Gay marriage issue returns – to a changed America
Dante Chinni
Posted: 04.06.2009 / 7:04 AM PDT
Without a doubt, a ruling Friday by Iowa’s Supreme Court opened another front in the battle over gay marriage – and follows on the heels of a hotly contested ballot initiative on the same issue in California’s November election.
But does that mean gay marriage is again becoming a big wedge issue in national politics, as it was in the 2004 presidential election and, before that, since Vermont enacted its civil unions law?
In all likelihood, it isn’t.
The explanation for why not lies in the answers to these two questions. How much has public opinion shifted on gay marriage? And how deep is America’s appetite for a debate on the issue right now?
With the exception of the vote in California on Proposition 8 – in which voters agreed to define marriage as between opposite-sex individuals – gay marriage has not been a big part of the political debate since 2004. In that presidential race, “defense of marriage” proposals in key states, such as Ohio, were thought to have brought out conservative voters who helped reelect George W. Bush.
An Annenberg Election Study poll from 2004, analyzed by community type, reveals little support for gay marriage in all 11 Patchwork Nation groups. The highest number “in favor” – 45 percent – came from people in big cities (our “Industrial Metropolis” locales). The next highest level of support – 40 percent – came from the tony suburbs (our “Monied ’Burbs”). No other community type reached 40 percent.
But the world in 2009 is a very different place.
New numbers?
First off, there is reason to believe those numbers may have moved since 2004. Polls from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press showed that national public attitudes on the question had changed in just two years.
Pew’s surveys showed a spike in opposition to gay marriage in 2004 to 61 percent, but by March 2006 the “oppose” number had fallen to 51 percent.
In other words, this is an issue over which the American public is in flux, and opposition may have abated even more in recent years. Why? Concern about the economy is trumping almost everything else.
From talking with our community correspondents and reading the numbers, it’s clear that the financial news is so troubling that there is little room in the political discourse right now for much else. Though different factors are shaping the fortunes of our 11 community types – it may be unemployment in some places and foreclosures in others –the economy rules, for now. Last week’s high-court ruling in Iowa – that a law limiting marriage to a man and a woman violates the state constitution – seems unlikely to change that.
A few weeks ago we asked the Patchwork communities if the media had been covering the economy too heavily and, while some took issue with the way the media were covering the story, most said the issue was dominating their local conversations.
Still a hot-button issue in some places
That’s not to say the gay marriage debate won’t matter in the next election – in some places, it probably will.
Look, for instance, at rural agricultural communities (a.k.a. “Tractor Country”). In the 2004 Annenberg survey, 84 percent of respondents from those places opposed gay marriage.
Those areas are not only culturally conservative and somewhat insular, but they also are among the least hard-hit by the current recession. Unemployment figures in Tractor Country are the lowest of the 11 community types, and the foreclosure rate there is also very low.
Moreover, as we noted last week, there seem to be some shifting dynamics in the electorate now – the rise of a populist tone. It may be that, in time, traditional social issues like gay marriage – pro and con – become paired with the economy to become, in some of our communities, part of a larger mood or trend.
We will look for newer numbers as soon as they become available to gauge how the 11 Patchwork groups view gay marriage now.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 6th, 2009 at 8:41 am PDT
If we let the majority decide what rights the minority has then we don’t have freedom. We are all a minority in some way, shape or form. Putting minority rights up to a vote for the majority to decide is unAmerican.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 6th, 2009 at 9:06 am PDT
Andrew,
That’s clearly one thought on this topic, but I think you’ll find that while the opposition has bumped up and down, the overall trajectory is actually downward. See the link I have put in the piece above about the Pew surveys.
Does that mean opinion on gay marriage is “destined” to do anything for certain? No. But the opinion is clearly in flux. And judging from the comments I have heard from our communities, my guess is the next set of polls will show a decline in opposition.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:21 am PDT
This issue is a huge waste of time, energy and money. I really don’t understand why anybody who isn’t gay cares about the issue. If you don’t want to marry someone of the same sex, don’t. If others choose to marry a person of the same sex, what’s it to you?
April 6th, 2009 at 10:31 am PDT
I’m not religious, but attempting to have a conversation with my fellow American religious brothers and sisters about gay marriage. What, other than opposing everything gay, does the right-hand christian community espouse? Claiming “pro-family,” in my opinion, doesn’t sound convincing. It seems you’re using your ideal nuclear family as a mask for homophobic politics.
I know one deeply religious individual that I enjoy being with. We have fascinating conversations over coffee. He is married, and has two children. I know he voted against my right to get married, but I’m not letting that destroy our relationship, even though I know he was dead wrong to support prop 8. I believe he will change his attitude about gay marriage very soon without needing to twist his arm.
Any answers?
Be well.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 6th, 2009 at 12:31 pm PDT
You need to leave the insults at home. Ronny is right.
Marriage Civil Union No Recognition
18-45 years old 41 23 32
45-64 29 32 35
65 & older 18 27 47
April 6th, 2009 at 12:32 pm PDT
That attack was not necessary “NakedCivilServant”. Allthough you are right…it isn’t the baby boomers..it’s the generation prior, Ronnie is right however that it is only a matter of time and it is a generatoinal issue…we will have our rights back in California and rights to marry in all the United States..
April 6th, 2009 at 1:23 pm PDT
FlexSF is a lot more tolerant than I would be. I don’t think anyone who opposes gay marriage is a friend of mine. I hope that rcinsocal is right about the inevitability of equal rights, but I rather doubt it. I think, with a lot of hard work, progress will be made. But gay rights will be a dividing line between people who believe in freedom and those who do not. Unfortunately, most of this country does not believe in freedom. If they could, in some parts of the country, they would imprison people for homosexual behavior, impose censorship in the name of “protecting children,” and enact laws based on the Bible. Sort of like Iran.
April 6th, 2009 at 1:30 pm PDT
I agree with Chris that the whole issue is a big waste of time–but not his assertion that anyone who isn’t gay shouldn’t give a rip. We should all care if any American is deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded.
Interestingly, the unanimous decision of the conservative Iowa court came on the heels of the same sex marriage decision written by the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, a Regan appointee, and a ruling by Justice Kozinski in the Ninth Circuit that DOMA is unconstitutional.
But it is not surprising that these “judicially conservative”(as opposed to “politically conservative”) judges are moving the issue forward–rather than the pandering of Obama and the Democratic Party.
April 6th, 2009 at 1:31 pm PDT
I agree with Chris that the whole issue is a big waste of time–but not his assertion that anyone who isn’t gay shouldn’t give a rip. We should all care if any American is deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded.
Interestingly, the unanimous decision of the conservative Iowa court came on the heels of the same sex marriage decision written by the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, a Regan appointee, and a ruling by Justice Kozinski in the Ninth Circuit that DOMA is unconstitutional.
But it is not surprising that these “judicially conservative”(as opposed to “politically conservative”) judges are moving the issue forward–rather than the pandering of Obama and the Democratic Party.
April 6th, 2009 at 1:34 pm PDT
“…the vote in California on Proposition 8 – in which voters agreed to define marriage as between opposite-sex individuals…”
This is an insulting statement to the 47% of people who (mostly) vehemently disagreed with the notion that the majority could strip a persecuted minority of a constitutional right with a 50% + 1 vote. Voters most certainly did not “agree” to this. One side wrote their discriminatory religious views into the secular constitution through a “revision” that was clearly an “amendment”. They did so with an initiative funded by churches outside the state, and with the widespread dissemination of lies meant to generate fear on the part of the undecided middle. It worked, and in the process made a mockery of secular constitutional law.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 6th, 2009 at 1:38 pm PDT
Not coincidentally, some random index of happiest states came out and Iowa was at the top.
The fact that Iowa is a political bellwhether state and home to some of the most practical people in America, it’s no surprise that their same-sex marriage decision is coming at this moment in history.
Go Iowa! As Iowa goes, so goes the country!
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 6th, 2009 at 1:42 pm PDT
I’m surprised the US Supreme Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia isn’t brought up more in the gay marriage debate. It seems one could do a “find and replace” and sub gay marriage in for bi-racial marriage. Two consenting adults, regardless of race or sex, should be allowed to marry. Religious groups opposed to this should develop their own system for recognizing marriages (like the Catholics do).
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 6th, 2009 at 1:46 pm PDT
I don’t understand why government even has a say in civil unions. This is a personal choice and there is no need for them to be involved it is a decision between two people. All I see is a government that wants to charge for “marriage licenses” for all that really means (which is nothing since the divorce rate is at more than 50%) If your religion allows Gay marriage then fine, but the government should be telling anyone what to do in this area. End their involvement and money grubbing interference with people’s personal lives.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 6th, 2009 at 1:49 pm PDT
NakedCivilServant - you know, Boomers aren’t perfect. Every generation fights its battles and then the next generation picks up the baton. You guys fought the overwhelming race battle, as well as the white nonpoor women’s battle. Let your kids have their fights. Thank you, thank you, thank you, we are tired of having to bow down to the greatness of the fabulous Boomers. You also created the Me generation, the credit/mortgage debacle and the highway culture but I don’t see much credit being taken for THAT.
One could say that the original Liberals were the Progressives of the late 1800’s, but you Boomers like to forget everything that happened prior to the 1960s. Never trust anyone who was over 30 in 1965, right?
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 6th, 2009 at 1:55 pm PDT
Actually, there was no need to call Ronnie names. I was born in 1953, and I know for a fact that there are plenty of baby boomers around who are actively against same sex marriage. Ronnie is right that it is a generational issue, older boomers and the generation before that tend to be against it, younger boomers, gen x and younger just don’t care. Ronnie is right that we just have to wait a while, for the younger generation to take power and the older one to, well, leave, and gay marriage will be a fact. As a gay boomer, I consider this issue to be decided; we have already won it, the other side just doesn’t know it yet.
April 6th, 2009 at 1:56 pm PDT
Let me ask you this, whose business is it when who marries who if you aren’t involved? That’s what I thought!
So leave them alone and let them marry if it will make them happy and it doesn’t hurt you!
It’s not your business so stay out of it!!!!
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 6th, 2009 at 2:02 pm PDT
SarahB, the fact that I could be killed for being gay in many Muslim countries is not a justification for you to deny me the same rights that you enjoy. I thought we had decided the issue of killing people because they are gay in this country a while back.
And it’s not because a majority of people disagree with me that that I am being discriminated against; it’s because they voted in a public referendum to make their opinion the law, and take from me a right they can have by standing with a perfect stranger in front of an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas. We have a constitutional form of government, and that constitution, and most of those of the states, provides for equal protection under the law. This is something that can not be voted away.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:03 pm PDT
The founding fathers of this country were against religion in government.
People believe in religion because they don’t believe in themselves.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 6th, 2009 at 2:03 pm PDT
I’m straight and believe in the sanctity of marriage, but dont understand how that would be diluted by allowing same-sex marriage. Moreover, I cannot understand why this is even an issue and why so much time is wasted meddling in other peoples business when there are so many more important issues that effect ALL our lives.
I have some married gay friends who have children and are great parents. It doesnt effect me in any way (other than having good friends and neighbors). I just heard about the Iraqi killings of Gay males. Outrageous! When is this going to end???
Homosexuality is a tale as old as time, song as old as rhyme - has been around since Soctrates, Plato, Sheakespeare, Oscar Wilde… as far back as we have writings we know people have engaged in Homosexuality. When are we as humans going to accept from an anthropologic standpoint that Homosexuality is a natural occuring tendency, just another predilection. Its not political, its not up for discussion. It just is.
RE Cal’s prop 8, it was poorly worded so many people that thought they were voting one way voted another, plus tons of money backed negative propaganda that brought the neo-cons to the polls in full force. I dont believe that is an honest reflection of California’s perception.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 6th, 2009 at 2:05 pm PDT
OBserver1000 -”If we let the majority decide what rights the minority has then we don’t have freedom. We are all a minority in some way, shape or form. Putting minority rights up to a vote for the majority to decide is unAmerican”
Really??? Deciding which laws to abide by based on which side collects the majority of votes is unAmerican? By definition, majority wins is the basis of democracy. But don’t worry, if you don’t like this, King Obama will quickly change this to whatever he feels is the best short-sighted solution will become law.
You are confusing the term of voting minority with racial minority.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 6th, 2009 at 2:08 pm PDT
Being a gay man, naturally I qam for the right for Gays and Lesbians to marry. I used to be a very religious man. I left the church after finding out I was gay and knowing what would happen to me and possible to my family. i moved half a country away from them to shut them out and to keep the community bak hom from finding out and using this info against them. Yes, I am from the deep South and it was very necessary.
I have a question. I would love to be able to find God again. First I would need to know why Christian, all variations, hate. Jesus did not preach hate or indifference. He preached acceptance and love. I have a hard time believing when Jesus does descend upon this wretched planet that he will want the hatemongers on HIS SIDE. He will more than likely accept and want the gays on his side. Actually think about what Jesus said and did in his lifetime. Not what the church or your preacher says. There is a huge difference.
We don’t want special rights. We jsut want the rights you already have that we also should have, automatically.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:09 pm PDT
SarahB, you seem to have a lot of confusion between marriage and holy matrimony. Let me help you out: marriage is a civil and legal term, used to create a contract between the two people married. It provides thousands of benefits and protections that help the couple take care of each other and their extended family as they age. Holy Matrimony is something created by churches, controlled by churches, and provides no legal benefit whatsoever. While I don’t remember anything about Adam and Eve getting married in the Garden of Eden, I can say that there are plenty of churches who offer Holy Matrimony to gay couples.
I hope someday that you will see how your attitude hurts families: gay families, their extended straight families, their children. You really need to think outside your dogma and look compassionately at what denying marriage does to the real lives of real people.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:10 pm PDT
Shawn - yes and interracial marriage was asking additional rights as well right? I mean, blacks could marry if they wanted to, just to someone of the same race, just like whites can only marry whites - separate but equal! Crazy liberals asking for all these new rights!
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 6th, 2009 at 2:13 pm PDT
Anything that bothers the bible thumpers is a good thing!
April 6th, 2009 at 2:14 pm PDT
Chuck says:
“Currently in every state in the union a straight man can marry the woman of his choice (provided SHE agrees, is of age, and they are not real close relatives). Conversely a gay man can ALSO marry the woman of his choice with the same minor limits that both groups share.”
chuck has defined marriage as the right of a man to marry a woman. Fair enough. By the provision of equal rights to all citizens, that right should be available to women as well, so a woman should be able to marry a woman. Conversely, if a woman can marry a man, then a man should be able to also marry a man.
I have never understood the alleged connection between same-sex marriage and the resulting decline of marriage and threat to children. I suspect it is simple fear-mongering, as Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country, according to one recent report I saw.
If you REALLY want to protect marriage, I have a great plan for you. We start by outlawing divorce and bringing back the “Scarlet A” for anyone who would dare violate their vows. If you are not willing to back that plan, then don’t talk to me about “Protection of Marriage”
Jane Wyman was right.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:16 pm PDT
SarahB and Chuck: I agree that voting on a decision is American and democratic, but you miss the point when asking Sam to move. Because gays/lesbians are being jailed, abused, and yes…killed right here in the US. They do not have to move to get killed. As far as a desecration of the union of marriage(between a man and woman), men and even women; abuse, cheat, and kill their spouses. so why is so hard that you and others will not let people marry the person they love. This does not affect you in any way, except for your belief that it will. Homosexuals are not asking for anything special, they just want to be with the person they cherish more than anything, like you and the rest of the heterosexuals of this world.
Chuck: Your point about a gay man or woman can marry someone of the opposite sex deflates the point of why they want to marry. They want to marry people of their own sexual preference for the same reason that you did (if you are even married), for LOVE!!! Why do you and the rest of the hetero world thinks this is so bad? Are we hurting you? No. The world is overcrowded, especially in China, so the birth rate is cut down. And if they do want to have children, what’s wrong with that? There are millions of children who do not have a home and feel unwanted. To give them a chance of a happy home life, no mater who there parents will be, would make them happy.
Yes, Chuck and SarahB; I am a gay man, but not only that a black gay man. so I know what inequality is all about. No one has given me anything that I did not have to work for. So, do I have the right to marry whoever I want; YES I DO!!!
Thanks
April 6th, 2009 at 2:18 pm PDT
Once again the blind sheep that is the neo-cons is dusting off the gay marriage issue to deflect from the real problems.
If you don’t like gay marriage then don’t marry someone of the same sex. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
If you are spending an extensive amount of time wondering what two guys are doing in the privacy of their own home you are definitely latent….
You want to focus your energy on a real issue? Then ask your senators and congressman why the U.S. is falling behind in science. Ask why we are leading in teen pregnancy. Ask why 1 in 6 americans doesn’t have health insurance. Ask why health cost continue to rise every year and health benefits coverages drops. Those are real issues that affect you.
What two consenting adults do is none of your business.
Neo-con sheep.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:19 pm PDT
Nice try, Chuck. Great attempt to reframe the debate. Unfortunately, it really doesn’t work.
You see, this *is* a civil rights issue. You claim that homosexuals want “extra rights” because “Currently in every state in the union a straight man can marry the woman of his choice (provided SHE agrees, is of age, and they are not real close relatives). Conversely a gay man can ALSO marry the woman of his choice with the same minor limits that both groups share.”
But by that “logic,” laws against miscegenation (I know it’s a long word; look it up) are reasonable because “a white person can marry another white person, a black person can marry another black person” etc., because they’d all have the same rights: the right to marry someone of the same “race.”
The FACT of the matter is that some people are prohibited from marrying the consenting adult of their choice just because “we’ve always done it that way.” Running things by “we’ve always done it that way” would have us still living in caves and dying of sepsis from minor wounds. We progressed from there, and we’ll progress from this anti-gay bigotry too.
Oh, and SarahB? You said “people voting on a decision IS American and it’s democratic too.” You’re right, but there are exceptions. Otherwise, we could just vote that anyone named Sarah was automatically the slave of the nearest person named Jolene: would you like that? No, I don’t think you would. We do vote on things, but we also have basic human rights guaranteed in our Constitution, and while the Constitution *can* be changed, it was made hard to do for a reason. We need to extend freedom and justice to *more* people, not restrict it. “Land of the free” and all that…
Adam, by your rationale, we should outlaw celibacy and non-reproductive marriages, no?
[Disclaimer: I am a white, middle-aged male in Minnesota who does not have a college degree, before people start talking about liberal elites or somesuch nonsense]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 6th, 2009 at 2:20 pm PDT
all marriage’s should be banned. yes, even yours
April 6th, 2009 at 2:22 pm PDT
SarahB says:
“Marriage isn’t a right. You don’t have the “right” to marriage because it’s religious institute.”
By your logic, the government has no business whatsoever regulating ANY aspect of marriage, as it a religious institution.
However, a contractual obligation such as marriage can only be entered into with KNOWN, INFORMED, CONSENT, so your argument about farm animals is nonsense.
Others have argued here that churches would be forced to perform gay marriages. Nonsense again, as any church has authority over what services it will perform and for whom - provided they are with informed consent. there are plenty of places gays can marry without having it done by the unwilling.
Thank you for supporting gay marriage.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 6th, 2009 at 2:26 pm PDT
This whole argument that the species depends on Marriage is ridiculous. 90% of the population is heterosexual, and allowing the 10% that are gay to have the same legal rights is hardly going to create a decline in our species. Besides, the planet would be much healthier if we did decline our population. The rapid over population of the planet is an actual threat to our species, not the love between 2 consenting adults.
Homosexuality is actually quite normal from a scientific perspective. It occurs in nature repeatedly.
You can say what you want to argue against it, but at the end of the day there isn’t a lot of real evidence to support keeping gay people from marriage rights.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 6th, 2009 at 2:27 pm PDT
Although marriage has its roots in religion it is also intertwined with many legal proceedings for example marriage licenses and divorce. Even within the state of California where there are domestic partnerships, certain California state agencies still dont give the domestic partners all the rights and benefits of married heterosexual couples.
Right now I want all the same legal rights as marriage. However if we are granted the same rights why can it not be called marriage? I propose that we adopt the european approach and call everything a civil union. The government can rid itself of the religious connotations and religious groups can still call the civil unions a “marriage”.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 6th, 2009 at 2:30 pm PDT
I would like to point out that the Constitution does not say separation of church and state. It says no state-endorsed church, meaning that the state shall not have a single church to which it adheres. This does not translate to church shall not be involved in state, but rather all views religious and otherwise shall have equal access to the governing body through its membership.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 6th, 2009 at 2:37 pm PDT
Not letting people marry and have the full legal rights/responsibilities afforded by marriage is discrimination based on sexual orientation pure and simple. I’m not gay, nor do I care to marry anybody, but it’s clear to me that this is discrimination against one group by another and it should not be legal in the US, it harkens back to the bad old days of discrimination based on race and gender. I’m a single white hetero male, but I know injustice when I see it and I still see it in this country and it’s even more embarrassing in this day and age.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 6th, 2009 at 2:47 pm PDT
Gay marriage, or ‘federal’ civil unions in other nations is taking hold all over the western world, etc. Virtually all of western europe except Italy and Greece, Israel**, Repub of South Africa, new zealand, Australia*, Chech republic, Canada, Mexico*, Uraguay, Columbia, Brazil*, Argentina* have them. In the last couple weeks Nepal, and Japan** are added.* In the last 6 mos Norway and sweden replaced CUs with marriage. Ireland will happen this year. Hungary almost got there. The struggle is opening in India.
*parts of country or partial equal rights
** recognize gay marriages done elsewhere.
The leaderships of the anti-gay marriage in the USA is the Catholic church, who, as I have learned with my wild debates with my orthodox level catholic friend Bill, totally take over the minds of some of their parishioners. In some ways, rather then thinking about issues of fairness and equality, they become robots for church - speak, totally unable to view any other point of view. They think they are saving humanity, when they should be looking at the church’s history. They believe what they say is “what God wants”****, a mentality expressed in Saudi Arabia Islam as a raped woman gets whipped, it must have been her fault, while the perpetrator gets a hand slap. They believe they are saving the institution of marriage. Strange, given that gays want to be married, while the str8 are divorcing at a 50% rate, destroying the institution. The southern Baptists and many independent southern christian churches are even more lock step in their arrogance and opposition. But when you take away their religious fluff and ceremonies etc you find people who have the same mentality of their forebears. Those who gave us slavery, the civil war, and segregation, and now have a new group to hate, in the Name of God”. And even more so, all their pastors really want is pure power and the ‘rush’ that comes from it. And the Mormons - a total control church, who have forgotten how they were murdered and disdained in the name of God. The one thing they seem to have remembered from their own terrible experience, and have built into their very insular culture is to do the same to other that was done to them. A strange strange interpretation of one of the commandments, which only can be so corrupted by pure religious control and zeal, and the replacement of people’s thinking with relgiious dogma, and the terrorization baseed on fear and anxiety from the church, of “going to hell” if they don’t do as they are told.
20 years from now, being gay will be no big deal at all, except in the minds of the religiously poisoned, and the macho macho types who always have to have someone to beat up upon to satisfy their arrogant but ignorant personalities. And gays will be treated equally under our laws. Yes, I agree we must not try and force churches to do gay marriage religious ceremonies. But in time, those churches who continue to oppose decency and equality for our gay citizens will be exposed as such, and wither and ultimately die as a force in society. It is happening in New England as the people recognize how the church has failed humankind in so many ways, including becoming more and more insular with the new pope. No wonder the church continues to fight the battle.
And as part of this movement to equality, the diabolical, ‘Satan inspired concept’ of the closet, based on shame and terroization, will end and gays will be free. It is well on its way to oblivion already. And people will come to realize that perhaps 8-10% of the people are gay. The nearly 6% who admit they are gay in properly done surveys, and those who still don’t trust the survey to be truly anonymous.
And to answer one writers comments about gay rights being special rights - just another church speak ‘charged words’ intended to obfuscate the issue. The bottom line on that one is that peoples should have the legal right to marry the person they love, opposite sex or same sex. And it has nothing to do with churches. BTW, in the next 10 years, virtually all mainstream American religions except the Catholic, Muslim, So Baptist, and right wing indepenedent christian churches will do gay marriage or committment ceremonies. It is happening already, the liberal Lutheran and Presbyterian churches are almost there, and the 90% majority of the Episcopal churches will join the Jewish reform and conservative, the United Churches of Christ, the MCC, the Unitarian Universalists, and some episcopal and presbyterian and even lutheran churches today. Even in the Methodist church, there is movement, the struggle is between a recalcitrant national leadership and forward looking Ministers. A ‘closet’ in a sense that will blow open one of these days also.
And the churches of total control, whose history for many is one of horror and the cause of so many wars - directly or indirectly, will be exposed for all to see. One of the great shames of our nation, a stain upon our national soul.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 6th, 2009 at 2:56 pm PDT
The government should not be involved in religion, or social issues. It should not be in the business of marriage, but only in the business of validating domestic agreements, and providing laws for the interpretation of those agreements. “Marriage” is a matter of social definition, in which the government has no business. For the government to define a social institution is for it to unconstitutionally abridge our rights to free speech, free association, free exercise of religion, and privacy (freedom from unreasonable search and seizure). That is, we each have a constitutional right to define a social institution as we see fit through the right to free speech; we each have a right to associate with those of like mind, and to exclude from our personal associations those who are not; we each have a right to exercise our religion according to our interpretation thereof and our conscience; and we each have a right to have the government stay out of our homes, where we may generally conduct ourselves as we please. The problem we face started with conservatives trying to get the government to bar gay marriage according to conservatives’ religious beliefs. Now we have the problem of liberals trying to have the government endorse gay civil unions as marriage. The answer is for the government to get out of trying to define marriage, or otherwise trying to frame the national culture. That is for us, the people, to do through collective, sometimes disputative, even confrontational, discourse. The society must shape itself, organically, by the aggregate normative behavior of its members. Society cannot be shaped according to the dictates of any government, regardless how just or unjust that government is regarded at a given time by a given group.
By the way, the logical extension of this is that all forms of marriage between human beings must be recognized as a human right, from gay to plural. That is, the distinction between the rights of a man to marry a man from the right of a man to marry a woman is only as false as the distinction between the right of a man to marry a woman and a man to marry two or more women (or a woman to marry one or more men) - there must even be allowed some plural number of men to marry some plural number of women. If all are consenting adults, then there is no logical way to bar plural marriage, if we cannot bar homosexual marriage. Gay rights advocates decry this fact, but they never put forth a logical argument to support their disclaimer - or, of they do, they use the same derogatory approach to plural marriage that has been used against them for decades.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:59 pm PDT
“There is no conclusive, let alone convincing evidence, that being gay is anything more than a choice.” - SarahB
Have you heard of the FEM-3 gene?
Apparently not.
April 6th, 2009 at 3:00 pm PDT
Emma- not conclusive NOR convincing… read more.
April 6th, 2009 at 3:03 pm PDT
Did Sarah B make choice to be heterosexual? Of course not. What she did was make a choice to follow religions which always have to have someone to denigrate, to blind the eye, harden the heart, and open the way for what is really mind control of the parishioners.
Done not to save society, but to prevent people from realizing how some churches have used ancient hatred and ignorance for so terribly long to denigrate people. And who don’t dare change, lest their house of cards be exposed for what it is, and collapse
Sarah is just parroting one of the churches religious arguments, for they have taken over her mind on this issue. The really sad thing about it is she doesn’t realize what she is doing and saying.
All these comments in this blog are really between thinking people vs those who follow rather then use the mind God gave them. We’ve been there before witth religious speak, which supported slavery, segregation, opposed women voting, opposed integrating our armed forces, and had outlawed inter-racial marriage in so many states until another brave supreme court put an end to that issue.
And the inter-racial marriage argument - when CA outlawed it in 1948, polls said that 90% of Americans wanted to keep that law. Today, only a small minority of haters would still support it.
And it will be the same for full civil/legal recognition of gay relationships.
April 6th, 2009 at 3:04 pm PDT
Well then, what do you know of the FEM-3 gene?
Or are you just refuting without actually knowing what you’re talking about?
April 6th, 2009 at 3:12 pm PDT
Thanks Jason- but I make up my own mind. Nice that YOU know me so well.
Again- race and gender…not something people can control. People can control their sexual appetites- they just wanted excuses to not have to. Being gay is great one..it’s posh and trendy. (Save your FEM3 argument, Emma.) If gay people didn’t “choose” to be gay- then their best arguement is to try and pony-up to the mentally disabled and try and ride their coat-tails. Because when it comes to nature- their exist a difference between male and female for a reason and there is a reason that only males and females can breed with eachother. There is no need in great circle of life, on a biological scale, for homosexuality. It occurs- but it’s not the norm…it’s a freak occurance.
April 6th, 2009 at 3:19 pm PDT
“God Bless”. the words of someone opposed to gay marriage.
The use of God to denigrate and deny the humanity of gay people
And in this nation, we have the absolute right to be free of other people’s religions in our civil life. When religion gets hold of government and education, what you get is:
The crusades against the Muslims that killed tens of millions of them, in the name of the Catholic church allied with corrupt Roman emperors. These crusades poisoned Muslim society, and led to religion controlling that society. And 9/11 was just a really delayed payback, where hatred and murder begat hatred and murder much later. The truest danger to society is unthinking people, their minds controlled by ‘faith’, who fail to question what is happening.
The christian hatred of Jews, that festered for a thousand + years in Europe, poisoned that society as well. It, and the anxiety of people looking for a solution to their total economic collapes - in the 1930s it cost 30,000DM (worthless deutchmarks) to mail a letter.
And Hitler used the economic collapse and his and his societies hatred of the Jews to give us WWII. Go read Mein Kampf. And you will also learn that the term Moral Values was also used by Hitler.
April 6th, 2009 at 3:24 pm PDT
So, SarahB, you could *choose* to be homosexual? To find your primary romantic and sexual fulfilment with women? If you really believe that, then go ahead. I dare you, and I challenge you.
I think you’ll find you can’t do it, which kind of shoots your blither about “choice” in the foot.
April 6th, 2009 at 3:41 pm PDT
So, SarahB, by your logic, if you can choose to be homosexual, you can also choose to be heterosexual. Rob B. asks a valid question. Did you choose to be heterosexual? If so, how? Did you weigh the pros and cons? Did you try dating both sexes to see which one you would prefer on a more longterm basis? How did you decide to be heterosexual?
And, if being gay is trendy, then why do people “choose” to be gay and end up being murdered by homophobic heterosexuals? Is being trendy that much of a reason to die for? Why would anyone want to express a sexual preference that denies them legal rights just to be trendy?
And yes, marriage is a human right, even though you would like to think differently. See Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948.
Regarding the FEM-3 gene argument, it’s obvious that you are unable to debate it if your only response is, basically, stop talking about it!
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 6th, 2009 at 3:45 pm PDT
Thanks Sarah, for calling my gay friends “freaks”. No wonder we have so many gay bashings and even murders of gays. And it is not unusual in a gay bashing for the gay man to be raped by the str8 basher. No kidding. Which shows how irrational some people are on the subject.
I bet if we dig deep enough in your mind, well find out that you would be quite happy to send them to concentration camps. Protect Marriage, Protect the family huh? Sieg ****, maybe
I do notice you backing off the “choice” argument to a “control your sexual appetites”. Maybe you ought to leave the gays alone, and go after the 75% of str8 people who have sex relationships outside of marriage, which results in the 50% divorce rate. The other 25% would prob also, but the other person doesn’t know about it.
You remind me of so many christians who think they are saving society, and don’t realize their hearts are poisoned by religious hatred. I and my wife will take our gay friends any day. And we left our semi-homophobic church for one that fully accept gays including performing marriage ceremonies. Unfortunately they don’t get the legal benefits, which is what it is all about.
Again, the magic of religion is how they get people to hate - that is what it is, in the Name of God. A variant of which we experienced on 9/11. It is the mentality of ‘following blindly’ - mankind’s worst failure. And the cause of most wars.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 6th, 2009 at 3:56 pm PDT
“BTW, did you know that the United States is not a member OF the United Nations…”
The United States was admitted to the United Nations on October 24, 1945. In fact, along with Argentina, Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Columbia (et cetera) the USA was one of the original members, making it not only a member, but a charter member.
Might want to try and do some research before posting such nonsense.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 6th, 2009 at 4:00 pm PDT
I don’t hate gay people. I love gay people. Hate the sin, love the sinner.
April 6th, 2009 at 4:17 pm PDT
SarahB, the US government should not be run according to your notions of what’s “sinful.” Religious marriage is one thing, secular is another. I don’t care if your church doesn’t recognize gay marriage (frankly, I don’t care if your church doesn’t recognize *my* marriage) as long as the State does. I’m lucky that I’m heterosexual, so it’s not an issue for me, but for my gay and lesbian friends, they face discrimination that’s based purely on religious grounds, which is inappropriate in a culture made up of people from many different religions (and, in some cases, no religion at all).
Frankly, if you “love” gay people, I’m really worried about how you treat people you hate…
April 6th, 2009 at 4:31 pm PDT
Freedom *is* a balance between minority rights and majority rule. That’s why we have a bill of rights in the US - it was recognized that complete power by the majority can trample on others unfairly. The equal protection clause spells this out by requiring that you can’t have a law that restricts a specific subset of people (as opposed to everyone) without a compelling state interest. If you are against slavery, pro the right to face your accuser, for the right to bear arms, or many other things, you believe that minority rights are part of freedom.
April 6th, 2009 at 4:33 pm PDT
Obviously, from how you’ve expressed yourself here, your religion believes that gay marriage is sinful, wrong, immoral, and so on.
However, the United States is not a theocracy, despite what many Christians want to believe. You cannot force your religious beliefs regarding marriage on those who do not share them by disallowing those who do not adhere to your religion to join together in a legal contract that grants legal rights on both state and federal levels.
Generally speaking, Unitarian Universalists believe that marriage is between consenting adults regardless of biological sex and adopted gender. Also, man neo-pagans also believe that too. As well as many Buddhists. Not to mention agnostics and atheists.
If I say that I want to marry another woman, and my religion accepts this, why should I not be allowed to? If my Unitarian Univesalist minister is fully willing to perform a ceremony and grant the legal rights that come with this contract, why should I not be allowed to? Because your religion (that I am not a member of) believes otherwise?
What if one day, in America, Christians become the minority religious group and Muslims are the majority? And the Muslims vote by a slim margin that Christians shouldn’t be allowed to marry [and be granted the legal status and benefits of marriage] because of a verse in the Qur’an? What then? Would you still be saying that marriage isn’t a right, but only a privilege that can be determined by a slim majority vote?
April 6th, 2009 at 4:50 pm PDT
No because, I as a voter have exercised my right to protect the definition of an institution that I hold sacred. It’s not about the state determining it sacred or not. It came down to a vote and gay people lost. If it had come down to the other way- I’d have to accept it and would probably do what gay people are doing and try to fight it another way.
What I don’t get is why people are saying that people voting on a topic and a majority of them decide one way and that makes it bigotry. Democracy is bigotry? I’m sorry gay people are the minority. They lost the vote. Stop saying it’s Unconstitutional for people to vote and lose. There will always be a losing side. It just happens to be yours right now.
April 6th, 2009 at 4:57 pm PDT
The freedom of gays to marry is to most of us a novel idea and requires thinking through. Having met healthy gay couples who are good people and have long-term families sharing our values makes many believe that there is nothing intrinsically harmful about gay coupledom. Also, most of us in examining our own sexuality and observing others find that our attractions are pretty fixed and we are attracted to men or women but most of us can’t just change that. I for one could not become attracted to the same sex no matter how I tried. This leads me to believe that gays in general might be able to overcome their feelings and desires if there was a great social good but could not likely change them.
My personal observation is that sexuality leads one to fulfilling long-term intimacy in a shared relationship that can be deeply satisfying, and thus denying some people the right to have that is wrong.
I see no evidence that allowing a minority to have publicly sanctioned relationships is in any way harmful to our society, but denying it is harmful to such couples. There seems to be no likelihood that allowing gay marriage would stop the species from procreating, or that allowing gay marriage would make much of a difference at all.
I would be very interested to hear if anyone has any well-thought out reasoning that indicates that allowing a small minority to marry would actually harm society in a specific way, or that denying that right is not restrictive and harmful to gays.
April 6th, 2009 at 5:00 pm PDT
“What I don’t get is why people are saying that people voting on a topic and a majority of them decide one way and that makes it bigotry. Democracy is bigotry?”
Let us say that the topic is to dismember anyone with the name Sarah.
Let us say that by a democratic process and really good campaigning, the voters decided that yes, we should dismember anyone with the name Sarah. People named Sarah tried to campaign against this ballot initiative, but sadly, they lost.
Now, someone steps up and says that it’s bigotry to dismember anyone named Sarah. He says, “It’s bigotry because it’s intolerant of a specific singled out name, and that a person’s right to live should never be put up to a majority vote.”
And what if this was the answer to that statement? “What I don’t get is why people are saying that people voting on a topic and a majority of them decide one way and that makes it bigotry. Democracy is bigotry? I’m sorry people with the name Sarah are in the minority. They lost the vote. Stop saying it’s Unconstitutional for people to vote and lose. There will always be a losing side. It just happens to be yours right now.”
April 6th, 2009 at 5:01 pm PDT
“I would be very interested to hear if anyone has any well-thought out reasoning that indicates that allowing a small minority to marry would actually harm society in a specific way, or that denying that right is not restrictive and harmful to gays.”
If you’re looking for a secular/non-religious argument, there isn’t one.
April 6th, 2009 at 5:48 pm PDT
Emma, I’m not convinced that there is a good religious argument for restricting gay marriage in a democratic state.
All religious people - baptist, methodist, catholic, pentacostal, sunni, confucian etc - have the difficulty of sorting out what in their revelations are real words of God and which are interpretations by fallible people - and that’s just in sorting out what to do as an individual.
More important for public policy is the distinction between religious laws that on examination are just good sense and help the body politic, such as restrictions on murder, theft etc., and the others: those that seems to be requirements of the God that are not intrinsically right or wrong but become so because the deity says so, typically based on showing obedience and respect. In the religion of my upbringing, it used to be considered quite wrong for women to appear in church without a hat, for the same textual reason that Muslims wear scarves today. But these are wrong in the context of a specific religion, not because a public policy shows them to be good for society.
I think that any fair-minded religious person of any stripe would recognize that in a pluralistic, democratic society, it is right to impose restrictions on others that are intrinsically right or wrong by their effect, but that is not right to impose those that become wrong only by dint of God’s requirements. If something is wrong solely because of your religions beliefs in God’s will, restrictions shouldn’t be imposed on people not believing as you do. If something is intrinsically wrong, it can be justified on its own merits - there is no need to ignore the plain problem that others aren’t sure your religious beliefs are correct.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:07 pm PDT
I am amazed at how stupid some of you people are. Many of these posts illustrate in a vivid way the failure of American education. There really is not much hope for this country, or at least large pockets of it. For me, it would be sheer **** to have to live in places like Abilene, Texas or large swatches of the Bible Belt just because of the ignorance and pettiness of the people and their gullible beliefs in cults that call themselves churches. In my lifetime, I have seen the United States become a backward country, and that really saddens me. Some of the moronic comments here about same-sex marriage are just the tip of the iceberg of a huge problem of people not even understanding the Constitutional idea of equal protection under the law. Churches and other institutions used to try to lessen prejudice and teach enlightenment; now they foster prejudice and attack science. In places like Texas and Kansas, they will soon be teaching children that the world is 6,000 years old.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
April 6th, 2009 at 9:43 pm PDT
Never took a logic class, did you Thankyougays? :^) Quick quiz for you: Do you know one thing that every single gay person on the planet has in common? We call came from straight parents. Of course you’ll realize this when one of your kids comes out, and it’ll be all your fault for giving the world another gay! :^)
April 7th, 2009 at 11:17 am PDT
I am not following the logic here. In what way are unmarried people unequal under the law? Are you denied food,clothing,shelter,healthcare, education…?
I have plenty of single friends, are they somehow exploited because they are not married? What does marriage really buy you? I don’t get it.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:23 pm PDT
As long as we have freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, those individuals practicing homosexuality will have to TOLERATE those who say it is wrong. Those practicing homosexuality try to silence Christians (and probably Muslims, and a number of other religions) for saying homosexuality is wrong. That is the equivalent of JAILING those practicing homosexuality. If those practicing homosexuality want their practice to be tolerated, they will need to tolerate those who think and say what they do is wrong. We all have freedom and rights.
Homosexuality is not a disability. The biggest problem is that it is a choice. And homosexual clubs are advertising in college newspapers to come try it out. They have homosexual clubs in high schools. They are encouraging youth to experiment with sexuality, flying in the face of the Christian standard of abstinence until marriage.
April 7th, 2009 at 8:08 pm PDT
This discussion proves the lack of logical thought process for which we USA american are infamous around the world. Could it also be the result of assigning high school civics classes to the gym teacher (where it is even still taught)? We just don’t care about civility in the USA; only if my god is more powerful the yours. Let us attempt to raise the level of discourse beyond that of a bunch of twelve year-old children squabbling.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:52 pm PDT
Yes, I’m homophobic. I do fear the spread of the open practice of homosexuality. I submit that a casual glance at the history of major civilizations show that perverted life-styles of the sexual kind–among other kinds as well–play a large role in the breakdown of society. The current argument is made for freedom. Freedom and license are not the same. It goes beyond “consenting adults.” The truest label is sexual orientation. Maybe we would have a chance of the proverbial snowball if consenting adults were all it involved. But, no, some are “oriented” toward children, some toward animals, some toward prostitution, and some toward pornography. If we are going to be free in the sense being advocated, let’s get Disney World to have a day for **** and their *****, consenting adults and their favorite mares or stallions (or random house pets), or NAMBLA and their favorite pre-schoolers or infants. Or does the miniscule number of homosexuals in our country want to limit these others to the human homosexual form of sex where the parts don’t even fit?? Aren’t they all seeking intimacy, companionship, satisfaction, and gratification? On what basis would our equally perverted courts deny the right of mixed-species unions to all the rights of marriage? Horses need health care, don’t they? Why don’t homosexuals parade for the equality of all forms of sexual orientation and not just their own selfish goals?
April 10th, 2009 at 2:13 pm PDT
Can someone please explain how sexual preference makes a group “minority” under the LAW?