SSM is “you’re a bigot”, “you support Jim Crow” and “you are a moron”…
…well, let’s just say they may need to work on their messaging before 2012.
Whether you are homo or hetro, we all have the same rights.
It has long been the dream of the worshipers of the Super State to remove religion from every public institution. There is a sizable segment of the hard left that considers Cuba a more “democratic” state than the US precisely because the state oversees every social arrangement. The triumph of civil marriage should be opposed for this reason alone.
If the state separates civil marriage from religious marriage, the next step will be to require a civil marriage in addition to any religious marriage you may have been a partner in. Ministers and priests may be allowed to incorporate a legal civil marriage into a religious marriage, as long as the State’s requirements with regard to discrimination are met . . .
There is no such thing as homosexual marriage. There are no Tralfamadorians, either.
There is, however, a very vocal homosexual lobby that is eating away at our society in pursuit of their agenda. They have done, and will continue to do much harm.
I don’t want to retype the list, but there is a very large body of stories about the homosexual crusaders destroying anyone and any business that doesn’t submit.
The most typical one is the Phx photographer who said she will not photograph the lesbian “wedding” because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage. Instead of going elsewhere (thousands of photographers in greater Phx), the lesbians went to the gov’t and the gov’t forced (or is trying to force) the photographer out of business. There are many many stories like this out there. If they get gay marriage in Minnesota, will it be illegal to be a Catholic?
Kermit, I think that much of it isn’t really about gay marriage, but about power and destroying existing institutions.
Think about how they went after ultra-liberal Target Corp this past year. It had nothing to do with gay marriage, but about keeping total control of that corporation. It’s just an excuse to use to get them back on the reservation.
Chuck, you are right. They are tearing Protestant Christian churches apart all across America. The Bible says what it says. Accept it or deny it, but don’t try to rewrite it. That will not stand.
There are numerous benefits, including tax benefits and health insurance benefits that are availabl to married couples.
Gay couples provide the same benefits of stable households and families that committed couples provide, therefore they deserve the same recognition and benefits for the same relationship.
We do not require any religious definition or service for anyone to be married, so there is no point in referencing religion; any number of religions do marry same sex couples in any case – their choice under freedom of religion. No religion is compelled by legal recognition to perform marriages if they don’t want to, so there is no overlap with religion here whatsoever, much less any attempt to change any religion.
What silly paranoia without substance; that is a ridiculous straw man argument. You seem to ignore the fact that there are many religious individuals who happen to be gay, including clergy; religion is not unique to heterosexual individuals.
Same sex marriage has been as successful as heterosexual marriage in the jurisdictions where it has been passed.
More to the point, however, is now that it is going to be on the ballot as a constitutional amendment, it is far likelier that it won’t be affirmed that marriage applies only to opposite sex relationships. If the GOP wanted to prevent it, they’ve shot themselves in the foot (possibly while in the dark?) by not tracking public opinion very well.
From
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
Same-Sex Marriage, Gay Rights
Gallup Poll. May 5-8, 2011. N=1,018 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.
“Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?”
Should 53%
Should not 45%
not Unsure 3%
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. April 9-10, 2011. N=824 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.
“Do you think marriages between gay and lesbian couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?”
Should 51%
Should not 47%
Unsure 2%
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. March 10-13, 2011. N=1,005 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.
“Do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?”
2011, 2010 and 2005: “gay and lesbian.” 2009: “gay and lesbian” asked of half the sample, “homosexual” asked of half the sample. Other years: “homosexual.”
Legal 53%
Illegal 44%
Unsure
CBS News Poll. Aug. 20-24, 2010. N=1,082 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
“Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry. OR, There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship.”
Legal marriage 40%
Civil unions 30%
No legal recognition 25%
Unsure 5%
And of coures, addressing specifically the amendment:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/121750534.html
Minnesota Poll: Support falls for ban on gay marriage
Article by: RACHEL E. STASSEN-BERGER , Star Tribune Updated: May 13, 2011 – 6:53 PM
Majority of poll respondents oppose amending Constitution.
A majority of Minnesotans oppose amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, according to a new Star Tribune Minnesota Poll.
Fifty-five percent of respondents said they oppose adding such an amendment while 39 percent favor a constitutional ban — views that appear to be a sharp reversal of poll results seven years ago.
I could list any number of other polls which show that there is majority support for gay marriage, but Republicans and Tea Partiers only appear to care what the majority wants when it is what they want to do anyway. The rest of the time you willingly, happily stomp on the majority.
You all totally ignore that consistently an overwhelming majority wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest 2%. You go selectively deaf and blind.
DG, if we stop defining marriage as ‘one man, one woman’ would you be ok with a man and two women (although I don’t know why a guy would do that to himself) or two men and one woman? How about a man and his dog/cat/cow/horse? If you eliminate the current definition of marriage every group I listed above can use the same arguments for why their version of marriage should be legal as the gay lobby does now. And if you are so sure it will pass why not let the people decide? It’s almost like the protesters know that if its put on the ballot it’s defeated (30 for 30 so far). If support is so strong for it why can’t you get your people to turn out on election day? For goddesses sake traditional marriage won in Cali and Oregon (you know the state that allowed old people to legally off themselves) it will win in all 50 states, even Minnesota.
There are many many stories like this out there. If they get gay marriage in Minnesota, will it be illegal to be a Catholic?
considering that it seems Luthern and other christian sect churches outnumber the Catholic churches 10:1 (at least it seems like it) in the metro and state I thought it was practically illegal already 😉 (I kid since I be an ex-catholic but seriously I think there are more Jews and Muslims here than Catholics)
“If you eliminate the current definition of marriage every group I listed above can use the same arguments for why their version of marriage should be legal as the gay lobby does now.”
Ben,
As poor as many of the GLBT arguments may be – and Mitch has articulated them well – I don’t see how your statement follows naturally from those arguments. It’s a good scare tactic, however.
DG does bring up a point that I have often heard as a part of the argument favoring same-sex marriage (her first three paragraphs). Strangely, Mitch does not discuss that particular issue. I would like to know more. What, exactly, are the differences in benefits enjoyed by couples in civil unions and marriied couples? Are there differences in their rights with respect to children? adoption? inheritance? hospital visitation? etc.? In short, how common is the term “marriage” in the current body of law? What would be less costly and more practical; adding “civil union” to each and every such instance or modifying the definition of “marriage” (not to be confused with the sacrament of Holy Matrimony or other religious designations/institutions)?
Oh, and…far left conspiracy?…NOT!
Doggy;
Unfortunately, your arguments are mostly invalid. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, when supporting your rants with polls conducted by notoriously far left leaning sources, i.e. The Red Star and MN Poll, your credibility suffers.
Leslie,
I don’t know if Ben’s argument regarding other groups is that far fetched and it’s hardly a scare tactic. Although it may be the exception rather than the rule, there will be those that would exploit gay marriage law. If memory serves, you are an attorney by profession. If so, I’m sure that like several attorneys that I know, you have seen some bizarre lawsuits filed for dubious and laughable reasons, i.e. I should be allowed to marry my dog.
Dog Gone,
You forget that in pretty much every state where a marriage amendment has been on the ballot that pre-election polls favored defeat, but yet it passes.
Many people will tell their friends (and pollsters) in public that they are outraged and will vote no, but then in the privacy of the ballot box will vote “yes” and then tell their friends that they can’t understand how it could have passed because no one they know voted in favor of it.
Ben,
You make an interesting point.
I agree that often people focus on the words “Man” and “woman” rather than on the word(s) “one”.
The propsed amendment would constitutionally prevent polygamy and polygyy, and to me that is a good thing.
Penigma’s Chihuahua said: “A majority of Minnesotans oppose amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage”
So no problem, the amendment will be defeated. That is how the system works.
Or you really don’t believe what you type.
There is no such thing as homosexual marriage. Marriage is by definition the union of one man and one woman. Always has been, always will be.
First, Kreisel didn’t have a better argument, he just delivered the same one better.
Second, declining to accept a sexual fetish as the new norm isn’t bigotry, it’s discrimination properly administered.
The Sand is Food crowd want you to think homosexuality has nothing to do with sex; that’s bullshit. Sex is the single defining characteristic of a homosexual.
It’s not about companionship, it’s not about financial security, it’s not about love; I love my brothers and a few male friends, but I don’t want to bugger them.
And for teh gay, the issue isn’t about marriage anyway. In states that allow such a silly thing, less than 20% of the homos actually go through with it. It’s about degrading another anchor of stable individuals and families…same thing leftists have been doing since Marx picked up a pen.
And Deegee? It’s not about polls either, so please take those and stuff them up your ass, if you can get your head out of the way.
`nuff said.
Dog Gone said:
“Gay couples provide the same benefits of stable households and families that committed couples provide”
This sounds like an assertion to me. What benefits do you think “committed couples” provide? I’m assuming the list is short, and kept so to serve your argument.
“Gay couples provide the same benefits of stable households and families that committed couples provide”
So, commit them civilly. Why rewrite the definition of the word?
Why do all libturds such as DogPrescottPile insist on imposing their MINORITY views on majority? Why can’t they just live in harmony with the rest of us? They want to bugger a dog, let them! But don’t tell me I have to! Why do libturds have be such fascists? Ahh, but I forgot – libturds don’t do history… History for them is something which is yet to happen. See, it is all about word definitions after all.
Why do libturds have be such fascists?
Because at it’s core liberalism is fascistic. Jonah Goldberg’s excellent book Liberal Fascism illustrates this FACT with countless FACT CHECKS, and all that inconvenient history stuff.
“We do not require any religious definition or service for anyone to be married, so there is no point in referencing religion”
But MN does prohibit certain marriages by statute:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=517.03
How refreshing it is to see word “sex” used in a.4 rather than the weaselly “gender”!
Par. a.1 is the only rule that is not necessarily related to tradition. It eliminates possible problems with determining communal property, and that is a legitimate state interest. The rest of the rules are no more and no less arbitrary than the rule prohibiting same sex marriage.
Ironic, isn’t it, that while the SSM advocates argue that marriage is or should be a civil institution, so that people who love each other should be allowed to marry regardless of their sex, the word “love” does not appear in State of Minnesota’s definition of what constitutes a legal marriage.
The word “love” is mentioned frequently in Catholic and Lutheran wedding vows (presumably other Christian denominations as well). As far as I can tell all but reformed Jewish ceremonies use the word “love” to describe the obligation laid upon the parties, though the obligation to recite vows is not the same as in a Christian wedding.
Mitch, I agree that same-sex marriage supporters need to do a better job of making their case — without charging bigotry on the part of those who disagree with them.
I wish that the ballot measure gave voters the option of rejecting or approving same-sex marriage, but that isn’t the way it’s set up.
Voters are being asked to put up a roadblock that will prevent the state supreme court or the legislature from recognizing same-sex marriage. (And as the state constitution is always up for a new amendment, this is really a way to ensure that same-sex marriage happens only when it is approved at the ballot — unless the Supreme Court forces the issue.)
Is same-sex marriage a change from tradition? Of course. But I don’t see it as part of a liberal attack on tradition, as suggested upthread. I see it as part of the ongoing tension between tradition and liberty.
Liberty has been chipping away at traditional institutions for some time. Traditional gender roles were enforced by constrictions on women’s liberty, were they not?
But recognizing men and women as (mostly) equal under the law does not redefine man nor woman. Likewise, I don’t think that recognizing same-sex marriage will redefine marriage. Marriage has already been redefined, but that’s a whole ‘nuther discussion.
There is, of course, the curious interplay of church and state when it comes to marriage, and I think this complicates things. But the state’s role in recognizing marriage is the part we’re talking about — not any church’s teaching or practice or policy with regards to marriage.
The liberalization of divorce laws did not compel the Catholic Church to reverse its position on divorce and remarriage, for instance, and I don’t believe that same-sex marriage would be a greater threat to marriage than the liberalization of divorce laws has been.
PeterH wrote:
“The liberalization of divorce laws did not compel the Catholic Church to reverse its position on divorce and remarriage, for instance,”
It certainly weakened the Catholic church in its ability to enforce its teachings re divorce and remarriage in the US. I can’t be unique in having friends who cite as their reason for leaving the church the difficulty of reconciling their current civil divorce/marriage status with church requirements.
Voters are being asked to put up a roadblock that will prevent the state supreme court or the legislature from recognizing same-sex marriage.
Ah, democracy. Defending the majority from the tyranny of politically correct minorities for over 200 years.
There is no such thing as homosexual marriage.
“Traditional gender roles were enforced by constrictions on women’s liberty, were they not? ”
The liberty of men as well. Sexual access by men to women of reproductive age is much easier now then it was in the bad-old-days before birth control, the social acceptance of single-parenthood and pre-marital sex, and abortion on demand.
Right, which is all nicely tied together in this essay by Francis Fukuyama, The Great Disruption.
The whole thing is worth reading, of course, but here’s an excerpt:
When we put kinship and family in this context, it is easier to understand why nuclear families have started to break apart at such a rapid rate over the past two generations. The family bond was relatively fragile, based on an exchange of the woman’s fertility for the man’s resources. Prior to the Great Disruption, all Western societies had in place a complex series of formal and informal laws, rules, norms, and obligations to protect mothers and children by limiting the freedom of fathers to simply ditch one family and start another. Today many people have come to think of marriage as a kind of public celebration of a sexual and emotional union between two adults, which is why gay marriage has become a possibility in the United States and other developed countries. But it is clear that historically the institution of marriage existed to give legal protection to the mother-child unit, and to ensure that adequate economic resources were passed from the father to allow the children to grow up to be viable adults.
What accounts for the breakdown of these norms constraining male behavior, and of the bargain that rested on them? Two very important changes occurred sometime during the early postwar period. The first involved advances in medical technology – that is, birth control and abortion – that permitted women to better control their own reproduction. The second was the movement of women into the paid labor force in most industrialized countries and the steady rise in their incomes – hourly, median, and lifetime – relative to men’s over the next thirty years.
Terry;
“I can’t be unique in having friends who cite as their reason for leaving the church the difficulty of reconciling their current civil divorce/marriage status with church requirements.”
You aren’t. My sister and three friends had the same dilemma.
When my sister and two of the friends remarried heathen Lutherans ;-), they did so in Lutheran churchs. Third friend married a Jewish girl (now, there’s a dilemma, oy vay!) and got married in a Synagogue.
BossHoss, I was married in a Lutheran ceremony (ELCA).
The presiding minister was Fred Sapp (now gone to his reward). Pastor Fred was raised Eastern Orthodox. He divorced many, many years before he became a pastor for reasons outside of his control. It happens.
I always got the impression that he would have been much happier as an Orthodox priest, but their rules about divorce prevented it, so he entered the Lutheran seminary.
PeterH — I read Fukuyama’s “End of History . . .” a couple of decades ago. I think that his star has fallen since then.
I haven’t read “The Great Disruption”. Your quote accurately describes one aspect of modernism.
The “old customs” and “traditional” structures that are still part of the social framework are something like the irregular verbs in English. They don’t fit in, no new ones are being created, but nevertheless they are the heart of the language. You can’t get rid of all the forms of “to be” or replace them easily.
Marriage in the Old World evolved to cope with the nearly unimaginable poverty of pre-industrial and early-industrial times. Religion was a more reliable keeper of social custom than the state because kings and royal dynasties came and went. The importance a person places on society keeping these old customs depends very much on his or her historical outlook. If history is indeed progressive the way that most on the political left think that it is, the social use for traditional marriage is significantly lessened.
Terry, we’ve got to find a way to make marriage and family work, in a society in which personal liberty is valued more than traditional expectations. Sometimes I think we are going through a reset.
What makes me think so? Among other things, researchers have found that college-educated Americans are marrying more and divorcing less than a decade ago. This study isn’t exactly the one I was looking for, but it will have to do, considering I need to get back to family stuff.
Hey Pete. Marriage works. Family works. I’ve been married since 1982. Through troubles that would make the average liberal scream and run for cover. One son, 24, one daughter 18. we are all together and will stay that way as we celebrate my parents 55th anniversary. Marriage and family work. They have for thousands of years. It’s not a “custom”, it’s an essential building block of society. That’s why homosexual “marriage” is such a destructive, fraud.
Kermit, I’m not disputing that marriage and family are good things.
It’s good for you and your kids — and your extended family and your community — that you have remained married to the same person all these years.
And congratulations to your parents for reaching their 55th anniversary.
I think you have it backwards, PeterH. Marriage and family are older than the modern idea of personal liberty. If the modern idea does not adapt to the older, it will disappear.
Terry, would you suggest that we add back the cultural and legal restraints that previously made it much harder to divorce, and much less likely that children were born to married parents?
A lot of the social glue that held families together was tied to a lack of mobility — I’m not really interested in going back to a system that had most people living within 10 miles of their birth.
Yes, we’re in a modern era. We have to figure out how to make marriage and married childbearing work for a much larger percentage of the population than are currently enjoying the benefits of this fundamental social institution.
Peter says “I’m not really interested in going back to a system that had most people living within 10 miles of their birth.”
Hah! Better not vote for Obama or his kommisars. That is exactly the world they want to create. To save the planet, of course.
And one last point on marriage. The concept of linking romantic love with marriage is a relatively new phenomenon. It may have happened in the past, but it was the exception, not the rule.
PeterH wrote:
Terry, would you suggest that we add back the cultural and legal restraints that previously made it much harder to divorce, and much less likely that children were born to married parents?
I assume that you meant to write ” . . . and much less likely that children were born to unmarried parents?”.
I don’t suggest that we do anything, other than to get the state to keep its mitts off of marriage. Its track record in reforming pre existing social institutions is not good. You may know that the Virginia law which kept blacks and whites from inter marrying (and which many people liken to current bans on SSM) was enacted by the state of Virginia in the 1920’s. It was a mandate by the state meant to serve state interests, it did not have its origin in the religious definition of marriage.
You mention how difficult it used to be to divorce; I assume that you are referring to the laws that existed before the no-fault divorce laws were adopted en masse by the States in the late 60’s through the 70’s.
Whatever benefits no fault divorce has given individuals, I think that it has been disastrous for the poor and working classes, ditto lessening the stigmas and legal penalties for sex outside of marriage and soft drug use.
“…therefore they deserve…”
Whether you are homo or hetro, we all have the same rights.
The liberalization of divorce laws did not compel the Catholic Church to reverse its position on divorce and remarriage
No, but it did decimate families, de-stabilized neighborhoods and caused untold harm to kids.
Old religious traditions can very often be boiled down to common sense.
Jewish dietary laws mandated sanitary conditions & proscribed food that easily spoiled or carried disease (pork, for instance). Marriage used to bind men and women together, for better or worse, for a lifetime; it was no joke. Although it is undenaible that many couples lived together in tension, it is also undenaible that kids benefitted from a whole household.
And I just don’t care what anyone says, homosexual shack ups are not healthy places for kids…period.