The first time I heard gay marriage mentioned, I was incredulous. Two gay people couldn't get married! It simply...well, it wasn't done. I wasn't objecting to their homosexuality. I was objecting to the disturbance caused to my mental categories.
Love and marriage, love and marriage
Go together like a horse and carriage
Dad was told by mother
You can't have one,
You can't have none,
You can't have one without the other!
In recent years, dad is being told something else by brother.
I must have heard about gay marriage sometime in the 1970s. It made an impression when it was mentioned by my mother. We had never discussed homosexuality. Neither of my parents did. Oh it might be observed, "Look at that Liberace! He sure is queer." It wasn't a criticism so much as a wonderment, as if he were playing with three hands.
After selling our family home in Urbana , my mother lived in a series of rentals. One was a nice one-bedroom, living-dining-kitchen combo across from Urbana High School. She began shopping at the White Hen Pantry next door, and being my mother she made friends. It was owned by two women who remain in my mind as Dee and Dollie, although I wouldn't swear to it. When they discovered she was a retired bookkeeper, they asked her to come to work for them, keeping the daily books and occasionally handling the cash register.My mother loved this job. She already knew half the people who came in, and made friends with the rest. She made observations about Dee and Dollie: "They live in the same building." Then: "Dee and Dollie invited me over for dinner. They're roommates." Eventually a telephone call: "Honey, you'll never guess this! Dee and Dollie just announced their engagement!"
Me: "What does that mean?"
My mother: "I don't know. I don't see how they can get married. But they gave each other the nicest rings."
The next time I was home my mom took me to the White Hen to meet them. I said "congratulations," and they put their arms around each other's waists and beamed. They were in their 30s, robust and jolly. At dinner that night I asked my mother, "When did you first realize they were lesbians?" She said: "That was obvious right from the start. With most people, you can just tell right off the bat."
I've sometimes, not always, found that to be the case. I'd never realized my mother did. I personally believed we had gay people in our family, but this had never been mentioned by anyone, and I wasn't going to start now.My mother confided that Dee and Dollie had asked her to be one of their maids of honor.
"My land! I was never so surprised in my life!"
"What did you say?"
"I told them of course I would. They've both been so nice to me."
"What kind of a marriage is it going to be?"
"It can't be a church wedding, that's for sure. One of their friends is some kind of a minister, and he's going to perform the ceremony in somebody's back yard. I've been helping them with their wedding plans, because they don't seem to know the first thing about planning a wedding."
What struck me was that my mother, born on a farm near Taylorville in 1912, seemed to take this so casually. I doubt she would have been pleased if one day I'd suddenly announced I was gay. But it was all right for other people. The Catholic Church forbade it, but then the Church said you shouldn't do a lot things that people just went right ahead and did anyway.
In the years since then I've known a fair share of gay couples who seemed as established and content as other couples, some more some less. In a society that was slowly outgrowing the traditions of patriarchy and matriarchy, they'd made a lateral move into humanarchy. The idea of them being joined in a civil union was a no-brainer. They'd cast their lot together, shared their duties, had an implicit agreement to stand by each other, and certainly deserved to have their relationship recognized by the state if only for reasons of ownership and inheritance. Everyone had heard of couples who'd been together for years, only for one to be banished from a deathbed by the other's family. That was cruel.I interviewed a lot of show business people, and many of them were gay. Despite my mother's theory, I didn't always catch on. Rock Hudson's homosexuality must have been an open secret to all of Hollywood and half of America, but not to me. I interviewed Jodie Foster when she was 12, and she came by herself to lunch at the Old World Restaurant on Sunset, no mother, no press agent. She was mature and confident. She was a charming girl, as anyone who has seen "Freaky Friday" will testify. Did I think then that she was gay? Certainly not Did she? When it became generally known many years later, I can't say I was surprised. But she made it her own business, and in interviews I make it a practice to never discuss personal matters unless the subject brings it up. A lot of them do. At the end of the day, you get better interviews if you're a sympathetic listener than an attorney for the prosecution.
Now the idea of gay marriage is much before us. They've been made legal in some states. They are fiercely opposed, most often on religious grounds. Politicians find it prudent to play to both sides of the street by saying they "have no opposition to civil ceremonies." I'm disappointed in Obama for taking that approach. He supports the civil rights but opposes gay marriage while citing his church's teachings. At least you can't accuse him of catering to his base. I would have preferred that he'd added that a religious marriage is a matter for each church, but that the state should make no distinction in the matter of a civil ceremony.
Some politicians are held hostage by their bases. The Bush administration is thought to have been the most homophobic in recent history. In 2004, George W. Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages. This was backed by anti-marriage forces seeking a way to negate the actions of individual states in legalizing gay marriage.But let's look more closely at his administration. Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter, and a year ago he made a statement in support of same-sex marriages, adding that it should "traditionally" left up to each state. Even at the time, he declined to get on board, only observing that it was "administration policy." We learned earlier this year that Laura Bush supports the right to gay marriage. Now we learn that Ken Mehlman, head of the Republican National Committee during that time, who spearheaded the fight for the constitutional amendment, is gay.
I heard on NPR today that an interviewer for the Atlantic asked Mehlman what Bush's reaction to his news was. Mehlman replied that some days before he made his announcement, when rumors of it were circulating in GOP inner circles, George Bush reached out to him and offered help and encouragement. I was touched to learn this. Now we have to wonder: If that's the way Bush, Cheney and Mehlman thought, why was the administration's anti-gay agenda being pushed?
Was it because it seemed like a popular policy at the time? Was it playing to the party's southern evangelical base? Whatever the reasons, we now know that the word has gone out to the GOP's 2010 candidates to soft-pedal opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage. Public opinion is perceived to be shifting on the topic. It seems odd to me that on this issue, Barack Obama is more conservative than Dick Cheney, George Bush and my mother.
☛ Explaining clearly why civil unions are not a fair substitute for marriage.☛ [ 7:52 a.m. 8/27/10. Rewritten to draw a distinction between Obama's religious beliefs and his policy on civil marriage. Corrects to observe Cheney remained aloof from the Constitutional amendment in 1994. Changes "The Parent Trap" to "Freaky Friday." ]
☛ [ 1:51 p.m. 8/27. My closing line is cute, but a reader named Daniel Lebovic has shown me that it's not fair to Obama. I'm taking the unusual step of reprinting it here as a correction:
"If that's the way Bush, Cheney and Mehlman thought, why was the administration's anti-gay agenda being pushed?"
I have to address the qualifier "if" here, because I'm not sure that any of these three men "thought" in 2004 or think now that either gay marriage is a good thing, that homosexuality is genetically inherited, or that what Republicans derisively call the "homosexual lifestyle" (i.e. gay sex) is "acceptable" behavior.
Bush may simply be offering to help a friend. Such an offer of help does not indicate what Bush thinks about the fact that Ken Mehlman is gay, or what he thinks about gay people in general. We do know this about George Bush and Barack Obama:
1) Bush supported the Constitutional Amendment while in office. Obama does not (one might then ask how the latter can be deemed, at least if we are comparing the two while they were sitting Presidents, "more conservative" on the gay marriage issue). Obama repealed the HIV travel ban. Bush did not. The Matthew Shepard Act, officially the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, was signed into law by President Obama in October. It expands the federal hate crimes law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. While Bush was Governor of Texas, a hate crimes law was passed... over his veto. He did not support hate crime legislation as President. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is a proposed bill in the Congress that would prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity for civilian nonreligious employers with over 15 employees. President Barack Obama supports the bill's passage, unlike George W. Bush, who threatened to veto the measure.
2)Obama claims to be an advocate of repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (I say appears to be, because, to the extent he seems conservative on any issues relating to gay people, it may simply very well be that if he publicly and vociferously expresses his support for, say, gay marriage, independent voters (among others) or non-liberal voters who put him into office in 2008 will punish his party at the polls in 2010 and him in 2012. What do any of these men truly believe? I do not know. But we can (as we must, as long as the human brain is hard-wired to associate actions with beliefs) know how they have acted, which leads me to 3): George W. Bush, while he was governor of Texas, supported that state's anti-sodomy law. The law made sodomy illegal, but only between two persons of the same sex - not between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court struck the law down in 2003. 4) Perhaps most tellingly, Bush made the following remarks in the final Presidential debate with Kerry (the contrast with Kerry's remark is instructive):
SCHIEFFER: Both of you are opposed to gay marriage. But to understand how you have come to that conclusion, I want to ask you a more basic question. Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?
BUSH: You know, Bob, I don't know. I just don't know. I do know that we have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It's important that we do that. And I also know in a free society people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live. And that's to be honored. But as we respect someone's rights, and as we profess tolerance, we shouldn't change -- or have to change -- our basic views on the sanctity of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I think it's very important that we protect marriage as an institution, between a man and a woman. I proposed a constitutional amendment. The reason I did so was because I was worried that activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage, and the surest way to protect marriage between a man and woman is to amend the Constitution. It has also the benefit of allowing citizens to participate in the process. After all, when you amend the Constitution, state legislatures must participate in the ratification of the Constitution. I'm deeply concerned that judges are making those decisions and not the citizenry of the United States. You know, Congress passed a law called DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. My opponent was against it. It basically protected states from the action of one state to another. It also defined marriage as between a man and woman. But I'm concerned that that will get overturned. And if it gets overturned, then we'll end up with marriage being defined by courts, and I don't think that's in our nation's interests. SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry?
KERRY: We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it...But I also believe that because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can't discriminate in the workplace. You can't discriminate in the rights that you afford people. You can't disallow someone the right to visit their partner in a hospital. You have to allow people to transfer property, which is why I'm for partnership rights and so forth.
It saddens me as a gay man to hear Obama's rhetoric on the subject. I think a lot of it has to do with the public. We're at a point, finally, where more of the country is for gay marriage than opposed to it, but I can imagine that for any sitting president, coming down firmly on one side or the other will surely alienate voters and possibly cost them an election. Because of the public opinion, and as you mentioned, many of the back-peddling done by Republicans, I sense that the time is drawing near when this won't be an issue any more. But it sure would be nice to hear Obama say that us GLBT folk have the same rights to get married as everyone else before he gets out of office.
I'm glad you wrote this entry - I know that you're socially progressive, but I've noticed for a long time that you've made a point to single out films with good representations of gay characters, and bemoaned the swishy, stereotypical films and the need for films to force characters out of the closet. I recall this line from your review of The Next Best Thing:
"Watching the movie, I asked myself why so many movies with homosexuals feel that they need to be about homosexuality. Why can't a movie just get over it? I submit as evidence the magical new film "Wonder Boys," in which the homosexuality of the character played by Robert Downey Jr. is completely absorbed into the much larger notion of who he is as a person. Nobody staggers backward and gasps out that his character is gay, because of course he's gay and everybody has known that for a long time and, hey, some people are gay, ya know?"
So...you use unsourced weasel-phrases about Dubya's admin being believed to be the most homophobic ever (who said this, and why?), and then feign confusion as to how this jives with Bush's compassion, Mehlman, Lynn Cheney, etc?Could it be that your premise is flawed, and while he personally disliked same-sex marriage, Bush was politically ambivalent on the subject? More than that, he doesn't hold any prejudices towards gay Americans? I realize that won't get you free drinks at a "Bush Is Hitler" mixer, but it is a theory more logical than "What I believe Bush to be and what he actually was are two different things, so how is he fooling me?"
In the meantime, Obama made his views on gay marriage perfectly clear during the campaign. I have no idea why liberals are acting surprised now. No, wait, I do have an idea: Obama isn't serving as a liberal projection-mat for once, and you're confused. Well, so am I.
"She was mature and confident. She was a charming girl, as anyone who has seen "The Parent Trap" will testify."
Jodie Foster was in the original 'Freaky Friday' not 'Parent Trap'. Easy to confuse, as the remakes both starred Lindsay Lohan.
Illuminating post as always.
great entry, but...Jodi Foster, The Parent Trap? Maybe you meant Freaky Friday? Though Hayley Mills was pretty charming too :)
Re: Dick Cheney's belief that marriage should be defined by the states and not by a federal amendment to the Constitution. As it happens, he did state that this was his position at least once during the 2004 election campaign, at a rally in Davenport, Iowa on August 24. He also basically washed his hands of the proposed Constitutional amendment, stating that it was the president, not he, who made policy for the administration. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5817720/
Obama is a constitutional scholar, Roger. What he's saying is that marriage is a religious exercise. Civil unions will guarantee inheritance, hospital visitation, eulogies and the same tax status.
He doesn't believe homosexuality is a choice. I mean -- he's pretty up to date on the subject.
I will hold my giggles for what the Tea Party says about it.
As a lesbian who has been in a relationship for 12 years, it's hard for me to believe that the thing that I most feel compelled to comment on is that Jodie Foster wasn't in the Parent Trap. That was Hayley Mills.
Ebert: Of course it was. Just testin' you.
When I look at that clip of Palin, I am reminded of a quote by Albert Brooks in Broadcast News (thank you, IMDB):
"What do you think the Devil is going to look like if he's around? Nobody is going to be taken in if he has a long, red, pointy tail. No. I'm semi-serious here. He will look attractive and he will be nice and helpful and he will get a job where he influences a great God-fearing nation and he will never do an evil thing... he will just bit by little bit lower standards where they are important. Just coax along flash over substance... Just a tiny bit".
You know who needs to tackle Palin? Kitty Kelly. Use her muck raking for good.
Your comments about age and response to homosexual unions is interesting. My grandmother was both in 1925 and is pretty non-pulsed by it. "If they love each other, darling, what else is there for them to do but marry?"
My parents, who are what we call Red Tories in Canada (fiscal conservatives who believe in a socially progressive state) were both born in 1950 and were initially uncomfortable with the idea, although they have softened in time. We have cousins in the family who are gay and married. My parents are friendly, polite and welcoming to these relatives when we see them, but have mixed feelings about gay rights and marriage. It's the one social issue we have agreed to disagree on.
I was born at the end of the 70s and don't see a problem with two consenting adults celebrating a relationship built on love, respect and trust. I am not aware of anyone in my age cohort in our family who is uncomfortable with the idea.
George Bush got elected, in no small measure, by pandering to the Christian right. When you have an administration made of people willing to be seen walking the corridors of power carrying Bibles, you know that they must either 1) recognize the debt or 2) be fundamentalists themselves. I'm guessing it was the former.
I voted for Barack Obama, and I don't believe for a moment that President Obama cares what his church teaches on the subject. But wait, last I heard, he is a member of the United Church of Christ, which is an open, inclusive mainstream protestant church. The thing is, after reading his two books, I don't believe that Barack Obama is a believer himself. I think he is savvy enough to know that no atheist or even agnostic is going to get elected to the office of the President of the United States. The rising tide of fundamentalism is truly a force to be reckoned with, and President Obama has proven himself a pragmatist, a political animal in this area.
I live in ultra-conservative, deeply religious SE Idaho, and a couple years back our fair state's legislature passed HJ Resolution 2, which made it illegal for our state constitution to EVER recognize any union that was not between a man and a woman. Those who thought up HJ2 said they did so because they wanted to ensure that no "activist judges" could change our state constitution, and because, as the man who got the ball rolling stated on Idaho Public Television's Dialogue, he was afraid that if homosexuals were allowed to marry, it would somehow take away something from his heterosexual marriage. He didn't say how it could do that. Although HJ2 passed in the general election, I was proud that in a state of about 1,000,000 persons, over 100,000 of my fellow Idahoans voted against it. It's a start, anyway.
Between the homophobic, xenophobic tendencies that I suppose we all have, and the tensions of living in a pluralistic society, I don't know when this issue will get resolved on the public level. You've clearly demonstrated that our "leaders" follow what they perceive as the general trend of the moment on certain issues. I'm disappointed that President Obama isn't leading on this one, even as I recognize the pragmatism behind his "stance."
Thanks again, Roger, for another thoughtful essay.
Wait.. Liberace was queer??
FYI, Obama cites his personal (presumably spiritual) beliefs, but not his church's beliefs. He was a member of a UCC congregation while on the campaign trail and although he has no specific church membership now I believe he still identifies as UCC. The UCC's official denominational position supports same-sex marriage.
I believe proponents of gay marriage would make considerably more headway if they dropped the insistence that this is a rights issue, like the civil rights movement of the 1960s. For one thing, gays and lesbians have the same "right" to a legally recognized marriage to someone of the opposite sex that anyone else has. And some few have, even happily, taken advantage of this.
Rather, it's a matter of redefining marriage in the public mind, which seems to be happening. But I believe gays could have made more rapid progress if they had taken a less confrontational approach. As Roger says, you get a better response from people if you refrain from acting as judge and jury. For the gay movement to insist that gay marriage is a right that the broader population is cruelly denying them is a kind of harsh and superior judgment on their part of the rest of society.
And, for the American public at large (Roger notwithstanding), this seems to be an issue out of far left field that was just sprung on us overnight, even as the country struggles with two disastrous, unwinnable wars and, lately, a full-scale economic depression. Hence, 31 out of 31 states that have voted on gay marriage have rejected it.
This is not a good start.
I've argued the subject numerous times with my right-wing brother and found that, at the core, beneath all the arguments against equal rights for gays is this position: Gay people do not exist.
Of course it is a laughable proposition, but if gay marriage opponents cede that point then all their various rationalizations against equal rights collapse. If gay people exist then God created them. If gay people exist then they are American citizens deserving of equal rights same as any one of us. If gay people exist then relegating them to second class status is indefensibly bigoted.
Of course, gay rights opponents prefer to dance around this point. They bicker on dozens of related points - traditional definitions of marriage, civil unions, state sovereignty. They carry on like homosexuality is a choice made by some deviant rabble-rousers just for the pleasure of irritating the decent, god-fearing masses. They refer to them as if they were an affliction the country had, like an influx of killer bees, and not a group of American citizens worthy of consitutional protection. But underneath it all, the heart of the issue, is their belief that if they close their eyes and wish hard enough they can make homosexuality disappear. They fiercest opponents of equal rights forsee a day when they wake up to find victory is declared and gay people no longer dwell in their country.
Ask a gay rights opponent if gay people exist. You'll see. They hesitate.
When I was writing my book "Where You Belong," I adopted the stance not just on gay marriage, but marriage in general, that it matters more what's in your heart than in your pants. Two men or two women can be far more happily married than a lot of man/woman couples, as evidenced by the divorce rate. As long as they're consenting adults, who are we in America to deny them that? Didn't Jefferson say, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?"
Obama has proven himself to be the best Republican president since Clinton.
....Is Cheney's daughter the trained dancer who now teaches dance in Michigan? It is relevant if she went from dance training to being a stripper. Not starting rumors. Wondering.I don't know the "answerve" ...if it happend that way.
What are the statistics of women in sex-related business that go onto being gay?
How many men watch strippers thinking a stripper is genuinely interested? Raising the question, is it possible that men are the sex "objext" and that the reverse of the stereotype is more true.
(The above is just one example of inquiry of what precedes a person first linking heterosexually, and then going a different way.)
We lead in life with thoughts we nurture:
For me, I nurture heterosexuality.
For nearly two weeks once, I was more attracted to a woman sexually than a man.This was not the me I wanted and I intentionally spent a lot of time in bed with my man for two weeks following a wild night with the three of us. It wasn't my first time being with a woman, nor my last (always with my man) though it was the first time and ONLY time I could picture myself with a woman in ongoing relationship, rather than a man.
Though I don't say, "never again", I am glad I nurtured a heterosexual me, and steered away from bisexuality.
Any longterm relationship where boundaries are not reflected from words that came either, is destined to fail.
A bit of personal history...During the first 8 years (in a 23 year relationship) there was some infidelity by my ex and then there was a shift:the infidelity (to my knowledge)stopped, and every "girlfriend" (a word I use platonically) was hit on by my man.
From my personally experienced, I recommend no combining any "swinging" sex with a friend. For me, the mere pursuit was a friendship burster..Even with the internet and some publication adds of sex for pleasure (not sale) it was rarely simple. For this reason, I support the legalization of prostitution, where there is at least a clear communication that it is a time for sex...Not building a "friendship".
Desire to be loved; sexually AND mentally is universal.
Even if people who are staunch Christians would think about it, this is America. Who are they to tell anyone how to live their life? Seeing people barred from hospitals when their loved ones are dying and kicked out of homes and property as well and left with nothing when someone dies. It's just wrong. Some heterosexual couples don't take care of their spouses that well. Why can't most Christians just realize this is America and they don't get to tell everyone what to do. I'm a Christian and I really don't want most ignorant Christians telling me what to do either.
Roger,
Yup. You got it. My dad, who was born in 1925, knew that being gay was just part of the normal human continuum and raised us with that attitude. When I got married last summer, my husband and I selected a reading for our ceremony that celebrates civil marriage and its values of commitment, love, fidelity, and social stability. That reading was from the Massachusetts ruling legalizing gay marriage. One of our dear friends (a lesbian) did that reading, with her partner and their two kids in the audience. I'm certain that most of the people in attendance didn't even take note of any of that, but it was important to us that as we celebrated our marriage we made a statenment that we straight people don't exclusively own the right to marry. I really, really don't understand how those who worship a loving god can believe that a lifelong, loving commitment between two people could be wrong. People who believe that people choose to be gay should ask themselves when they chose to be straight. Oh, wait, you didn't choose? You just always were? Exactly.
I loved "The Kids Are Alright," precisely because the portrayal of the lesbian marriage was really just a marriage. Their problems and issues were universal. Gay marriage is just ... marriage.
I can no longer politically or financially support a President who has the immoral audacity to publicly state that he supports full equality for LGBT citizens...
...Just as long as they aren't allowed to marry.
In your last line did you mean Laura Bush instead of George Bush. I have never a quote from George Bush were he support marriage equality. Actually Laura Bush only said on Larry King: "that when couples are committed to each other and love each other that they ought to have the same sort of rights that everyone has." and in regards to the eventual legalization of gay marriage: "Yeah, it will come, I think." This isn't necessarily an endorsement of marriage equality. It is what of people who push civil unions say and it sounds alot like the current President's position to me. Atleast Obama was against Prop 8 and the various other state constitutional admendments. I don't recall any of the Bushes or Cheney being against these amendments.
Even though I believe the president's stance is wrong, I think it is a stretch to say that Obama is more conservative on marriage equality than George Bush.
Leon,
Were you paying attention to the speeches and the elections during the Bush Administration It was anti-gay marriage and used homophobia as a wedge issue. That's inarguable fact. The ballot initiatives in many states against gay marriage were often funded by national groups.
You still don't like the idea of gay marriage? Then, as my friend the economist Julianne Malveaux says: Don't marry a gay person.
- Barbara Ehrenreich
Hi Roger,
This is one of those political issues that I don't have a strong opinion on. Mixed feelings, actually. My position isclosest to what you stated here:
a religious marriage is a matter for each church, but that the state should make no distinction in the matter of a civil ceremony.
I could live with that.
Although, it is naive to think that it will get to that. If gay-marriage is upheld a right, the immediate pressure will be on to call it hate speech for a church to refuse to perform the marriage.
I'm surprised that you were surprised that George W. Bush reached out to Ken Mehlman. W is a warm and generous man. Not the devil that he was portrayed as for 4 years.
Probably what seems to be a shift in Republican attitudes toward gay marriage is simply casting a wide net for much needed votes for the midterms. It is a subtle reaching out that can be completely refuted by the far right and might gain some votes from the LGBT supporters Obama has disappointed so unfairly. Meanwhile, Obama holds the line with "someday soon" and many of us will simply stick with the lesser of two evils.
I take the Gene Simmons stance here: Why does anyone need to get married? Gay, straight -- if you're that much in love, just live together and settle things beforehand with some kind of cohabitation agreement. Two people can still behave responsibly, have kids, etc., without bothering with a "traditional" ceremony that has legal and financial strings attached -- and is an unnecessary invitation for a buncha other people to come watch and give presents, plus their validation.
And whatever may go seriously wrong during this untraditional scenario isn't the scenario's fault. It's the people's fault. The divorce rate suggests that it isn't legal marriage itself that keeps couples in line; it's the couple. If one person cheats or hauls in a load of drama for the partner, this probably would have been the case for them anyway -- married or not. But the married ones have a prolonged and more painful set of steps to deal with if the partnership breaks up.
In other words: Why bother getting married?
First of all, I'd like to correct your use of the term "gay marriage", as it pertains to what I think is a better term "same-sex" marriage.
I think that we are all about 90% of us or so are all degrees of bisexual. Therefore (or maybe not therefore exactly)...anyway, I think we should treat it as neutral about the sex of one's partner(s).
I hope you change it to "same-sex" marriage instead of "gay marriage."
I haven't really read the entry yet, but I already see a lot of "gay marriage" sprinkled about the piece instead of what I think is the more correct term.
I'm going to read the entry now, although I have more to say on the disturbing implications of this, which I'll say and then perhaps say some more about the entry, and I hope you change it whether or not you agree that we are all (pretty much) degrees of bisexuality...(reading)...
Okay, you used the term "gay marriage" 6 six times, which I hope is changed.
So, as just about all of us are at least a little bisexual, I think it should be called "same-sex" marriage, because just because one decides to stay with the same sex, doesn't mean that they are not attracted to the opposite sex (once again, even just a little bit).
I think there is a divisive problem with "sides" on *both* sides, the "gay" and the "straight." Like I said, I think we should treat the gender of one's partner neutrally: and also because isn't that how equality works? You can't discriminate in this country based on age, race, sexual orientation etc., which means, to have neutral feelings about those things.
I think this taking of sides is why America is so surprisingly against it (as in with what happened with Proposition 8). It's because of *both* "sides." This shouldn't be a divisive issue, but a neutral issue.
Recently, I noticed two things on television that seemed pretty minor, but were characteristic of this larger point.
On the Joy Behar show, she did a segment where she talked about something Cameron Diaz just said, which was that just because you sleep with the same sex that it doesn't mean you are gay. An enlightened and modern person, I thought. Not so with Joy (although it probably was a little bit to drum up some controversy with the panel) and she and the whole panel universally said that that can't be. What?! The culture is trying to erase bisexuality from our minds now. Then just a few days later, Stephanie Miller, the liberal radio host/CNN contributor etc. "came out" recently although, everyone knows that everywhere she went she went she said she wanted to marry Keith Olbermann and she even had a list of other husbands she would like to marry. She even said on Larry King that if she can't have Keith, then she's....now a lesbian? Now, all of her attraction to the opposite sex is going to go right out the window, magically...in this cultural muck that we're in...of taking "sides." She makes it no secret that it is political, that she is doing it "to be on the right side of history" and that she didn't feel her defending of prop. 8 was valid enough unless she "came out" and was not "on the sidelines."
I first noticed this ten years ago with the Ellen Degeneres and Anne Heche situation, when Ellen hosted Saturday Night Live.
She basically says that Anne Heche is a traitor to homosexuals everywhere when all she was doing was being bisexual and perhaps one might say modern. Ellen then ends her monologue with "so I guess I'm gonna stick with it for a while - as opposed to other people." One suspected the whole monologue was an attack on Anne Heche, but because it possibly wasn't, it was pretty funny and it could have just as easily have been her poking fun at herself, but at the end of it, she makes it clear that she feels that Anne Heche's behavior is being a traitor to homosexuals.
Here's the monologue (which I found funny, until the end)
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/01/01imono.phtml
So, this is why I think a lot of people are opposing prop.8. We have a "straight" side and we have a "gay" side, when it should never have been about sides in the first place. I think the fear everybody talks about--and I think is somewhat legitimate--is that they are afraid their kids will take a "side" and become "gay". You can see it in the culture that bisexuals are being discriminated against: which I think is really just about all of us! There's this, "you're either with us or against us" kind of mentality on *both* sides. Therefore, the fear is that, once the kids rebel, they may never come back. Stephanie Miller is not coming back, even though she obviously is attracted to the opposite sex. This is for political reasons. Parents may see their kids doing this, just for, perhaps, rebellious reasons, or "hip" reasons or whatever "side" reasoning.
Isn't it strange when people say that someone is courageous etc. for "coming out" and just being the ONLY way that God intended them to be? If that is the ONLY way God intended them to be, then we should treat that as neutral, not as a positive. If you strip it down to the essentials, neutral is neutral. You shouldn't get a medal JUST for "coming out." It obviously should be representative of the integrity of the HONESTY of the person and not their genitals. We shouldn't be handing out medals for someone being the ONLY thing that their nature intended them to be; If you are 100% straight you don't get a medal, and if you are 100% gay you don't get a medal for ONLY that, but perhaps for the knowledge that one knows enough about the subject and oneself to see that that is so and then if you want to give that person a medal for coming out on top of that, that medal should represent their honesty IN TOTAL, and not the honesty of their genitals.
Basically, please change it to "same-sex" marriage so this doesn't become an issue of "sides." If doesn't say on the job applications, We shall not dicriminate against race, age, but it is mandatory to give a homosexual a high five. This is absurd.
The gay community overreached by not only wanting equality, but by also asking the government to change the definition and meaning of a word that has existed for thousands of years and is a holy sacrament to most Americans. Homosexuals are asking America to do something no civilization has done before- recognize and allow homosexual unions without prejudice by granting those unions the exact same rights that accompany heterosexual marriage. The problem here is that while they ask America to usher in something brand new, they are unwilling to call it something brand new. Had they accepted, or better yet suggested, a new term to describe this new phenomena (some have suggested "garriage") then they would have received far less resistance. But instead they wanted to change the definition of the word marriage, and that was asking too much.
Some homosexuals object to the idea of accepting a new term, claiming that giving their unions a different name is itself a form of discrimination -- like separate bathrooms for blacks and whites. I disagree with that argument, but if this is really their objection, then why not have the state offer only "civil unions" to gay and straight couples equally? Why not leave it to the private sector (churches and the like) to "marry" couples. This would give gay couples total equality -- in both rights and in name -- but could also allow people like me to respect the current definition of marriage as it exists. I believe they haven't pursued this because they want something more than equal rights -- they want to own the name of a word that they've never owned. And it's not the governments business to give it to them.
In short, I think most Americans deep down feel what I feel: that gay couples should have equal rights, but not the right to have the government subversively change the definition of such a sacred and long-existing term as marriage. Gay couples need to either accept the uniqueness of their unions by accepting a unique term, or advocate an equal term (civil union) to be given by the government without prejudice, and leave the definition of marriage alone, to be argued about within the private sector.
@Moncef Gridda
"Obama is a constitutional scholar, Roger. What he's saying is that marriage is a religious exercise. Civil unions will guarantee inheritance, hospital visitation, eulogies and the same tax status."
Most people I know, including my parents, went to a city hall and came back married. They never had to perform a "religious exercise."
How many straight couples want a "civil union?"
Obama is no "constitutional scholar." And Moncef, you do not know the difference between a rite and a right; an apologist and a bigot.
"Was it because it seemed like a popular policy at the time? Was it playing to the party's southern evangelical base?"
Yes, and yes. See Karl Rove, and G. W. Bush's history of advocacy of political approaches during his father's last two campaigns.
I've got a brilliant solution to those opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds! It's quite simple, aligns perfectly with your faith, doesn't involve trampling rights, and it's this:
If a gay person asks you to marry them, just say no.
Roger said:
"Whatever the reasons, we now know that the word has gone out to the GOP's 2010 candidates to soft-pedal opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage. Public opinion is perceived to be shifting on the topic".
I wonder if it may be partially correct to say that public opinion is shifting on the IMPORTANCE of this topic. I would not get behind a candidate whose was anti-gay marriage, but I also would not support a pro-gay marriage candidate whose entire agenda hinged on that issue. "It's the Gay Marriage Issue, Dummy" wouldn't have served Clinton well as a meme.
I hope this doesn't sound insensitive to gay marriage advocates. Quite the opposite. I guess I am saying that a large percentage of those against gay marriage would not be as upset by its existence as their opinion would indicate. I'm anti-smoking, but I not to the degree that I resent the little shelter out back of our office where smokers gather like lepers.
Excellent essay, Roger. As a (legally) married gay man, it warms my heart to read articles like this from people I respect. My husband and I will have been married for 2 years next week, together for 7 years. We've outlasted most of our straight friends, heh. My Catholic family gives us full support.
One small quibble, although it depends on large part how you contextualize it. For all Bush's behind-closed-doors support, he endorsed the federal marriage ban and tried to push it through Congress during his tenure: a ban that Obama, whatever his personal beliefs, voted against while in the Senate. How people talk about issues is certainly important, but I'm much more concerned with what they actually do about them. I'll take the lukewarmness of Obama's opinions about marriage over Bush's actual record on marriage any day.
Mary Q., I wonder if you could elaborate on your experience with, say, pictures?
Just kidding and being puerile.
Meanwhile, I am going to sit back and watch others tee off on one's ability to 'nurture' a sexual preference.
"George Bush reached out to him and offered help and encouragement. I was touched to learn this. Now we have to wonder: If that's the way Bush, Cheney and Mehlman thought, why was the administration's anti-gay agenda being pushed?"
Because the administration was not anti-gay, it was anti-gay marriage. One may disagree with that position (i.e., the position against gay marriage) without assuming that it is anti-gay or homophobic. Similarly, one can be against affirmative action without being bigoted against minorities. Read Charles Krauthammer's column on the tendency of liberals to disbelieve that conservatives can have legitimate reasons for their positions: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082605233.html
You don't know why the Bush administration pushed for anti-gay state ballot measures in 2004? Isn't it blindingly obvious? It was an integral part of their re-election strategy: boost the evangelical vote by giving them a reason to head to the polls.
That fact that Mehlman went along with it demonstrates what an ass he is.
By M. Cusumano on August 27, 2010 8:57 AM
If gay people exist then God created them.
Indeed if there is an absolute that is really absolute, it is the sanctity and value of each human life. Taking this as axiomatic, gays deserve consideration of their special needs like anybody else.
Aside from property matters and protection of the vulnerable, governments should have no voice in people's domestic arrangements.
Homo marriages are very odd to me, but I would not oppose, since it seems to be a trend of the times; I feel pity of them, even the Gay Parade everywhere is so distasteful; but not all of them are noisy/scandalous; some are very nice people and those I like and tolerate. What I do not approve is the child rearing thing; in 15 years or so will be known the first cases of problems with these children, it would not surprise me.
It appears they are both wives or husbands to the mate;but reality is that the couple husband-wife is obvious in both genders; I saw an african-american comedian in Larry King show and was obvious she was the husband in the couple.
Dear Roger,
Surely you, the Grand Poobah of the internet, are already aware of this "flash mob" video protesting Target's anti-gay campaign contribution, but I thought your readers might enjoy the clip found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FhMMmqzbD8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FhMMmqzbD8
Thank you so much for your though felt comments. I am a 56 man and grew up in the Pentecostal Church all my life, that's all I knew, yet I always knew I was gay. The comment "you choose to be gay" has been thrown around a lot. I "chose to be straight" because of the Church. Even though I know the Church taught of the love if Christ, his long suffering and forgiveness, His teaching of judge not those around you. When I came out as gay 100% of my Church friends turned their back. Since that 12yrs ago I have found a wonderful soul mate, a man that we shares a deep and abiding love together. From my upbringing I believe if you wish to pray (where-ever)of ANY faith I feel you have that right, it's not for me to interfere. Yet I have seen that OUR committed relationship is objected to and even voted against and lead by those that call themselves "Christians". How does our stable, monogamous committed love and gay partnership in any way degrade THEIR marriage?
"If that's the way Bush, Cheney and Mehlman thought, why was the administration's anti-gay agenda being pushed?"
I have to address the qualifier "if" here, because I'm not sure that any of these three men "thought" in 2004 or think now that either gay marriage is a good thing, that homosexuality is genetically inherited, or that what Republicans derisively call the "homosexual lifestyle" (i.e. gay sex) is "acceptable" behavior.
Bush may simply be offering to help a friend. Such an offer of help does not indicate what Bush thinks about the fact that Ken Mehlman is gay, or what he thinks about gay people in general. We do know this about George Bush and Barack Obama: 1) Bush supported the Constitutional Amendment while in office. Obama does not (one might then ask how the latter can be deemed, at least if we are comparing the two while they were sitting Presidents, "more conservative" on the gay marriage issue). Obama repealed the HIV travel ban. Bush did not. The Matthew Shepard Act, officially the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, was signed into law by President Obama in October. It expands the federal hate crimes law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. While Bush was Governor of Texas, a hate crimes law was passed... over his veto. He did not support hate crime legislation as President. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is a proposed bill in the Congress that would prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity for civilian nonreligious employers with over 15 employees. President Barack Obama supports the bill's passage, unlike George W. Bush, who threatened to veto the measure.
2)Obama claims to be an advocate of repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (I say appears to be, because, to the extent he seems conservative on any issues relating to gay people, it may simply very well be that if he publicly and vociferously expresses his support for, say, gay marriage, independent voters (among others) or non-liberal voters who put him into office in 2008 will punish his party at the polls in 2010 and him in 2012. What do any of these men truly believe? I do not know. But we can (as we must, as long as the human brain is hard-wired to associate actions with beliefs) know how they have acted, which leads me to 3): George W. Bush, while he was governor of Texas, supported that state's anti-sodomy law. The law made sodomy illegal, but only between two persons of the same sex - not between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court struck the law down in 2003. 4) Perhaps most tellingly, Bush made the following remarks in the final Presidential debate with Kerry (the contrast with Kerry's remark is instructive):
SCHIEFFER: Both of you are opposed to gay marriage. But to understand how you have come to that conclusion, I want to ask you a more basic question. Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?
BUSH: You know, Bob, I don't know. I just don't know. I do know that we have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It's important that we do that.
And I also know in a free society people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live.
And that's to be honored.
But as we respect someone's rights, and as we profess tolerance, we shouldn't change -- or have to change -- our basic views on the sanctity of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I think it's very important that we protect marriage as an institution, between a man and a woman.
I proposed a constitutional amendment. The reason I did so was because I was worried that activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage, and the surest way to protect marriage between a man and woman is to amend the Constitution.
It has also the benefit of allowing citizens to participate in the process. After all, when you amend the Constitution, state legislatures must participate in the ratification of the Constitution.
I'm deeply concerned that judges are making those decisions and not the citizenry of the United States. You know, Congress passed a law called DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act.
My opponent was against it. It basically protected states from the action of one state to another. It also defined marriage as between a man and woman.
But I'm concerned that that will get overturned. And if it gets overturned, then we'll end up with marriage being defined by courts, and I don't think that's in our nation's interests.
SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry?
KERRY: We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.
I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it...But I also believe that because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can't discriminate in the workplace. You can't discriminate in the rights that you afford people. You can't disallow someone the right to visit their partner in a hospital. You have to allow people to transfer property, which is why I'm for partnership rights and so forth.
**********************************************
Bush could not bring himself to say that homosexuals should be treated with dignity. He simply muttered something about "we can choose to treat them with respect."
This statement by Bush makes one wonder what "help and encouragement" Bush offered to Mehlman. Aversion therapy, perhaps? Gay "deprogramming?" Also, Bush dodged the question of whether homosexuality is innate. If he had said it was, he would have angered the class of voters (Evangelicals) who won him the election. Perhaps he feared saying that being gay was a "lifestyle choice," or a "choice" because whenever a straight person makes that comment, the question "When did you decide to be straight" is properly before him.
Going beyond these four points and Bush and Obama (the latter of whose public acts and words, listed above, to me do not suggest that Obama is more conservative on the issue of gay rights than Bush is), there are the cases of Cheney and Mehlman.
Consider how enraged Cheney became when Kerry mentioned the fact that Cheney's daughter, Liz, was a lesbian. Roger, what do you think? Do you think Cheney was offended because Kerry breached some rule of political etiquette or (among other possible less noble reasons) because Kerry was drawing attention to a fact that embarrassed Cheney? As Bill Maher said, Dick and Lynne Cheney's position after the mentioning of Liz' name in the debate and Cheney's subsequent outrage can be summed up as follows: "Our daughter, against whom we are allowing our party to discriminate, is someone we love so much that she must never be mentioned in public again - by our opposition, that is." Cheney is now seen as a beacon of tolerance simply because he does not support a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. "Leave it up to the states," he says. Well, here's the question, Dick: What you do think YOUR state should do? Would you support a Wyoming Supreme Court decision or Wyoming Constitutional Amendment declaring same-sex marriage to be legal?
As far as Mehlman is concerned, is he in fact supportive of gay marriage? I dunno. He has the (relative) luxury of coming out now that he no longer is the mouthpiece for a homophobic Administration. Obama, I think, is hypocritical in that he claims to support gay rights but won't support the right to homosexual marriage. But Bush was worse than a hypocrite: he not only opposed the above-mentioned laws granting (more) equal treatment of homosexuals (plus he supported laws that targeted gay people for unequal treatment), but he claimed he was doing it to enhance our democracy. Spare us.
Ebert: This is so useful that I've taken the unusual step of posting it as a footnote to the entry.
Thanks for an excellent article, Mr. Ebert!
@ Mary: What does your resistance to bisexual feelings have to do with any of this?
And what does this mean? "Any longterm relationship where boundaries are not reflected from words that came either, is destined to fail."
Looking in my Webster's, the first words in the definition are "the state of being married; relation between husband and wife."
I personally don't see any reason why homosexuals and heterosexuals should have different legal rights, but the word marriage has always meant "husband and wife" as far as I know. I suspect resistance would be much less if the word "marriage" wasn't used. Words have power.
"It seems odd to me that on this issue, Barack Obama is more conservative than Dick Cheney, George Bush and my mother."
My mother, too - rest her soul. She was the wife of Evangelical minister for 60 years who proudly promised to attend my same-sex marriage to my partner of 20-years just one month before Mom died unexpectedly. "I wouldn't miss it for the world, honey, 'cause God is love", she told me.
I have to keep remembering that in the face of all the hatred. My family loves me, and I suspect all the hate mongers love their gay family members, too - just behind closed doors.
There is no scriptural support for preventing non-beleivers from gay marriage. The bible is fairly read as binding ONLY on those who profess to believe it,no more than a Muslim expects an atheist to pray 5 times per day and fast during Ramadan. Hence, a religious argument against gay marriage, though coherent and valid, is not one of necessity in civil matters, rather a respected constituent in the matter of debating community standards. To that end, in Canada, the law was amended specifically to protect churches from harassing lawsuits to perform such services.
In the Catholic church, marriage is a sacrament which incarnates the body of Christ in the holy spirit. The redemption of man was not accomplished in an invisible manner,hence the nature of people requires outward symbols of inner grace. The nature of that symbol of marriage is its opposite sex procreative union, evidenced in biology. Hence, an argument against same-sex marriage requires that any blend of naturalism and moralism can only be rationed as a work of God, lest we take violence in nature as a moral justification for the same in society. Diverse societies instead discuss and debate such matters, including objectors on moral grounds.
In Spain, where I'm from, real gay marriage was legalised in 2005 and actually CALLED marriage. The right wing made a fuss and organised demonstrations against the law; when it passed, it dropped off the right's agenda altogether and hasn't been mentioned in political discourse again.
All I can think of when I see these debates is that my country hasn't exploded, criminality rates haven't gone anywhere, neither have divorce rates, we aren't any more degenerate, the entirety of Spanish children haven't been forced into a "homosexual lifestyle"...
All in all, five years later it's still the same country, except without "degrees" of marriage or unions and with a good deal more freedom and normalcy.
Many pro same-sex marriage adherents often reject polyamoury,multiple partner marriages, which is what an acceptance of gay marriage (on legal grounds) would most certainly entail. Unlike gay marriage, there are cross-cultural examples going back to thousands of years and the obvious objection that "rights" is not a game of "survivor", sex in, number out.
I firmly believe that politicians (on both sides) need this and other social issues (abortion, immigration, guns...) simply because it creates a wedge and defines the "base" of each party. Many voters don't look past the 1 or 2 issues that interest them and these wedges are powerful for the emotion they create. Without them, politicians need to rely on voters to actually pay attention and make informed decisions, a task that is, perhaps counter-intuitively, more difficult in the current media age.
For those taking the "you can't change the definition of marriage" angle.
The traditional definition of marriage (from a Judeo-Christian tradition, anyway) is actually: one man, several women, the women were all property, and intermarriage was not allowed.
We "changed" the definition of marriage to mean a one-to-one ratio, not one-to-several.
We "changed" the definition of marriage to acknowledge that women are actually human beings, not property.
We "changed" the definition of marriage to allow interracial and inter-religious marriages.
You are going to have to come up with a better argument, because the semantics thing certainly doesn't indicate that we need to create separate-but-equal policies. The definition has been changed in the past and to the betterment of the institution.
Someone's really hitting the hot-button topics lately. What's next, abortion?
I slyly suspect this may be an attempt to outdo the number of comments on the creationism/evolution debate.
Although I do agree I had the same initial reaction as you, and then I tapered off to the "there's more serious things we should be putting our energies to stop than people loving each other."
I don't think anyone really pushes these questions about Marriage Equality (calling it Gay Marriage already indicates it's a separate but equal entity)...And I wonder why no one asks questions like this:
1. Why do you feel that expanding marriage to its LGBT citizens threatens the traditional concept of marriage in this country?
2. Will allowing marriage equality take anything away from your current marital rights and benefits?
We're suffering transparency in this issue because we have "fierce" advocates who are afraid for their reelection thus sacrificing their promises for actual progress.
The consensus might be changing but unless we expose the opposition and so-so advocates for who they really are, progress will keep taking more time.
As long as marriage is followed by words such as "sanctity" and "religious institution" no progress will be done. Marriage should be defined as a political institution and nothing else. The government already controls the recognition of marriage thus proving the fact that whatever definition it subscribes to is a pure governmental.
But this is the retrograding society we live in. We are pushing back against progress because we're afraid of what we don't know -- even if, after-all, we've done all right.
I don't think anyone really pushes these questions about Marriage Equality (calling it Gay Marriage already indicates it's a separate but equal entity)...And I wonder why no one asks questions like this:
1. Why do you feel that expanding marriage to its LGBT citizens threatens the traditional concept of marriage in this country?
2. Will allowing marriage equality take anything away from your current marital rights and benefits?
We're suffering transparency in this issue because we have "fierce" advocates who are afraid for their reelection thus sacrificing their promises for actual progress.
The consensus might be changing but unless we expose the opposition and so-so advocates for who they really are, progress will keep taking more time.
As long as marriage is followed by words such as "sanctity" and "religious institution" no progress will be done. Marriage should be defined as a political institution and nothing else. The government already controls the recognition of marriage thus proving the fact that whatever definition it subscribes to is a pure governmental.
But this is the retrograding society we live in. We are pushing back against progress because we're afraid of what we don't know -- even if, after-all, we've done all right.
Just because you marry someone of the same sex doesn't mean they are gay, hence my calling for your correcting the term that can't really be corrected Now, I suppose, "gay marriage."
If a bisexual marries someone of the same sex, it doesn't mean they are gay, ya dig?
So, what, Anne Heche is straight because she's with a guy, even though she was with Ellen Degeneres, but if she married a women tomorrow she's gay?
Come on.
What is all this about Obama seeing it only from a constitutional basis and his actions having nothing to do with the church?
He's quoted on the campaign (it was recorded) as saying that he believes in civil unions, that these should bring the same legal protections as the religious rite of marriage. Asked to explain why not marriage, he said it had to do with his religious beliefs and that it's something he didn't back because "God's in the mix."
Those were his words. I don't know whether he really believes this or whether it's politically expedient to not be FOR marriage (Biden came out against it in the campaign too -- why are people ever surprised about it?)
I also agree that it should not be called gay marriage. However, I would prefer that the term used should be same-gender marriage" rather than "same-sex marriage". We need to get the conservatives minds off what people do in bed, and the word sex in the phrase doesn't help do that.
By Martin G on August 27, 2010 2:17 PM
In Spain, where I'm from, real gay marriage was legalised in 2005 and actually CALLED marriage.
I'm glad to be part Spanish.
This is what I'm talking about.
Hell, just call it marriage...another neutral term.
A previous poster wrote: "For one thing, gays and lesbians have the same "right" to a legally recognized marriage to someone of the opposite sex that anyone else has."
Shockingly few decades ago, people were making almost exactly the same argument with a few different words (capitalized for emphasis): "For one thing, have the same "right" to a legally recognized marriage to someone of the that anyone else has."
Sounds pretty disgusting in retrospect, doesn't it? But people believed that just as fervently as some people believe today's version.
And it won't be very long before the current version sounds just as awful.
[I]By Pelham on August 27, 2010 8:46 AM:
"I believe proponents of gay marriage would make considerably more headway if they dropped the insistence that this is a rights issue, like the civil rights movement of the 1960s. For one thing, gays and lesbians have the same "right" to a legally recognized marriage to someone of the opposite sex that anyone else has. And some few have, even happily, taken advantage of this."[/I]
Elementary to the right of marriage in the United States is the actual grant to choose one's spouse (provided the chosen spouse also consents). To inform a gay person that he/she has an equal right to marry--so long has he/she marries someone of the opposite sex--is really no 'right' at all. Or, it is a right that, according to your overly narrow and intellectually dishonest definition, only confers a benefit to heterosexuals while maintaining a discriminatory barrier against homosexuals. You play a game that, while possibly clever in the semantic sense, ignores the substantive issue.
Thank you, Roger, for the article.
I am a heterosexual woman, and I grew up in a very fundamentalist church. I remember being taught that homosexuality "is an abomination in the bible, which is the worst kind of sin", and that homosexual individuals were going to "go to hell, because no matter how many times they pray, God won't listen because they are still sinning".
I also remember some of the kids that I grew up with. Children, with no thoughts on sexuality whatsoever... but looking back on it I remember clearly - they were gay.
I, through firsthand experience, believe that people that are opposed to same-sex marriage are simply objecting to Homosexuality in the first place.
A coworker friend of mine told me that she is against same sex marriage "because it just isn't right - being gay is a sin". She is a dear, but we have agreed to disagree.
I simply can't comprehend why it shouldn't be viewed as a rights issue, as someone earlier in the comments have suggested. It is all about rights!
Before moving on, I'd like to make the quick point, of course, to the separation between church and state.
That being said I'd like to tackle the "Christians" themselves. I put the word in quotes because I cannot comprehend how such a superiority-minded, hatemongering, judgemental, and ignorant group of people can turn around and say that they follow the teachings of a man named Jesus who they call the Christ.
Whether or not you or I identify as a Christian is not an issue. Being so familiar with the bible myself, I am able to identify that the Jesus of the Christian bible is a peaceful, meek, humble man, who sought equality and fairness beyond race, degree of "sin", or social status. He also taught that the pathway leading to "the kindgdom of god" - an afterlife of happiness and wealth - was to "Love the lord your god with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself".
Therefore folks, if you identify yourself as a Christian:
.....Just try to be a little more neighborly?
I will get off of my soapbox now, and thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Ebert:
I suspect that the fundamental rationale of any animosity towards homosexuality/lesbianism and gay marriage is biological. Same-sex couples cannot procreate. If too many same-sex unions proliferate, humanity's very existence is imperiled. Well, same-sex couples desiring children can hire surrogates. However, I imagine anti-gay forces believe this smacks of prostitution. Sigh, I guess they cannot be appeased on this issue...
Of course, other factors foster homophobia. For example, my brother committed suicide over 18 years ago because he was afraid that he was gay. I don't believe his belief was due to any inherent love of men, because he often blatantly and vociferously denounced homosexuality. I remember that he even refused to wear a pullover with a "San Francisco" logo on it because of that city's historical condonation of gayness. I believe he thought he was gay because, as he told us, many different people told him he acted "gay", which to him meant weak and effeminate. I never noticed that in my brother, but somehow those cumulative comments affected his reasoning. Even if he had been, my parents and I would not have cared for him any less.
Other factors, of course, include religion's condemnation of homosexuality as a sin, again probably because it was not procreative. Greek Orthodoxy is certainly not an exception to this attitude. Therefore, like many subjected to obdurate church doctrine, I was wary of "gays", "fags", and "queers" while growing up. Being called any of those three epithets was the ultimate insult.
But, hopefully, objective knowledge helps one deal with "gay fear". Of course, you learn that, hey, gays are people, too, and that they have their assets and liabilities like anyone else. One of my best friends is gay; he married his partner in Massachusetts, which as you are doubtlessly aware legally recognizes gay marriage. He is an admirable person in many ways, a perplexing one in others, and a downright annoyance in still others. However, he is a stalwart ally whom I wish I had met earlier in life.
Fear due to ignorance is gay marriage's greatest obstacle. In our age, as information expands exponentially, that fear diminishes (we hope, at least). So, I believe, legal enactment of same-sex marriage in all 50 states is incrementally inevitable.
I'm curious as to your opinion, Roger, on whether, in states where same-sex marriage is legal, if the Catholic Church (or any church opposed to same-sex marriage on doctrinal grounds) can or should be forced to hold/perform same-sex marriages?
Ebert: Should not. Unconstitutional.
Thanks again for a well-reasoned and lovely commentary.
What I always wondered, was WHY do gay people want to get married? The institution is not for them, and it makes no sense that they would want anything to do with it. What they should be fighting for, is a similar institution that is specifically made for their special circumstances. The reason so many people are against gay marriage, is that they come off as trying to change a time-tested institution to cater to a tiny minority. I have met MANY gay people who are so wrapped up in being gay, that they forget to just be a person. I am personally sick of having to hear about it. Don't we have WAY more important things to do?
Sure Ebert and alike like to delude themselves that politicians are "Bible freaks" and that's why they're banning gay marriages.
But in reality nobody cares for what Bible says because for instance it says "Don't kill", "Don't steal" or "Don't lie" but they mostly do just that. They pillage countries around the world while butchering people they also steal from their own people and of course they tell big lies to show themselves as noble people that spread democracy.
But when it comes to gay marriages then they're Bible Freaks, I mean just look at them they are going against constitution that tells religion and state must be separated.
Then Ebert gets disappointed because politicians and especially Obama find it prudent to play to both sides of the street by saying they "have no opposition to civil ceremonies."
But that's Obamas job - the civil rights. He is not a theologian to say to church or any religion what they should do - you know that 'religion and state must be separated' thing.
Church didn't have anything to do with marring people until 13th century and it probably should of stayed out of it so why bother if they don't want gays.
All we gay folk are trying to do is get the chance to declare legally and publicly the desire for and celebration of monogamy, a privilege which straight folk have enjoyed for a long time.
We're not allowed to be single and sexually active; we're not allowed to be monogamous and faithful. To echo M. Cusumano, haters don't want us to exist, much less have equal rights. But exist we do and will until the earth turns to dust.
Of course, if we were allowed this right, we'd be so normal, no one could vilify us. Without fuel, the fire of hatred is reduced from a conflagration to a mere ember and then quietly dies.
Imagine haters with nothing to do.
Society is changing. It is gradual, and unless you look very closely, it's very hard to spot. But slowly, we are moving into an era of tolerance. Traditional ideas of male dominance and female submission are dying out rapidly. The same will go with traditional views on marriage. My favorite quote on tradition: "Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's right."
Being an atheist, I have no reason whatsoever to oppose gay marriage. Nearly all opposition to it stems from bigotry and homophobia (mostly, but not always, coming from the religious right). Bush had to attack gay marriage because he had to appeal to the masses, the same way President Obama must say that he prays everyday to keep from causing a political upheaval.
But, like I said, society is changing, and for the better. You were young in the 60s, Mr. Ebert-surely you remember the days when abortion was illegal, when equality among blacks and whites was still an issue, and when movies were still censored? All of those things changed-it just took us a while. 30 years from now, there will be no question as to who was right on this issue.
"Bush could not bring himself to say that homosexuals should be treated with dignity. He simply muttered something about "we can choose to treat them with respect."
This point makes me very sad. Every person should be regarded as a human heart, with dignity.
Memo to anyone who asserts "words have power:" yes they do. They have such power that no matter what same-sex couples have done to legally identify their relationships, heterosexual bigots have fought consistently to stymie or deny. For examples, see the current court case in Wisconsin to prevent ANY recognition of same sex couples in a "marriage-like" relationship; the case a year or two back in Florida, where one member of a lesbian couple was not merely prevented from seeing her same-sex spouse while that spouse lay dying, the hospital staff who were responsible for that travesty made it clear that they flouted the law (the two women had every legal instrument available to them: durable power of attorney, etc, etc) because in Florida they believed they could. Anyone - gay or straight - who says "just don't call it marriage" and then does not vigorously campaign for domestic partnerships that are legally the equal of opposite-sex marriages is just a lying, mealy-mouthed bigot. Same-sex couples are demanding to be "married" because our society has chosen to hang a startling number of legal rights on that POWERFUL word.
Lovely article. I have been married for over a year to wonderful woman because Iowa has once again shown itself to be a marvellously progressive state. We are almost over the top of the mountain!
Religion plays a role in marriage. If not for religion, man and woman would not be married. So why not get rid of marriage all together, get rid of divorce, get rid of allimony, pallimony, and tax incentive. If we get rid of marriage, then everyone would be equal.
@JYG
Words have power. That's exactly the point. Try explaining to someone that you are in a "domestic partnership" or "civil union". Most people don't get it. If you say someone is your "partner", they may think you mean business partner. It takes minutes to explain the relationship and at the end it's still not the same level of commitment. That was actually a large point during the Prop8 trial and something expressed very eloquently by all of the plaintiffs.
This YouTube video is a reenactment of part of the trial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wnvMSIIiHc
Watch it and you might get it. Or this from 11:00 on (on the difference between DPs and marriage):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwBsnklZpwM
Then there are the legal issues. A lot of people are dependent on the legal and monetary benefits marriage brings. Even if states recognize DPs or CUs (and the nature of those vary extremely widely), they still don't have any federal recognition, which is important for taxation and literally over one thousand other benefits. DOMA currently prevents this, but with DOMA gone, the state would still only recognize marriage and no other unions.
Marriage simply isn't this unchanging, sacred institution. That's either ignorance or a lie. It has changed and been redefined all throughout history. It certainly didn't mean a monogamous relationship between equals even a couple hundred years ago.
There were same-sex marriage ceremonies in antiquity. There were Roman emperors who married men. Some such rites existed even in the early Christian church.
My biggest complaint about President Obama (but it applied even more to George W Bush) and his rhetoric is that we are suppose to be the moral torch bearers for the rest of the world when it comes to human rights. Especially during the Bush administration there was constant references made to leading the world toward democracy. All while we did and continue to (under President Obama, who should be our leader on the subject) allow this country and the states to openly and outright strip us of our freedoms. We can't marry in most states and we can't even serve the country we love.
Recently, I read the following letter in the Athens News (in Athens, Ohio), in regards to opposition to gay marriage (and Proposition 8) :
http://www.athensnews.com/ohio/article-31883-allowing-gay-marriage-would-hurt-everyone-with-a-soul-hope-for-heaven.html
I had responded to a similar letter from the same guy, a couple of months ago, and I felt the need to respond again... This was my response :
http://www.athensnews.com/ohio/article-31933-religious-arguments-donrst-hold-up-under-logical-examination.html
I posted earlier, but after thinking about it a bit, I wanted to add something else:
WHO CARES?
Other than the tiny minority of gays in the world, who REALLY thinks this should be any kind of priority right now? Can we please stop the flooding, and put out the fires before we start worrying so much about something that affects so few? This is not an issue of safety. No one is in danger here. Gay people are protected under the constitution just like everyone else. The world is burning down around us, and we wonder "Hey, wouldn't it be nice if Tom and Dick could get married?".
I don't get it.
Sorry, that was directed at KWJ. Got confused there.
Anyone should really watch the first video. I'm surprised it hasn't more views, or maybe there is another version of it. There isn't a more powerful and moving way to say that the word "marriage" alone makes a huge difference in a relationship and how other people relate to you.
One argument I've heard in favor of gay marriage has always confused me--the argument that if a gay couple is married, then one partner can leave his things to the other in his will. But if a millionaire widow can leave her millions to some insufferable chihuahua, then why would a marriage be necessary? Now I haven't done much research on this so for all I know there are some sort of inheritance laws out there, but if anyone can shed some light on this...
Bah, humbug! this is just your typical liberal agenda pushing equality, understanding, and humanity.
I think that Keyes makes the most important case.
If the constitution defines marriage as "only for 2 persons of different sex" then it makes no sense, legally, to let gay people get married (with each other).
So, can't the constitution change? I mean, not just like that, of course. But I see no reason why this shouldn't happen if the people are OK with it. Because, really, it all comes down to whether people care about others or hate/don't like them.
Now, about the matter of religion. I guess the fundamental rules can't formally change (unless the Pope.. oh, any way) but doesn't Christianity say that you shouldn't have sex before marriage? Is that EVER the case? But, of course, this is not as obvious as 2 people being of the same sex.
I mean, it just makes no sense to hold on to some things that were written so long ago and do not apply to today's situation (if it ever applied at all). But religion IS a mix of some sensible and some absurd rules by its nature...
PS: You, your mother and commenter Kassie really moved me :)
I'm one of those liberals who often gets annoyed by the fact that I don't think Obama is doing enough for progressive causes. On the other hand, I'm enough of a realist to understand why that's the case and to know that just because I happen to think something like, say, single-payer universal health care is the best option, that doesn't make it viable at this point in time.
But I don't get the gay rights stance of the Obama administration. I'd thought the era of separate but equal was in the past, and yet to me that's exactly what civil unions are. As at least a couple court rulings have stated, you can't grant people the same rights as other people and then call it by a different name just because calling it by the same name makes other people uncomfortable (rather like that unwieldy sentence there will probably make my mother want to reach for her red pen).
I'm in a relationship of a sort with another man. 20 years ago if I'd been in any kind of a romantic relationship, I would've thought there was no chance of marriage; that the best we could hope for was permanent nebulousness to our status.
Now, though, we're close to full marriage rights, and that pleases me. My friend and I have an odd, movie-style relationship, full of banter and little moments. If we were in a movie, I'd be the wacky one and he'd be the more sober one, who eventually would come to admit his true feelings.
Well, with any luck he and I are in a romantic comedy and sometime after our series of comic misunderstandings, scenes establishing the nature of our relationship and exasperated phone calls to our friends, we'll get a third act that concludes with marriage.
Of course I suppose if we're very unlucky we're actually at the start of a Michael Bay film and the end will feature us having to watch New York City get blown up while very loud Linkin Park music plays in the background, then one of us is obligated to make out with Megan Fox before dying to save the world by blowing up an asteroid or something.
@By Brian Newman
Gay people want to get married for the same people straight people want to get married. The idea that the institution is not "for them" is completely arbitrary. The fact is, their circumstances aren't that special, as same sex marriages are very much the same as opposite sex marriages, and don't change the time-tested institution any more than it's been changed over and over again throughout history.
Wanting to get married to the consenting single adult of your choice is being a person. Not being allowed to do that is a far bigger problem than having to hear about it.
It's perhaps worth remembering that "traditional" marriage is a contract between two men: a groom and his father-in-law. Really only within the last 200 years have we recognized that women are not property to be bestowed. We have long since uncoupled procreation from marriage, and married is no longer inherently gendered, with women submitting to their husbands. There is really no legitimate logical reason to deny civil marriage to any gay couple
Indeed, I & my wife are one of the 18,000 couples married in California during the Interregnum prior to PropH8--and still married (Prop8 was not retroactive). No straight marriages have foundered because of our marriage. No one stopped procreating. Really, nothing changed very much, except for us personally, and our family. And for us a great deal changed.
Religious arguments don't hold water for a number of reasons. First, civil marriage is separate from religious marriage, and remains so as long as any couple can stand in front of the country clerk and be married.
Second, churches are constitutionally guaranteed freedom in whom they CHOOSE to marry (as agents of the state), which is why the Roman Catholics are perfectly free to deny marriage to a previously divorced person. This has been made explicit in CA with legislative bill SB906 (which the right wing opposes, mainly because it takes away their favorite fake talking point). No church CAN be forced to do anything outside their beliefs.
Third, bans against marriage actively infringe on the freedom of those who would CHOOSE to marry gay people; indeed, at a recent Prop8 demonstration in Southern California, an Episcopal priest addressed the crowd to say "we WANT to marry you!" Right now, the freedom of the UCC or the Episcopalians or the MCC or some Jewish congregations to marry gay congregants is denied.
All this is laid out in Judge Walker's recent decision (well worth reading). "We've always done it this way" has been used as an excuse to forbid women the vote, to outlaw inter-racial marriage, to justify segregation. It's not a valid reason and never was.
And I think the very old are far more adaptive and understanding than the middle aged. The old, you see, have had time to consider what really matters: love and family.
You want a good argument against civil unions over marriage? Try replacing a few song lyrics, so you get some wonderful standards like:
"I'm getting civilly united in the morning"
"Love and Civil Union, go together like a horse and [um....]"
"Oh how we danced, on the night we were civilly united..."
"We're going to the chapel, and we're gonna get civilly united"
1. I don't buy that gays are harmed in any way by not being allowed to marry. They are enormously successful group ( their credit) with low unemployment. They dominate the arts, fashion, media, entertainment.
2. I don't buy the religious arguments against gay marriage as religions are often are just silly. I do think societies can organize themselves in beneficial ways and marriage of 2 opposite sexes is the best way to raise kids and to propogate the species.
3. if gays can marry then what is to legally stop polygamy or other arrangements???
4. Not all gays are demanding marriage. Gore Vidal could give a rat's ass. This push to have gay marriage at all costs is the from the trust fund,busybody, too much time on their hands gay advocacy groups. Careful what you wish for gays you will no longer be the perpetually aggrieved minority group? You will lose your special status...
5. I think the push for gay marriage by the groups in #4 is really all about validation. Gays want legal validation to assuage their insecurity. "you will love us or else!!"
6. Federal marriage amendment does not ban gay marriage but allows each state to determine if they want gay marriage or not. Lawyers (curse them) would use the commerce clause or some maneuver to make the california law FEDERAL law. Federalism should rule here. Let states be "the laboratories of democracy" as they are meant to be. If a federal judge mandates gay marriage in Alabama you will have armed insurrection...
7 . The federal government should get out of the marriage bizness altogether. If you get married in a church or a submarine that is your business. Marriage is a legal contract and not a religious one ( you would get married just like you would get a license...).
For those who are wondering why people want to get married:
1) Immigration. Unmarried partners cannot get a green card, whereas a spouse can.
2) Income taxes. A "head of household" can pay nearly twice as much in federal income tax as a "married" person.
3) Estate taxes. Property passes to a spouse tax-free upon death. Not so for an unmarried partner.
Well, these are three, and there are hundreds more practical reasons to marry.
A gay friend of mine now calls my wife my "girlfriend." Why? He says until the nation recognizes his marriage, he's not recognizing anyone's marriage. Try calling your wife your "partner" or "girlfriend" for awhile and see how it feels.
With all due respect (which is a lot), the gullibility expressed in this article in regard to the Bush administration's and the GOP's record vis-a-vis gay people is remarkable.
1) The state constitutional amendments passed in a campaign to swell Republican ranks with coordination from the White House banned same-sex marriage AND civil unions. That was no accident. The GOP then, and now, opposes non-discrimination in employment, opposes the repeal of DADT, opposes civil unions, opposes immigration reform for same-sex couples, etc., etc.
2) Dick Cheney has NEVER said he supports SSM or civil unions. I'm astounded that a wordmeister would fall for his vague statements. Get out your parser!!
Would you believe that a man who said he supports the rights of blacks to have opinions and thinks the franchise should be left up to the states actually supports voting rights? Cheney may have opposed the federal amendment but he and the Bush administration made sure that state constitutional amendments made the ballot and passed.
I'm pretty sure this blog will turn into a bigger hate screed of the anti-gay marriage people being called names by the pro-gay marriage people for defending the historical definition of marriage (bigamy has a MUCH longer historical standing than homosexual marriage which was not even recognized by the ancient Greeks for whom homosexual activity was common, yet they kept wives for making households).
So let me make two observations, neither of which has to do with Gay marriage, both of which are mentioned in Mr. Eberts column.
Point 1 (in two parts): Regarding the James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, was signed into law by President Obama in October. It expands the federal hate crimes law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
So gender identity is no longer sexual identity, because sex is determined scientifically. . . (i.e. you know it's a boy dog if you look under his tail and the right parts are there). But "gender" is flexible... in NYC, if one "feels" that they are female, they can change their birth certificate to reflect so.
James Byrd was a man who famously was killed in a dragging death by two heinous thugs, decapitating him in the process. In 2000, while Bush was Governor of Texas, a hate crimes law was passed... over his veto. He did not support hate crime legislation as President.
You may recall this came up in the third debate with then Veep Algore.
Then-Governor Bush was asked about it and he point blank stated "The three men who murdered James Byrd, they’re going to be put to death. A jury found them guilty. It’s going to be hard to punish them any worse after they get put to death."
Point two: the question by Bob Schieffer, posed in 2004 Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?
KERRY: We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice.
Can you imagine, for a moment, that a Democratic office holders daughters sexuality would be brought up by any Republican Presidential Candidate? A Reagan, Bush 41, Dole, Bush 43, McCain, hell, Nixon or Ike or going back to Abe Lincoln?
Liz Cheney's sexuality was not hidden, but she certainly was not nationally known, was not on a national stage, and to think that Kerry (who served in Vietnam if I hadn't mentioned that yet) decided to out her to the nation was absolutely despicable.
Thankfully he wasn't rewarded, and the American public sent the French looking Lurch (who served in Vietnam if I hadn't mentioned that yet) packing by re-electing W with the greatest number of votes of any President ever (62 million plus; Clinton won reelection with 47 million, for the record).
In the end, on gay marriage, Florence King said it best. . . she knew it was inevitable back in 1996 when the term spouse replaced husband and wife (when DOMA was being passed); after all, what's the point of using a non-gender specific term to describe the person one is married to.
Marriage is 'traditionally' the transfer of property from a father to a husband. Jesus was a left-wing extremist who insisted that husbands' should love their wives at a time when wives were property. 'Family-values' in the new testament involves forsaking your parents and children and treating everyone as if they were family.
I find your story about your mother interesting, because I know in my heart that part of me always looks to memories of my parents when I try to judge right and wrong. If my parents had casually accepted gay marriage, I know I probably wouldn't think twice about it.
Whether or not I personally approve, I don't feel I have the right to say someone can or can not get married because they are gay. I won't march to oppose or defend it; I can see why people would feel either way. I feel opposition to gay marriage is generally based more on tradition and perhaps narrow-mindedness.
That said, I do feel a country has the right to define what marriage is. I don't understand how courts could overturn the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. It isn't saying gay people can't get married (though I imagine that was the objective) so much as they can only marry someone of the opposite sex. I'm cautious about expanding definitions, but maybe it's the English Major in me.
I find your story about your mother interesting, because I know in my heart that part of me always looks to memories of my parents when I try to judge right and wrong. If my parents had casually accepted gay marriage, I know I probably wouldn't think twice about it.
Whether or not I personally approve, I don't feel I have the right to say someone can or can not get married because they are gay. I won't march to oppose or defend it; I can see why people would feel either way. I feel opposition to gay marriage is generally based more on tradition and perhaps narrow-mindedness.
That said, I do feel a country has the right to define what marriage is. I don't understand how courts could overturn the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. It isn't saying gay people can't get married (though I imagine that was the objective) so much as they can only marry someone of the opposite sex. I'm cautious about expanding definitions, but maybe it's the English Major in me.
The reason gay people wish to marry and the reason they do not wish to settle for civil unions is that "marriage" carries with it certain legal rights.
Perhaps if religious supporters of "marriage" were also willing and happy to give up all legal rights associated with the word and be happy with their rights being granted by civil union alone it would make more sense to just pick a different word for when gay or same-sex people formally and publicly commit to each other with ceremony.
I find your story about your mother interesting, because I know in my heart that part of me always looks to memories of my parents when I try to judge right and wrong. If my parents had casually accepted gay marriage, I know I probably wouldn't think twice about it.
Whether or not I personally approve, I don't feel I have the right to say someone can or can not get married because they are gay. I won't march to oppose or defend it; I can see why people would feel either way. I feel opposition to gay marriage is generally based more on tradition and perhaps narrow-mindedness.
That said, I do feel a country has the right to define what marriage is. I don't understand how courts could overturn the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. It isn't saying gay people can't get married (though I imagine that was the objective) so much as they can only marry someone of the opposite sex. I'm cautious about expanding definitions, but maybe it's the English Major in me.
Roger,
Here's hoping the US Supreme Court takes on the California case and settles things in favor of marriage equality once and for all. Civil rights ought not be subject to majority vote and marriage is a basic civil right. What happened here in Maine last fall was so wrong.
Joan
Clearly, Washington pols are catering to their constituents re same-sex marriage etc. And if Obama is going to take a reach-across-the-isle stance on something, clearly it will be on something like same-sex rights. Because most (straight, and apparently some gay) Americans have made as much of a priority of same-sex rights as they have about steroid use in baseball. And note how so easy it's automatic it is for the spineless (but political savvy) pols like Cheney to push it back to the provincial safety net for states to decide. This is America.
Preface: I support same-sex marriage. I'm from Canada, we have it, no big deal.
Your questioner who asks whether you think churches should be forced to sanction gay marriages almost hits a really interesting issue though. The question actually shows how gay marriage elucidates the conflict between two constitutional principles. (1) First Amendment: Church officials can't be forced by the state to do something contrary to their religion and so they can't be forced to solemnify gay marriages. (2) Equal protection: Church officials who solemnify marriages are exercising a delegated state power and therefore the state must require them to solemnify gay marriages or else the church officials (who are equivalent to state officials under this theory) are discriminating which they wouldn't be allowed to do.
If I'm right then what we may see is that, to avoid putting constitutional rights in conflict, church officials can no longer solemnify marriages and every ceremony will require a civil official. That is, freedom of religion doesn't require that gay marriage be outlawed, but rather that the churches have to get out of the marriage business.
I'm sure that's not what gay marriage non-supporters expect to be the result. But I don't see how we end anywhere else.
Anyway, my 2c.
You said on your twitter page that the video of Jim DeMint showing a picture of his family and declaring no gays are in it has disappeared. I think you confonfused Jim DeMint with Jim Inhofe, the senator from Oklahoma.
I can't find the video, but there's a picture of Inhofe doing it on his wikipedia page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe
Ebert: Wonder how i got them confused...
I made a TwitterPage using the photo.
When I was in my early 20s, I was active in the gay rights movement. The particular group I worked with today might be described as being one that pushed boundaries. We worked under the concept that being gay was completely and utterly a choice.
"Mainstream" groups like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force were anathema to us, because of their view that being gay was genetic, or otherwise innate in some way. Such a view was looked at by us as weak. In other words, "We can't help it...we were born this way." When you think about it, such a view is rather pathetic sounding. The following scene sadly and grippingly illustrates how gays, and, in fact, any group of outsiders, has their rights trampled on by the power of monied insiders because of real and perceived weakness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98fBiOVEcyI
Our view was that we demanded our equality simply, and only, because we are full citizens living under the constitution of the US. What more is there to say? Anyone who can argue against that simple fact is simply unamerican.
Well, over the past 35 years, we've learned how far logic and reason takes us. Although it's been a long road, the emotional tug of "being born that way" has proven to be the winning argument. And, I guess I'd rather have equality than not. So, OK, if that's what it takes.
The clip I linked to is also helpful in sorting out feelings about Ken Mehlman's "revelation." If Roy Cohn had come out, would he be worthy of some sort of forgiveness? Of course not. Instead, what I feel is pity for him. And wouldn't he have hated that! I absolutely love that I pity him. I think that feelings of pity for Mehlman wouldn't make him blink. He's lower than Cohn in my, and many others', book. If Cohn was sub-human, Mehlman is sub-maggot. He has a choice as to whether or not he wants to redeem himself, though. I won't hold my breath.
If people want to criticize Obama for saying that he wants civil unions instead of same-sex marriage, I have no problem with that.
I do have a problem with people trying to make him out to be worse than (or equivalent to) Bush on gay rights, because that's absolute nonsense.
- Bush endorsed the idea of actually amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriages. Which, if it actually happened, would be only the second time in our nation's history that the Constitution was amended to deny people rights (with the first being prohibition) - and the first time it was amended to deny them only to a specific group of people.
- Bush was against a hate crimes law that included sexual orientation. Obama, as president, already signed such a hate crimes bill into law.
- Bush endorsed sodomy laws when he was governor of Texas. He said he wanted to keep laws on the books that made it a crime for gay people to have sex.
If that doesn't say it all, I don't know what does.
And for the record...while I would never say that Obama is above criticism for his anti-same-sex-marriage stance, I think a lot of the criticism he receives for it is misguided. I'm a gay man, and I'm engaged to another man....and yet if I were in Obama's shoes, I would have handled the issue exactly the way that he did. Why? Because with his current stance (saying that he supports giving gays and lesbians the legal rights of marriage, but not actually calling himself a same-sex marriage supporter) he can actually do more for gay rights.
If Obama announced on the campaign trail that he was in favor of same-sex marriage, people like Pat Robertson would have jumped for joy. It would have hurt Obama in the general election, and the far right would been able to raise millions more than they actually did. And a number of Democrats running for Congress - especially the ones from conservative areas - would have tried to convince their constituents that they don't share Obama's views by condemning same-sex marriage (or maybe even gay rights in general.)
To all those saying gay marriage shouldn't be recognized because of the definition of the word marriage:
Remember when gay meant happy? It was in the Flintstones theme song. Remember when fag used to mean "a bundle of sticks?" It sure doesn't mean that now. Remember when marriage used to be mostly used for business, or monetary, purposes? Or when royalty used to marry simply to increase their overall power and influence?
Don't talk about the "sanctity" of marriage. Marriage has not always been some holy, loving bond between a man and a women. It has been a business deal and a way to gain power. That's not very sacred in my eyes.
And is the definition of a word really worth denying an entire group of society the rights and recognition they, according to our Constitution and our humanity, deserve? I've always thought the beauty of language in general was it's ability to adapt and grow. The reason it's beneficial to read a piece of literature from the past in it's original form is because it encompasses the culture it was written in. Language is supposed to change. It's inevitable. That shouldn't be a deciding factor in a decision that's so much more important. The definition of a word is petty and unimportant compared to the magnitude of gay rights.
I think when the opponents of same-sex marriages speak so vehemently against it, it says a lot more about their own insecurities then it does about their principles. It only makes sense to look at it as coming from the same place racism and any other form of prejudice comes from: fear. They'd like you to believe they're against it because gay marriage violates the "sanctity of marriage." How? If you're a heterosexual married couple, and a gay couple gets married in the same state, does that make you any less married? Do you look at your wife or husband any differently? Of course not.
The concept of the "sanctity of marriage" is a crock, anyways. A good marriage may be happy, it may be loving, but it sure as hell isn't sacred. Anyone who says it is is either lying or has never been married.
Like Chris Rock says, "Gay people deserve to be just as miserable as the rest of us."
An apt analogy I've encountered is about shirts... you know, those things that have paired sleeves for two arms. God forbid you have but one arm... does that preclude you from wearing a shirt with two, or somehow spoil the concept of shirt for the two-armed everywhere?
Likewise, marriage. Gays are not asking for special rights.... only the commonsense rights and language that have always been available to everyone else. It changes nothing about marriage, other than providing access for all to what many have come to take for granted. Personally I think it make marriage more popular than ever.
An interesting sidebar to the Prop 8 trials in California is Marisa Tomei, humbly displaying her Oscar-worthiness: http://www.equalityontrial.org/
As for W, well... his homophobic campaign to unseat Ann Richards is a textbook example of Karl Rove's strategizing to the fears of the lowest electoral denominator. Insinuating to the good folks of Texas that Ann would hire lesbians to teach kindergarten worked like a charm. Next time I think people will be wiser - particularly considering the cross-hairs have expanded to include immigrants, Muslims, who else? I guess some people just gotta hate.
And others just gotta stand up to insults to humanity. Thank you, Roger.
If you open this door (which I think anyone should have the right as a human being to choose whom they marry) shouldn't this door be opened in other respects, such as, polygamy? We say we have religious freedom in this country, but what we really mean is main stream religious freedom. You cannot practice your faith by marrying more than one woman, even though these are the fundementals of your religion. This is comparable to the recent uproar in regards to building a cultural center and mosque blocks from the site of ground zero. We are not so free in this country. Let's open the door for all of those people who are oppressed!
Be it decided that: the essential difference between conservatives and liberals is the degree to which each thinks that their beliefs should be everyone else's.
@S
You've read the Bible for yourself and you know what it says--and it sure does't say what the people at your home church say it does! According to said Bible--homosexual sin is no worse than any other sin. But, dear, it's still a sin--look it up--it can't be denied, unless you don't believe the Bible. WHat is says is that if someone is homosexual, they can be a Christian (that is ask for forgiveness and accept Jesus as their Savior), then, just quit acting out sexually. Just like me--I'm single--and I don't get to have sex, because that would be committing fornication. But, if I mess up, God will forgive me. And if a homosexual Christian messes up--same thing. I get so sick of how people twist the scriptures. So many more people would give God a chance if they just stopped it! They do sound like hatemongers.
@Steve
Just say you are living with your gay lover. Tell the truth.
OK--as for as "Gay Marriage"
For 6000+ years there has not been same-sex marriage. Who are we of this generation to suddenly decide that we are so much more "enlightened" all of the sudden? We are so "smart" now, we don't need God or His wisdom. The apparent "idiots" of the last 6000 years believed God knew a little more than them and tried to obey His way of life. He has His reasons, but do we care to take that into consideration?
For whatever reasons--maybe because it just hasn't been found worthy and it is something that has felt so squirmingly uncomfortable and wrong to people at a gut level without even God having to tell them, that virtually EVERYONE of all religions and creeds, God-fearing or not, have banned it up unto this last 50 years--apparently Steve has heard of a few instances.
If someone wants to love someone else of the same sex, that's their issue and between them and God.
However, when someone dies or is in the hospital dying, etc., it's CRAZY that they can't have whoever they want in that hospital room. Maybe your spouse or next of kin isn't who you want anyway--maybe it's a dear unrelated friend--not neccessarily your "gay lover". People who get in the middle of all that ARE being bigoted, including the law-makers who won't make the adjustment. But making homosexual marriage legal is going waaaay out of what's needed to make that happen. The laws need to be changed concerning those situations for a myriad of reasons.
Roger, I don't even know where to begin with this comment made by one of your readers:
"For the gay movement to insist that gay marriage is a right that the broader population is cruelly denying them is a kind of harsh and superior judgment on their part of the rest of society."
It's a harsh and superior judgement to think it disgusting that 31 states have denied the fundamental right to marriage (the Supreme Court has, on fourteen separate occasions in our nation's history, ruled that marriage is a fundamental right afforded to all people) to gays and lesbians, thus violating the Constitution of the United States? Really? And what do you call a movement where the members of a suspect class of people are trying with all their might to be recognized as FULLY equal to non-suspect-class people in the eyes of the law? That's not a rights issue? Honestly, what would you call it, then? Because if you have a better term, I'm all ears.
Clearly your reader suffers from the "well, it doesn't affect me, so why should I care" syndrome. So, I propose this: let's all go to the polls and vote to take away your reader's right to free speech. Or how about we strip away their right to marry a person of whatever race or religion they choose? Better yet, let's all vote to strip fundamental rights from women and allow their husbands to beat them senseless whenever they choose.
I wonder how your reader would feel about any of those options. Pretty lousy, I suspect. How long would it take to suddenly care because "it does affect me?" But, that would never happen, right? The people of this country would NEVER vote for anything so heinous, right?
Let's ask your reader to remember history the next they decide to open their mouth on a subject upon which they're clearly uneducated and misinformed. Oh, and while we're at it, how about your reader tries to muster up even a modicum of compassion for humankind, instead of coming across as cold and bitter. Sad.
My mom was born in the 1920s, but she also was, among other things, a professional singer, guitar player, dancer, and so on, plus she did a lot of community theater (mostly musicals). Growing up, I remember that several of her friends that she knew professionally were gay, and were often guests in our home. I remember a couple of them were getting married.
Later, I found out that my best friend (after he came back from college) kind of announced that he was gay. Well to be honest, that's not actually what happened -- I actually went to his apartment to visit and noticed magazines around about the gay 'scene', and one of his friends from college who was also visiting was talking quite openly about it. I think I was more insulted than shocked, that he had kept it a secret from me. It's not that I never suspected it, just that we'd never actually discussed it, and we had been friends as young children, and later ran into each other again and reconnected, ended up going to the same high school, traveled together, worked at the same summer jobs, etc.
In any case, I don't understand what people are afraid of with gay marriage. The US, despite what some people say, was not founded as a religious state, but one where people of all beliefs are free to practice what they believe. That right is supposed to be protected by law. Denying marriage to any adults simply because of their gender or sexual preference or color of their skin is a denial of their constitutional rights. In other words, it's un-american.
to pelham: ever notice how all the anti-gay legislation has come in a recent flurry? conservatives know that young voters are pro-equal rights and they want to put up as many punishing religion-based roadblocks as they can, to make overturning them difficult and time-consuming.
also, conservatives never peeped about the word "marriage" being owned by religion to produce children when atheists and barren couples hitched up. it's only when gays wanted to touch a government practice do they claim the word; a word no one can own.
Gays currently have the right to marry. It is their choice of mate that is restricted on gender, age and number of applicants.
It would be inaccurate to say a gay person cannot marry, they can find an opposite sex mate and marry, nothing prevents this.
Hence, it is the categories of restriction that are being objected to. The consequence of eliminating one of those categories (gender) would necessarily entail elimination of all others. Society would have no basis to restrict marriage on any basis but the consent of the parties involved.
Oh, isn't it depressing to see the damage religion has done to this country.
Oh, and Meri, I'm so pleased you weighed in with such educated wisdom. Especially that part about "homo marriages." And about "tolerating" some of us, but not others. Stay classy.
Roger -
Is this the latest chapter in your series of red-state slating columns? Should we look forward to the final installments on stem cell research and immigration?
Seriously, your position in this matter would have far more credibility if you didn't continuously opt for the obvious while cherrypicking the usual Republican example and glossing over the failings of the democrats time and again. Every viable Democratic candidate for President in the last 12 years has marched in lockstep with their Republican counterparts on this issue in pandering to the bible belt community. Yet, you reduce your argument to the intolerance of the right. How convenient.
I soundly reject the notion that opposition to Gay Marriage is uniformly rooted in homophobia or hatred. That's the easiest and laziest pitch, not unlike your approach in the Ground Zero Mosque thread. Yes, there are your Westboro Baptist Church types to be sure. But certainly, there are also those who simply find that it runs contrary to the societal, cultural and religious notion of the institution of marriage that has been reasonably well defined since ancient Mesopotamia (admittedly with some notable exceptions). Some traditionalists find that the homosexual lifestyle runs contrary to the propogation of the species and that traditional marriage does not celebrate nor support that certain impossibility. I suppose that one could argue that homosexuals' inability to reproduce is the design of some grand biological bigotry that will probably find itself argued before the U.S. Supreme Court one day, but I digress.
Not surprisingly, you make the Bush Administration your target of choice rather than say, the african american community, whose swell of support, rooted in christian fundamentalism, was the probable deciding factor in passing Proposition 8 in California. Yet, you will never find any mention of that in an Roger Ebert column because you would rather seek euthenasia than take a stand in a debate between two minorities.
Most surprisingly, while much of what you say here is thoughtful and compassionate, and commendable to an extent, I invariably find myself objecting to the disingenuous ways you arrive at your conclusions so identified above.
Lastly, Hate Crime legislation is nonsense; an arbitrary political correctness standard imposed on well functioning law. It's like someone approaching the NBA and demanding that fouls be amended to include hate fouls. Al Gore shamelessly dragged the Byrd family to the debate against Bush, using their grief to score a cheap political point when nothing was at stake. How does one measure hatred in a crime? Did the pre-existing law not adequately apply to a capital murder? It was hideous to witness such a spectacle. I am disappointed that you felt the need to go there.
Whether or not the United States of America allows homosexual marriage looks like it will be decided by less than 5 unelected judges.
Somehow, I don't think that is what the framers of the Constitution intended.
Having read the judge's decision that overturned Proposition 8 in California I relate my favorite argument for the unconstitutionality of a ban on same-sex marriage. Banning same-sex marriage is a discrimination based on sex. If Jane is forbidden from marrying Emily, but John is not forbidden from marrying Emily, then Jane is being discriminated against because she is a woman. This, of course, works both ways, for both sexes.
I think this is a simple logical statement; it has nothing to do with anyone's definition of marriage or civil unions or anything else. We can re-caste this in terms of any other kind of endeavor. If Jane is forbidden from working at XYZ, Inc. because she is a woman, but John is allowed to work there, then Jane is being discriminated against because of her sex.
So same-sex marriage fundamentally comes down to equal treatment under that law. If we are to have laws that work and function equally for all people, then we absolutely need to recognize the fundamental right of those of the same sex to marry as equally as those of opposite sexes.
Miles Blanton
Well Roger, Now I know why you are such a LEFTIST anti-American, homosexual accepting dumb ass. You must be one of those Obomber Chicago conspirer Thugs---but you are a behind the scene tongue twistering closet boy. Keep up your good work and maybe Sarah might stumble over your name....but she won't fall, goof ball!!
"Civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" are red herrings.
a) Does anyone really think that every application, every legal document, anywhere one would indicate "single," "married," "divorced," or "separated" is going to be changed to include "civilly unioned"? Do you think that altering all federal and state government forms to include this new relationship status would be the best use of tax dollars?
b)Would heterosexual couples accept it if they could only be referred to as "domestic partners"?
"Hey, Bob, how's the domestic partner and kids?"
"I think I'm getting the domestic-partner-legalization-ceremony jitters."
"Susan, do you take Bob to be your lawfully, civilly-unioned domestic partner?"
See how awesome that sounds?
c) Stating that one is in a "civil union" or "domestic partnership" is effectively a public disclosure of one's sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is, at the federal level, not officially a protected class, so any discrimination against gays and lesbians would be totally legal with no possible recourse.
Also:
Actually...
The Netherlands legalized same-sex marriage in 2001. Others? Canada, Spain, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Protugal, Iceland, Argentina, Mexico City (although effectively Mexico if married in Mexico City), and the U.S. states of Massachusetts (which, by the way, has the lowest divorce rate in the country), Iowa, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
Denmark legalized same-sex unions in 1989, and there are numerous countries around the world who perform and/or recognize same-sex partnerships in one form or another.
Last I checked, none of those countries had been bombarded with fire and brimstone or had its citizenry turned into pillars of salt.
I also don't think it would be wise for those who support "traditional marriage between one man and one woman" to open the can of worms labeled "Biblical Examples Of Marriage." It's a hot mess of polygamy, incest, rape, and slavery.
See (NSFW): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
The redefinition argument is one of the laziest excuses for discrimination I've ever seen.
1. A new name for an institution (e.g. civil union) that confers all the rights of another one (e.g. marriage) is definitionally a separate but equal institution. To support this position, as President Obama does, one must confront this fact.
2. English is a living language that has changed over time and still changes today. Grammar is not a stone tablet governing society but a descriptive system that reflects real-life usage. Which is to say changing a word's definition (which is obviously the Holy Grail of gay rights) is no more or less destructive to the English language than the changing meanings of 'century' or 'buxom.'
3. Marriage was also at one time in America socially understood to be limited to a single ethnicity. Society has, on the whole, reformed its attitude toward mixed-race marriages and voila, a new definition.
(4. As for whoever it was above who suggested gay marriage was "sprung on us" in the midst of two wars and recession, first of all, your timing is wrong. But more to the point, how the hell is providing for equal rights a distraction from our wars and economy? Not only is there no real choice (because the former is 1) a no-brainer and 2) not especially time-consuming), but even if there were, I'd choose liberty/equality over violence/money every time.)
So I don't buy this "new definition" argument one bit. It's not such a grave crime, is it? Even crazier than the fact that the majority are under the impression minority rights are within their purview is how many people on here and elsewhere care more about a word than they do their fellow Americans.
Roger Ebert continues his efforts to make everyone forget that he greatly facilitated the successful efforts of all the Hollywood homophobes to make sure that Brokeback Mtn would not win the Best Picture Oscar. Roger you can throw stones at the anti-Gay marriage folks when you apologize for all of the "film critic cover" that you gave to the anti-Brokeback Mtn homophobes.
My mom was Pentecostal, and in her 70s when she first traveled to Chicago from Indianapolis to meet my boyfriend.
(Roger, we once enjoyed an early evening shopping in Whole Foods, North & Halsted, with you, though of course you didn't know it. "There's Roger! What's he buying?" How silly, and we knew it was.)
It took 3 years for Mom to decide to visit "that mess up there" as she called my life with another man, in another city, at the time.
After a week of talking to my boyfriend -- eating his food, listening to his amazing voice as he sang in some show, being charmed by his big, broad Iowa corn-fed personality -- she warmed up and said to me, as she was leaving for Indianapolis:
Rick, I think I like him more than I like you.
That was my mom -- she was a character -- and it made me laugh. Still does.
I don't know what she would think, dead several years now, of my plans to marry my boyfriend here in Argentina - I've had to travel a long way, a long time, to find what I want, how I want - and I suspect that she might have a problem with the color of his skin. Still, I know he could charm her, if he only spoke English!
Because, fairness, laughter, love resided, not in her head or even in her heart: But in her bones.
One of the most interesting statistics I learned recently is that 80% of people over the age of 70 oppose gay marriage, but 70% of people under the age of 30 support it. Gay marriage opponents can argue all they want that this issue is different from every other human rights issue the country has ever faced, but their failure is inevitable.
I am 27 years old, straight, and proudly support gay marriage rights, as does just about everyone I know who's my age (including my most religiously conservative friends). As the voice of my generation continues to gain a foothold in this country, it is all but guaranteed that we'll put an end to marriage discrimination in this country. It's just a matter of time.
I am a Reagan-Palin-Limbaugh Republican, and proud of it. (And I am a Christian.) You have seen my many posts on the virtues of the free market system, and the deficits of the Obamacare, etc.
A couple of weeks ago, I was shocked to realize that I now support same-sex marriage by the government, provided that religous organizations are allowed to choose to discriminate and not participate in same-sex unions and/or adoptions. I don't remember a turning point, I simply realized that my mind had changed, not unlike realizing that the novocaine from the dentist's office had worn off some time ago.
I believe that the best way to achieve this sweeping social change is through the legislature, and pursuasion, and not by judicial fiat, or the brow-beating going on against people who, in good faith, opposed Proposition 8 in California.
While I still feel "funny" about same sex marriage (and displays of affection), I intellectually realized that I could no longer oppose them. I think that one thing that helped sway me was the kindly good faith of my gay friends, who weren't in my face (and didn't call people like me names), but who simply lived their lives, and, if asked, shared their experiences with me without rancor. They swayed my heart, so that the logic of their situation could make itself manifest to me. I believe that that is how social change is best achieved, one person at a time. I was pursuaded by love, not by force. I now believe that same sex marriage is becoming an idea whose time has come.
And I can now say that I realize that I was wrong. I wish all of my gay brothers and sisters the very, very best, and I am saddened that they experienced pain in this process.
Sincerely,
Your Reagan-Palin-Limbaugh Christian brother
The argument that gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage makes no sense. Isn't divorce the real threat to traditional marriage? If some want to pass a law to ban gay marriage, shouldn't they also pass a law to ban divorce? Just sayin'...
P.S. Your mom sounds like she was a very wise woman.
To me, if you're a politician who took the oath of office to protect and defend the constitution there should be only one answer given regarding the issue of gay marriage ... We have equal rights and we have the separation of church and state, we will not dictate to churches whom they shall marry but neither will we allow them (or anyone's religious beliefs) to dictate public policy.
There's no heterosexual or homosexual love ... merely love. There's no homosexual or heterosexual marriage ... just marriage.
To disallow marriage (or create a separate but equal situation) is to not only deny those individuals equal rights but is antithetical to the Declaration of Independence as well. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - there may be some people who are perfectly satisfied to live there lives without a partner but that's not the case for the vast majority of us and denying them that pursuit is well, unAmerican.
@Darren Pardee on August 27, 2010 2:51 PM
Right on about the original purpose of marriage! For those of you who want the extended version of how marriage has changed through history: http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm
Now, I went to a wedding recently. It was between a man and a woman, who were married by a celebrant (think "justice of the peace"), since the couple come from different faiths. In other words, they were not married in a church, or a synagogue, or a mosque, or in any religious building. Still, they were "married," not "civil unionized." They got to dress up. They got to say their vows. They got friends and family to witness it. They got to celebrate afterwards. Why can't two people of the same sex, if they love each other, share in a similar ceremony, and why can't they call their union a "marriage?"
For those people who say that civil unions are "sufficient," I say this: civil unions may have been sufficient when marriages were performed for economic reasons, before religion thought of them as a sacrament, before people married for love. And for those people who believe that the main purpose of marriage should be to have children, then you, by this belief, would prevent not just homosexuals (or bisexuals in same-sex relationships), but all infertile couples, old and young, from joining in marriages, too.
Finally, legalizing same sex marriages does nothing to smear the concept of marriage, nor does it ruin existing opposite sex marriages. If you believe marriage is only for one man and one woman, and that it has always been that way, I ask you again to read the article I have linked above (or read Darren's comment), for it hasn't always been that way, and if it hasn't always been that way, then its definition can change, again, to include two people who are in love, regardless of their sex.
The issue that's been raised by several people, about churches potentially being forced to perform same-sex marriages, is a complete red herring, made up to scare homophobic churchgoers into thinking that it will affect them. Churches already don't have to perform marriages for anyone they don't want to, for any reason at all. After all, they pretty much have to discriminate on the basis of religion. Church officials are not "exercising delegated state power"; you can go to a justice of the peace, who is a state-delegated agent and required to perform marriages for anyone.
The first gay person I ever met was in my French class in high school. He didn't strike me as different other than that he was new to our school. (I never had your mother's gift of gay-dar, probably because I never met gay people until I was in 10th grade.) When someone whispered he was gay, I was immediately afraid. Of what, I wasn't sure. It wasn't until a year later, in psychology class, that I realized I was afraid he would make a pass at me. I think most homophobia stems from a fear that gender roles will be unwelcomely reversed in this manner, but he never did. I learned I shouldn't automatically assume I'm hot stuff for any gay guy who comes along. Thus I learned to think of him, indeed all homosexuals, as people.
Marriage between them, however, was something I still struggled with until just a couple days ago. I knew that the law of our land posits that all men (and women, and persons of indeterminate gender) ought to be equal. I remembered the case of Brown v. Board of Education and how separate really isn't equal. I resisted applying this principle to the question of homosexual marriage because men and women have equal rights, but they still have separate public bathrooms because they are fundamentally different. In the end though, I couldn't deny any longer that offering civil unions and domestic partnerships instead of marriage can only limit the rights and privileges of American citizens. I very much appreciated FDuquette's comments on how marriage in Catholic doctrine is a sacrament but must also admit to myself that church and state are separate.
I grew up in a religious family and was taught that homosexuality was a sin and that we must avoid the sin but love the sinner. Now that I'm grown, I don't even know anymore if I can consider homosexuality a sin. God is supposedly omniscient, omnipotent, and infinitely just--does he cease to be so if he creates someone in his own image who has the DNA of one gender but the brain pattern or hormones of the other? I've had to come to terms with the fact that it's more than we can know in this life and allow that god to make such judgments himself if and when his judgment day comes.
Moncef Gridda on August 27, 2010 6:15 AM wrote:
Obama is a constitutional scholar, Roger. What he's saying is that marriage is a religious exercise. Civil unions will guarantee inheritance, hospital visitation, eulogies and the same tax status.
Then I've got to say the standards of scholarship at Columbia, Harvard and the University of Chicago have really gone downhill. Still, if Obama is such a fan of separate but pseudo-equal "civil unions", then it's only fair to point out that when Barack Obama Snr. and Stanley Ann Dunham married, miscegenation laws were still on the books in 16 states. Wonder if he'd have found it acceptable if inter-racials couple were allowed 'civil unions' but denied marriage to placate racists?
@RW: The framers of the Constitution went to considerable effort on a little concept called "the separation of powers" between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government because they didn't have a revolution to throw off one King to replace him with another. But as Ted Olson rather tartly observed in a masterful ass-whipping delivered on Fox News Sunday, "judicial activism" really means "judicial judgements I don't agree with" doesn't it?
http://www.divorcerate.org/
"The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage: 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce..."
The wine and crackers seem to be a more popular sacrament.
Rachel on August 27, 2010 8:00 PM sounds, to me, like one of those hard-bitten, hard-baked bigots - you know, the self-described "moderate". She congratulates herself for having capacity for tolerance - similar to the racist who "doesnt mind what "they" do in their own schools and churches and restaurants and ghettos etc, god will judge them, not me .. but, to allow integration, equal rights?? To consider them as human as us?? Why, what is the world coming to??".
Sadly, bigotry is a disease of the mind. It cannot be reformed. Its host could not remove it even if the will were there to do so. This is a fact.
Roger, your mother "Seems like good people to me", as for gay marriage I will use an old homily "Live and let live".We all have had enough of right wing obfuscating. To Randy Masters, I beg to differ about W being a compassionate man, having met him under very trying circumstances, I found him to be disconnected and puppet like.
Hi,
I am an American lesbo who lives in Massaschusetts where same-sex marriage is legal.
I am married to a Canadian woman where same-sex marriage is legal. She lives in Canada.
In the United States, my United States, I am considered to be single, whereas in Canada I am married.
The federal government has on its book a law called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that basically trumps all other smaller laws that might enable my partner to be able to live with me in the US. Immigration is in the federal domain, so any states that allow for same-sex marriage are basically allowing it between other Americans.
I don't speak French well enough yet to work in her home province of Quebec.
Therefore I am forced to commute from the US to Canada every weekend in order to be with my family.
Other friends of mine have it worse: several of them have lovers who are from Amsterdam, France, Bulgaria, and, yes, Saudi Arabia. So I have a hard time bitching about my long commute. But to those of you commenters who blithely claim that marriage is no big deal, please stop drop and roll because your argument is on fire.
I didn't have time to read all the comments, but Roger, as someone who has gone to England so many times, you should know that when someone gets "married" over there, they first go to the Civil Office for the government sanctioned document signing & upon signing the document, they're married! No special person has to sanctify the marriage other than the duly sworn government clerk. Then, if they choose, have a religious ceremony.
They don't have to have the religious ceremony if they don't want to!
The actions at the Civil Office are sufficient for them to be legally "Married" to the British government & to the world!
That's what's needed in this country: A complete separation of the civil "marriage" & the religious "marriage"
Everyone would be required to have the civil union & then would qualify for all the benefits that spouses have, inheritance, joint tenancy, tax returns & the automatic power of attorney a spouse has when the other spouse is incapacitated.
If they so choose, they can have a religious marriage, but there wouldn't be any requirement to do so & there also wouldn't be any discrimination against those that didn't.
Those that just had the civil union papers signed at the clerk's office would called themselves married, just as those that had the additional religious ceremony call themselves married.
In divorces, the courts would solely consider the civil Union, not the religious, unless there was some sort of problem in obtaining the religious divorce. There have been a few cases, almost all in NY where an Orthodox Jewish couple has legally divorced, but one party, which I've read has always been an angry, stubborn husband, has refused to allow his now ex-wife to obtain from the religious court a "Get" the document that the marriage is over under the rabbinic laws & courts. As she is just as Orthodox as him, she can't get remarried without the "Get"! The civil courts have ordered the ex-husband to allow her the document in the cases I've read.
Churches already don't have to perform marriages for anyone they don't want to, for any reason at all.
Indeed they don't -- and the last time I looked, there are many churches that don't recognise civil marriage and divorce, or religious marriages not conducted under their auspices. Somehow, the world has not spun off its axis.
For 6000+ years there has not been same-sex marriage. Who are we of this generation to suddenly decide that we are so much more "enlightened" all of the sudden?
Well, Rachael, be very careful what you wish for when you appeal to history. Before 1975, one perk of being an being an American husband was that it was perfectly legal to rape your wife. (South Carolina was the last state to criminalize spousal rape in 1993!) Who were we to decide we were so much more "englightened" than the countless generation who thought that was a perfectly acceptable way to treat a woman who had the misfortune to be wearing your ring?
Did your father share your mother's inspirational open-mindedness and acceptance of gay people?
Ebert: I have no idea.
It has taken me a long time to read through these many comments. And like almost every time this topic is posted for comments, the comments are almost exclusively about the GLBT "Couple." What about the children of GLBT families? Do they not deserve to be raised in a home where their parents are married??? Only 14 states allow two people of the same gender to co-adopt, only 14 states.
Here is my situation and I urge you to read it completely. My daughter in law (not legally but in my heart) used an anonymous sperm donor at a fertility clinic and gave birth to my twin grandchildren, a boy and a girl who are 2 years old. My daughter is not allowed to legally become the co-parent to her own children. In every sense in every way, my daughter and her wife are married, except legally. My daughter gave her wife hormone shots every night while they were trying to conceive. They are a lifelong couple, period.
Because my daughter is not the legal parent to her children that also makes me a Stranger In Law to my own grandchildren. It breaks my heart, I love my grandchildren so much and I want to be their legal granmother. There is not a father in this family, by law there is no father. Is it right that the citizens of this country force my grandchildren to only have 1 legally recognized parent instead of 2 when my daughter desperatly wishes to legally be their parent also? Is it right that the citizens of this country force my grandchildren to only have 2 legally recognized grandparents instead of 4?
When the hard religious right and their front organizations like National Organization for Marriage, ProtectMarriage.com, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council et al try to scare the public into rejecting Gender Neutral marriage by running ads that say, "Protect your children" I stand up and say, "Well what about OUR children? Don't OUR children need protecting also? Don't our children count? OR is it only children raised by hetrosexuals who count?"
This is what you will never ever get Hetro Only Marriage Supporters to talk about, just what do you do about these children? If you ask them the question they will never ever answer it, because they know the answer is, our children will be better off being raised in a home where their parents are Married. And they can't stomach that, so they refuse to answer the question.
Keeping GLBT familes apart as Strangers In Law is wrong, and the issue radiates out beyond just the couple, out into their familes. Look at me I am not the legal grandmother to my own grandchildren, I ask you is it right? Is it? If you have grandchildren I ask you to think of how you would feel if the state legally, in law, seperated you from your grandchildren?
Pelham, the antigay bigot and heterosupremacist, writes: "For the gay movement to insist that gay marriage is a right that the broader population is cruelly denying them is a kind of harsh and superior judgment on their part of the rest of society."
Oh, the gay community should not tell the TRUTH? Screw you, bigot. Obviously, you have never been unequal under law. It is hell. Death is preferable to inequality, and too many of us, feeling rejected by both mainstream society and THE LAW OF THE LAND, end their lives to escape the rejection. That is probably OK with you. You have no heart, and you, clearly, are someone to avoid and fear.
Sorry, het person, you do not deserve supremacy under law. If there is a god, that will change, and soon. Even one more day of inequality is an outrage and a sin and a crime against humankind. That you are okay with it says much about you, none of it good. This is not hyperbole. This is not an embellishment. This is not histrionics. It is truth. It is fact.
The denial of full equality under SECULAR law IS a civil rights issue and a human rights issue. Let bigoted churches do as they will, but under civil law, all SHOULD be equal. And no, allowing gays to marry inappropriately is NOT equality; it is a slap in the face -- even if a tiny minority are able to deal with marriage to a opposite-gender person. The denial of full equality under law to LGBT citizens shows what type of nation the US is... whether it is truly a place of justice and equality for all OR a mendacious, evil, and yes, CRUEL construct. Right now, I believe the latter.
A reminder to Jim Crow (civil union) fans: Separate but equal is NOT equal. If hets can get civilly married to the one they law, LGBTs deserve the same thing. Period. Without it, the US might as well be Iran. Sure, they kill gays over there... but so do you. And from my experience, I'd rather experience physical death than emotional/psychic/spiritual death. That is the US's weapon of choice against LGBT humans. Current US antigay policy is nothing short of inhumane and immoral. And so, Pelham, are your vile pronouncements.
@Brenda -- addressing your suggestion.
"Had they accepted, or better yet suggested, a new term to describe this new phenomena (some have suggested "garriage") then they would have received far less resistance."
So this term, "garriage." You consider it a separate term. Would you say that it was separate, but equal?
@ Brenda: August 27, 2010 11:05 AM
William George (right above) already smacked down one of your inane arguments. Well done, George.
"Homosexuals are asking America to do something no civilization has done before- recognize and allow homosexual unions without prejudice by granting those unions the exact same rights that accompany heterosexual marriage."
Hey, sweetie... 10 counties ALREADY have same-sex marriage. For those countries this is simply a civil rights issues. Civilization didn't crumble. The world is still spinning. 70 years ago interracial marriage didn't exist in the entire history of the world. Yet the Supreme Court forced our country to accept something brand spankin' new. Sounds kinda familiar, doesn't it?
Let me make this perfectly clear to you: You DO NOT OWN the word 'marriage'. People do not own words... or definitions... or traditions. If same-sex marriage were made legal in every state, your particular church will NEVER be forced to marry a gay couple... EVER. Do you get it now?
Maybe a personal anecdote, like the one Roger just wrote, would help push this discussion further.
I am an American lesbo who lives in Massaschusetts where same-sex marriage is legal.
I am married to a Canadian woman where same-sex marriage is legal. She lives in Canada. We got married in Canada.
In the United States, my United States, I am considered to be single, whereas in Canada I am married.
Why is this so? The federal government has on its book a law called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that basically trumps all other state laws that might enable my partner to be able to live with me in the US. Immigration is in the federal domain, so any states that allow for same-sex marriage are basically allowing it between other Americans.
Canadians, by the way, are indeed foreigners, no matter how many tell me that Canadians aren't really foreign!
I don't speak French well enough yet to work in her home province of Quebec. And there aren't the same job possibilities there than there are in my own home state.
Therefore I am forced to commute from the US to Canada every weekend in order to be with my family.
Other friends of mine have it worse: several of them have lovers who are from Amsterdam, France, Bulgaria, and, yes, Saudi Arabia. So I have a hard time bitching about my long commute. But to those of you commenters who blithely claim that marriage is no big deal, please stop drop and roll because your argument is on fire.
"Whether or not the United States of America allows homosexual marriage looks like it will be decided by less than 5 unelected judges.Somehow, I don't think that is what the framers of the Constitution intended."
Another person who obviously flunked civics or slept through it. That's exactly what they intended. Checks and balances. The founding fathers absolutely hated the idea of direct democracy. When you go back and read letters and papers they wrote, they always contrast "democracy" with "republic". For them, they were creating a constitutional republic and not a democracy - even if its technically a representative democracy.
Democracy does not mean mob rule. Pure democracy is five wolves and two sheep voting on what's for dinner. The minority always loses. That's why the constitution's main purpose it to guarantee the minority's rights. And if the politicians or the mob decide to violate those rights, it's the judiciary's job to correct that. If 100% of the mob decided to take away some peoples' rights, they'd still be wrong. Some things are simply not up for public vote.
It's funny how people only complain about "judicial activism" once something doesn't go their way. The idea of elected judges is preposterous by the way. The point of judges is to be independent and impartial. They are supposed to rule by law, not by political whims. That's why directly electing judges is idiotic and appointments by governors dangerous.
Some people really need to brush up on the history of marriage instead of parroting the lies told them by their Church. Marriage hasn't been a "sacred" thing for 6000 years. The idea of marriage as a holy sacrament in the Christian church didn't come around until about the 16th century.
Simplified, at the beginning, marriage was an understanding between people. Most times actually the families, as especially the bride had little to no say. They were literally bought. And if two people considered themselves married and lived like it, society considered them married. Then when advanced civilizations like the Roman Empire came up, the government got into the business. Then Christianity spread and took over that role. Fast-forward a couple hundred years later and again the government used marriage to regulate society so they demanded documentation. That's what we have today. You can get married completely outside the church. A religion wedding is entirely optional.
Also look up "coverture". Until the mid-to-late 19th century, the woman ceased to exist as a legal entity and was subsumed by her husband. When that changed, the "traditional definition of marriage" changed too.
You may have a point if the government weren't invested so heavily in marriage. But it confers literally thousands of benefits on marriage and uses it to regulate society from beginning to end. It's mostly a civil institution today and people fill it with whatever meaning they want. If that meaning is religious, that's your choice, but it's not a requirement.
And there have been same-sex marriages and ceremonies in some cultures. It existed in the Roman Empire for example. Not exactly widespread and same-sex relationships between people of equal status were actually a taboo, but documents prove it.
You may also look up the "two-spirit" tradition among native Americans. Those were people who took on some of the aspects and roles of the other gender in their lives. So it has some aspects of what we call transgender today. They were often highly valued for their unique perspective. And some of them were officially partnered with people of the same sex. It wasn't anything unusual.
I can't describe how my stomach has sunk reading these comments. So many people with so many different excuses not to endorse same-sex marriage. Activist judges, low priority, let the states decide, redefinition, not to mention all the ad hominem "arguments" telling me why I think I should be allowed to get married (hint: apparently, it's because I want to force society to love me).
All you constitutionalists might do well to remember the reason we have a judiciary. To protect minority rights from the tyranny of the majority, you know, in cases like Prop 8 where an entire population decided that the rights of the minority were expendable.
And how exactly is ensuring equality a low priority for America? First of all, the Defense of Marriage Act is an obvious violation of the Constitution's full faith and credit clause, so overturning that is just basic adherence to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. But some people seem to think the lawyers fighting these cases would be better serving their country if they were putting out fires or serving in the military. Or maybe it's the politicians who ought to be focusing elsewhere, because, you know, equality and liberty are not nearly as important as commerce and the oh so sacred war on terror.
And as for you who'd throw the Bible at me as if that had any relevance to non-literalist-Christian Americans, I suggest you study up. The Bible did not appear immaculately one day in English prose with picture inserts. It has a long, long, long history of selective compilation, editing, translation, and more translation, etc.
But facts seem not to move you in-the-middlers. You're all pretty happy there in no man's land, not having your rights infringed on, not making a political statement just by existing openly, not having to really stand up for the principles this country was founded on because that would alienate one side or the other. That's fine. You just sit there on your thumbs as the tide of history makes you increasingly irrelevant, and someday you can tell your grandkids the great story of how you fought for equality. Gay equality is happening, and it's happening much faster than anyone suspected back in 2004 during Mehlman's jockish gay panic campaign. So I can wait another couple years as the balance finally tips. But it'd be nice if you people clinging to the word instead of embracing your neighbors could confront the tremendous fallacy of your arguments sooner rather than later.
I can't make this point often enough:
People who happen to have a gay sexual orientation are beautiful natural normal variations of life, of being human.
Civil laws which were written before it was understood that gay people are moral competent contributing citizens must be corrected.
The FUNDAMENTAL characteristics which inform those who don't want to update laws to fully respect their fellow citizens who happen to be gay, no matter how reasoned or moderate or plain spoken, are those of IGNORANCE, FEAR and/or HATE.
If you feel uncomfortable or icky by the thought of people of the same-sex loving one another and creating a life together, get over it. Your personal discomfort is the weakest argument you can possibly make for standing against others' happiness and prosperity.
Roger, a follow up to your response that forcing any church that opposes same-sex marriage on doctrinal grounds to hold/perform such ceremonies would be unconstitutional. If the nine wise people on the United States Supreme Court rule that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, would that change your answer?
I like to think President Obama is politically more conservative on gay marriage than he is personally. At least, I hope so.
Part of me thinks pragmatically, that I'd rather have Obama downplay his support of gay rights than let the right wing use it against him to install a leader who could do some real damage. At the same time, I wish he weren't dragging his feat on things like the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." If the last two years of his presidency are any indication, the Democrats don't have to take any action or espouse any positions for Republicans to hold it against them. They'd oppose hugs for children if they thought it had Obama's stamp on it. (Nearly as bad, they opposed and defeated health benefits for the heroic 9/11 volunteers.) Now midterm elections are coming up, Republicans might regain the majority, and then there goes any chance of getting anything meaningful done.
I generally don't worry about gay rights, though, as dispirited and angered as I am by specific roadblocks and opponents. (Ken Mehlman, that vicious little hypocrite, conveniently didn't come out of the closet and change his tune until well after his political relevance expired, having done far more damage than he could ever hope to repair.) This issue is largely generational, and the kids and young adults coming up aren't nearly as afraid of gay marriage. They wonder what the big deal is. In time, America will look back on it the same way it looks back on women's suffrage, civil rights, and interracial marriage, wondering, "Why did anyone oppose that?" Ten or fifteen years ago it would have been unimaginable for anyone even to suggest that gay marriage be allowed, and now it's legal in Canada and Mexico, and there's a public debate. In another fifteen years the debate, with any luck, will be over and the inevitable will have prevailed.
History is progressive. The repeal of slavery, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights. Way back when, conservatives would have kept buses, schools, and drinking fountains segregated. Today's conservatives would agree that that's absurd and evil. Yesterday's Jim Crow Laws are today's Defense of Marriage Act. Yesterday's segregation is today's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Tomorrow will be better, because historically tomorrow has always been better. We shouldn't be complacent, but we should look at today's struggle and remind ourselves that there will be a time, not so very far from now, when there won't be a struggle on this issue anymore.
"Was it because it seemed like a popular policy at the time? Was it playing to the party's southern evangelical base?"
So, are you saying gay marriage is just fine with northern evangelicals? I find it hard to believe. This language feels unfair me to as a progressive from the south. If it were an issue with the south instead of religious conservatives nationwide there would be a lot more legally recognized gay marriage north of the Mason-Dixon Line. As it stands New England is the only real bastion of right to marry in this country.
I'd prefer that the president stood up and said, "Opposition to gay marriage is an unequivocal act of bigotry, and I will not allow bigotry to be written into law." Is that so hard? Why can't a politician just come out and say that? Bigotry doesn't deserve to be catered to in the first place.
I have juggled with this topic in my head for quite some time, often to the point of paradox; where I can no longer distinguish my different ideas regarding all things moral/legal on gay marriage.
It's impossible to talk about gay marriage without acknowledging homosexuality itself. Homosexuality is by mere definition, being attracted both emotionally and physically to the same sex (at least, that's what I think it means). But, what does this all really mean? For years people have tried to plead their cases to the highest of courts (and even smallest courts) to prove to a person of authority that they are legitimately a homosexual, a straight or what have you. But honestly, how does one prove that and whose business is it? I for one cannot fathom how a human being can be attracted to the same sex but people obviously are so I suppose it's not my right to judge.
I will tell you why the clichéd and worn argument of: "67% or whatever of marriage in this country ends in divorce." is not a good defense of gay marriage or straight marriage for that matter. You cannot use statistics or individual cases like this as an argument to disprove the validity of the union; because let's face it. If you were to go by the traditional Christian ideology about it, most people nowadays (and especially in the U.S.) not only fail to maintain the values of what it represents but they have also forgotten entirely what constitutes a love-filled, sacred oath to begin with.
For one, the entire spectrum behind the whole idea of "the good Christian" or "the good catholic" is not only antediluvian it is downright unrealistic. Nobody in today's world is perfect, nor have they ever been nor will they ever will be. Contemporary Christians (and all of the denominations) of today do not practice what they preach (in theory). They say one thing and do another. This is not a negative bashing on religion or the religious, spiritual people or the spiritual ideas of societies; whatever they might be. I am simply trying to illustrate that human beings are flawed and that they are not God. God is not man nor is man God. This idea that (you) know something to be absolutely correct to the point of absolute certainty is not only incredibly naive but it is also rather ancient and barbaric. To give you a radical example, those terrorists thought blowing up two large buildings with lots of people inside was the right thing to do… They believed in this with all their heart. Otherwise why would anyone do it right? That would just be f^kin insane right!? (‘cough’). Some of these individuals in the world who believed in this were only 12 years old. Somehow, I don’t think that makes it right but then again I’m just one person so what do I know?
How can one say that an abortion is wrong, when they don't know all the circumstances? How can one say that abortion is just or right? When they know in their heart that they may not have weighed all the consequences? People give birth because that is how we create life. It is one of the prime examples of what makes us human beings. We were put here (in part I believe) to procreate and make the species survive. We are animals after all on some level (one cannot deny this fact of life). On the one hand, there seems today to be a growing concern over the argument of sex and sexuality. For sake of argument let’s keep using the example of abortion (another touchy subject nowadays).
Over exhaustive struggle and research I have come to this conclusion (try it on for size):
This is not a moral battle of pro life vs. pro choice. It is a simple issue of wanting to maintain the pleasure of sex with other people without needing to worry about a kid popping out. In other words, most people would rather enjoy the ecstasy of a good time than bring a new life into this world... Don't get sensitive because it's true when you get right down to the core of the problem. That's really what people in this situation are faced with. That's what makes them tick. They simply enjoy the sex and not raising a family.
I am not harping on people's wants and needs. Only an individual knows what they truly want and if one were to go by literally what our forefathers tried to strive for in the original constitution it was: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (Whatever that may be). Maybe you want to get married to a video game (though someone might find that offensive—it did happen though). Even if that happiness means: the right to have sex with another person or persons and not want a kid.
In the olden days of course it was a little different. You had ingrained into society this classic model of a nuclear family (with two kids, a dog and a picket fence—to put it rather crudely). Primarily, marriage was thought of an institution designed to create children. And at some point in our history, I’m positive that the prospect of sex with a wife or husband was only met with the idea that a child must come of it.
In other words people didn’t have sex for pleasure, they had sex to create babies and that’s it. Even if someone believed heavily in this idea morally, I challenge anyone to find people on this planet that engaged in this idea fully. Couples had to slip a freebe in there once in a while (YOU THINK!—One recalls the famous I Love Lucy episode in which Ricky and Lucy don’t sleep in the same bed). I honestly don’t care what the baby boomer generation says about sex, they’d probably be lost on the topic. Then again maybe that wasn’t you. Maybe you were the kind of person that had it both ways. But having a ‘classic’ nuclear family is not wrong. Having a relationship with one person is not wrong either. Lucy and Ricky were not wrong. The point I’m trying to make is that who really knows the ‘right’ way? Who created these societal norms?
Let’s make one thing perfectly clear (regardless of what anyone thinks they know). A man’s reproductive organ was meant to be inserted into a female’s vagina. I’m sorry but I am not being funny, I am dead serious. This is a bona fide fact of life and you cannot deny this. Not only is men having sex with men not a natural biological occurrence, any possibility of it happening must have unnatural steps in order for it to even take place or for the situation to change (if necessary). I mean this literally and not ideologically, socially or morally (‘scoff’). Also, sex change operations are not natural. Sex with a man is not natural. I don’t care how long you argue about it. It’s just not, I’m sorry. Notice that I did not say normal or right or just (or any other of those wordy words that people like to use). On the one level, you cannot deny that homosexuality probably was not part of God’s (or Abraham, Mohammed, Buddha or cosmic dust or whoever’s) blueprint for a human being in nature.
Now whether God had a hand in anything or not is not my decision to make, nor is it yours. Humans cannot even begin to fathom the cosmic eternal realities of what makes everything tick. Hell, even if people spent eons upon eons into other extra-dimensional portals in space time and learned to unravel the eternal mysteries of fate, disease and conquest of the heavens; I doubt that they would encounter God (if he form precludes some semblance of a reality we could comprehend).
Which brings us to the point: Is having a loving relationship with someone of the opposite sex right or wrong? I honestly don’t know. Is having a relationship with someone of the same sex right or wrong? I don’t know. If something feels good does that make it right? (Murder, drug use, sex) No. If something feels bad does that make it wrong? (Stealing from a grocery store in nuclear holocaust to feed a child, lying to your wife about her being fat and ugly, killing someone in self defense when all else failed) No. But then again, who am I to say. These radical examples merely illustrate the point that we really don’t know 100% for sure. 99.99999999999999999999999999999% doesn’t cut it jack.
And yet, I know to an absolute certainty that child molestation is wrong. I’m pretty sure it’s 120% wrong. But God forbid there’s some freaky alien kid out there who makes it a part of his everyday routine. In which it is a right of passage in alien societies to be molested as a sign of growing up (I wouldn’t want to live there). It seems to me that what makes us concerned about subjects is the emotional attachment we have to them, when it applies to the culture at the given moment (people used to sacrifice folks to the sun gods and that surely didn't make it right in my book but they sure thought so--Mel Gibson even made a movie about it).
People are afraid of what gay marriage means. What it would do to the society. Indeed, what would it really do? Would it transform everyone on the street into a drag queen? Put condom and S&M dispensaries into schools? Have a certain number of the population be same sex couples with a straight daughter who goes to school (yes I believe that a gay couple can have a straight child). As I believe a straight couple can have a gay child (God knows that’s happened). Will it cause the whole of American to go into civil unrest in WWIII with the Mormons and the Christians and the gays…? I don’t know. Honestly. And not only that, I wouldn’t want to know for sure.
I am a firm believer in the overall sense of the good citizen. A person who places others before himself. An individual who follows the civil rule of law without succumbing to being a blind drone. A person of high moral character, though of reasonable servitude. A non-confrontational person but one that is not afraid to fight for what’s just. A loving, caring person that is just private and selfish enough with his own social life but eager to engage and help strangers in need. A forgiving soul who is able to lay down the law when it calls for it….. Able to forgive yourself and move on in times of weakness and struggle. Be kind and open to strangers but feel no true obligation of care or commitment unless they feel it is right for them. Learn to help better the world everyday while still having two feet on the ground.
Yeah, yeah; at some point in our lives we all wished we were that person. The fact of the matter is we’re not. And nothing is ever going to change that so long as we stay the way we are.
If it’s any consolation I believe that true peace arrives when you start to understand that maybe we weren’t supposed to be perfect to begin with. Everything in life and society is a changing struggle and change is the most resilient part of makes us unique. That may be part of God's overall plan and that is all O.k. too.
I don’t know if being gay is natural or unnatural. Right or wrong. I just know that I am not gay and that I have friends who are. They are still my friends. I talk with them and enjoy their company. Wish them all the happiness in the world and they wish the same to me. I don’t think there’s anything terribly wrong with that (if in fact we’re still discussing right and wrong). God only knows (oops, my bad---Intelligent Design, Darwin, Buddha knows---oh, screw it---- I know and that’s good enough for me.
President Obama's position on same-sex marriage is not a matter of catering to his base, but one of catering to everybody else. If he were to side with same-sex marriage, we can assume that he would be seen as far too radical to lead our nation. Knowing what I think I know about him and his philosophies, I'm almost entirely sure that he approves of same-sex marriage, and would like to publicly declare so. That he has to lie to the public to keep his job, I don't envy him one bit.
Same, of course, goes for my dear Hillary Clinton. Her position against same-sex marriage is as phony as people misunderstand her entire persona to be. Somewhere early in her second term, I think she would have done an about-face and supported the states who are legalizing it. Hillary, I'm convinced, would have been the one Democrat to have the balls to admit the way she really feels and begin to turn the national tide of opinion on this issue.
But how does that line go at the end of SOME LIKE IT HOT? Nobody's perfect?
You may have been surprised about Obama, Roger, but I wasn't. People never want to vote in the "radical" candidates, but then they complain all the time that nothing changes. Well, go figure. Obama is not a bad leader (and far better than what we could have had), but he's not "change we can believe in."
I am so shocked that you, a "liberal" who loves all God's children, would take this brave position. Yup, leave it to good ol' Rodge to stand by his ever soooo sincere convictions. Even when it is soooo unpopular at the moment among his own base. AND you STILL haven't apologized to Paris Hilton. You never will. Because you are sooo very very "competitive." Yes, baseball!
Uhhm that might have sounded a little sarcastic and bitter. Well, you are such a 'stand up guy', you'll know what I'm talking about. Oops, still bitter about it. Well, I'll get over it—one of these centuries. I know, it's all about me, me, me. NOT. Well, it is about my naïveté.
It was you who opened the door wide for the inevitable Hilton bashing, and you never up until this day have made the slightest effort to close it.
It is so comforting to know that you care so much about everyone, even if they are unpopular. Oops, there I go again. Time for another professional treatment.
Hi Roger,
Although it might seem high-minded to agree with the sentiment that "a religious marriage is a matter for each church, but that the state should make no distinction in the matter of a civil ceremony," the state's position has a practical impact on the church itself. And this is important.
It is often portrayed that it is the religious who are intolerant of the homosexual community. But, as the story you relate about your mother helps to demonstrate, this is simply not the case for the vast, vast majority of people. In fact, I would argue the greater intolerance exists within the radical elements of the homosexual community. The vast majority of religious believers are more than happy to exist side-by-side among homosexual couples. It is the homosexual community that is not content allowing the religious community to practice their beliefs.
For example, it is not enough for the homosexual community to have same-sex marriage. They must also prevent the church from operating adoption clinics according to their beliefs . We see this in that the homosexual community is not content allowing Catholic adoption clinics to ooperate within their beliefs, giving them the ultimatum to conform or close (who is the intolerant one here). http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/mar/03/catholic-care-high-court
This has also happened in our own country in Massachusetts. Should we be so naive as to believe this will have been an isolated incident? So is it equality that is desired? Or is the suppression of religion, especially any religion with an opposing viewpoint, also a factor?
The radical homosexual activists also harrass private citizens operating private businesses, apparently not allowing for individual conscience in a matter that most definitely has moral implications. Or will we ignore multiple millenia of human history that has clearly recognized the moral element to this topic? See this, for one example: http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/357084.aspx
The secular left, with the radical homosexual activists being a significant wing, claims that egalitarianism and the desire to be left alone by the religious is their only desire. As your mother clearly demonstrated, the religious would be happy to leave these factions alone. But, being left alone isn't the desire. We must also condone homosexual behavior, calling it good. And anytime opposition to this is encountered, be it in the form of religious adoption clinics, the conscience of private businesses, etc., that opposition must be harassed and suppressed, using the force of government to achieve these ends.
It is one thing to demand the right to co-exist in, what is after all, a free society. It is another thing to demand that all must condone and support the beliefs of a given group while facing suppression and harassment when that approval is denied.
And when the government is actively assisting in the suppression of the opposing viewpoint (by effectively closing down religious adoption clinics, etc.) it is naive to miss the deep interrelatedness between church and state even in a society where a wall of separation between those two institutions exist.
Consider this: if same-sex marriage was legally sanctioned as being 'equal' to opposite sex marriage - it would deeply effect the financial bottom line of corporations and other employers who extend benefits to the spouses of their employees.
Consider that multi billionaire reactionaries like the Libertarian Koch Brothers (see the recent New Yorker article about them, folks) pump an untold amount of money into the creation of faux 'grass roots' organizations (like the Tea Party) used to promote their corporate agenda whilst presenting themselves as avatars of populist outrage.
Consider the extensive coverage that the Tea Party and other conduits of corporatist talking points (Limbaugh etc) get in the media compared to progressive organizations and voices.
Maybe, just maybe, all the hullabaloo about gay marriage is at heart less about upholding moral standards and more about panic amongst the guardians of the corporate bottom line.
None of this should matter. This should not be a debate. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone or violate anyone else's rights, two consenting adults should be allowed to do anything that two other consenting adults are allowed to do.
As for the counter-argument that it will "harm" the children, the reasoning doesn't make sense. Does that mean that it will turn kids gay? Is that because all straight parents raise straight children. No? Or maybe anti-same-sex marriage folk are afraid that gays will raise children that are tolerant of gays. Well, I'm pretty sure that plenty of parents already teach their children tolerance. Are they to be told how to raise their children as well
Thanks, Roger.
I was feeling sick to my stomach, today, what with all the "Restore America" return-to-Godisms being hyped this afternoon like they're Christopher Nolan's INCEPTION.
I needed to find some sanity on the internet, quickly becoming the place where sanity goes to die.
Of course, it occurred to me, finally, after a period that, though brief, was too long to admit to without embarrassment, I'll check out Roger's blog. And, I found this:
"If you feel uncomfortable or icky by the thought of people of the same-sex loving one another and creating a life together, get over it. Your personal discomfort is the weakest argument you can possibly make for standing against others' happiness and prosperity."
Thank you, Mr. Yeager.
Meet me on the steps of The Lincoln Memorial tomorrow, if you can, please. There'll be a mess to clean up.
I've read through most of these comments, and I'd like to thank the majority of the writers for using personal experience and factual information in making their arguments. You have added much to this civil discourse.
Rights can't be voted away. Majority rule does not apply when it oppresses the rights of the minority. Our country may not be perfect, but it can be perfected (to paraphrase President Obama), and one way we can do this is by making sure that everyone is allowed equal protection under the law. That includes marriage.
I find it unfortunate how we enter into debate about same-sex marriage with such antiquated ideas and terminology regarding same-sex attraction and relationships. The term "gay" is often used in such a cold, absolute, and blanketed manner when referring to the idea of people who have felt same-sex attraction or been in a same-sex relationship, that it is as though we are referring to them as carpenters. Many people have built a house and then tried other things. Many people, no doubt, have so identified with carpentry as their trade that, once its practice is no longer fulfilling or lucrative to them, they've gone on with unhappy lives of pounding bitter nails into cold walls.
Sexuality, in truth, comprises of as complex and mysterious and ever-changing a set of elements as one's circulatory system, and almost surely more so. And it is every bit as important to one's survival, though many generations prior to mine relegated it to a narrow, shallow pocket of life, bulging like a wadded tarpaulin. In truth, sexuality envelops life. It is, of course we know, the cause of life, and the celebration of life, the dread and the secret glee and the monumental battle of life. It is at the table of decision for every move one makes in the world.
Sexuality serves as a function by which we assert our place in the world. One man says, I am straight, as you see by my loving wife and my beautiful children and all that my being a real man produces; another says, I am gay, and I am a lover of art, of sculpted bodies, and of venturing off to far-away, exotic places; a woman might say, I am a woman, I have strong, complex, varied feelings, I like to try new things, I want to experience love; and so on. These, admittedly, are vast generalizations, but perhaps, perhaps, the point is shown.
But as our orientation towards our fellow humans and even ourselves (especially ourselves) can and does change dramatically over eighty years of time, our sexuality reveals itself, if only to ourselves, to be remarkably fluid. Far more, in reality, than I think most of us are emotionally equipped to handle. And so we are perhaps wise not to think of it in a deep, introspective, questioning way, open to new explanations and possible realities; and even our most pressing and peculiar sexual fascinations and habits are carried out as though we were oblivious to them, as though we and only we are exempt from having to practice the conventions of sexuality we profess to be suitable for the rest of mankind.
No one person understands sexuality enough to be able to make any permanent judgments about it. And yet people claiming to be on one side or the other of a mythical divide (the gay side or the straight) certainly get their mouths off in debates about "gay marriage" and "gays in the military." Perhaps as with the existence of one true god, we can really only muse.
In art, as with emotion sexuality is often represented by water, or fire. And water rushes into any vessel; fire burns nearly anything in its path.
Is it possible that any one human being who's ever lived has been able to escape from same-sex attraction of a sort that could, beneath all the veneer, be found to be quite appropriately described as sexual in nature: A yearning to experience that Other at a fundamental level of being; to know the touch, the smell, the vision of that Other; to acquire some trivial aspect of that Other, his crooked smile, her blue eyes, the curve of long toes, smooth, golden skin sprouting with errant quills of sun-glazed fuzz; to share, for a moment, the intimate processes of life with him or her?
For if and when one comes into this turbulent kind of knowledge, it can be embarrassing to admit anything to anyone else, and perhaps that is because of the bullying and bruising nature of the politics of sexuality, politics that are not only national but local. You are forced to take sides, and feel forced not to reveal anything that might give the other side cause to claim you as one of them.
You and I are writing the rules of these debates, you know. And that is why those of us who tend to identify, when asked to fill in the correct oval, as "heterosexual" should ruminate on a way of referring to the "homosexuals" less in a way as strangers from another continent than as cousins from a neighborhood very much nearby.
To those claiming that the big problem here is the redefinition the word "marriage," which has such a deep, specific and inviolable cultural meaning:
Do an exact-phrase Google search for "perfect marriage of" and see what you get from that. Here is the first pageful of my results:
The Perfect Marriage of Content and Technology
a Perfect Marriage of Communication and Entertainment
the perfect marriage of the right client and the right place
the "perfect marriage" of JRuby + Rails + GlassFish
Till death do us part: 'Perfect' marriage of Christine Sevilla, Timothy Wells ends in homicide
The Perfect Marriage Of Online & Offline Business
Perfect marriage of sci-fi, horror | Entertainment
A perfect marriage of Serbian food and dinner partner
A Perfect Marriage Of Luxury And Culture At Lake Atitlan
The Complete Cat - Perfect Marriage of Form and Function
90% of the references are to unions between entertainment genres, spheres of commerce, computer software, various abstract concepts, and apparently a woman with a spinach-and-cheese burek. Only one applies to a marriage between one man and one woman (and look at how that turned out). Yes, these are only the first ten of over 1.3 million results, but a quick scan of succeeding pages suggests that the ratio found in any larger sampling would not be greatly different. We toss the word "marriage" around whenever two things are brought together, however like or unlike they may be to each other, and nobody bats an eye. A few weeks ago I had an Italian Wedding in my soup (interspecies polyamory any way you look at it) and I didn't notice any crowd of protesters picketing my table. Object to same-sex marriages all you want on any moral or logical grounds you can find, but know that neither the dictionary nor common usage will support your exclusive claim to this word.
It greatly restores my faith in my fellow readers to see that this entry is so much less controversial than the last. My answer to most of the standard arguments against gay marriage is to point out that if you’re straight you can do it in Vegas while you’re drunk, in a drive-through lane.
As for the idea that it should be done legislatively instead of judicially – in a perfect world, yeah maybe, but court decisions were also the way that interracial marriage became legal, first in California in 1948 and finally nationwide in 1967. Does anyone really think that interracial couples should have had to wait another twenty years for politicians to grow a set?
Sorry, "gays (as i think just about everyone is bisexual, including "straights"), but this issue isn't only about you, which is why I'm 90% against the term gay marriage (should we start saying "straight marriage" now too?...it's divisive)--unless that person IS not AT ALL attracted to the opposite sex, for instance-- and prefer the legal term same-sex marriage because it is neutral and encompasses all three sexual orientations (bi;straight;gay) as it doesn't matter which one it is.
Incidentally, i get a million dollar idea every few months or so, and here is another one:
A reality show about straight people having a same sex marriage.
You get a totally straight person, who is straight, down to the bone, charismatic, hairy, knows the opposite sex's body and hates the other's body sexually etc. and then see how they react to being married to someone is who Totally gay, which would all be fascinating from a anthropoligical point of view, and perhaps we could call it:
"So i married my sex..."
Maybe it could be like something they only agree to do for the show, or probably better, it could be a real person that is really bored straight/gay person, who is so bored that they just are going to marry against their orientation just etc., but i think it should go either way....pun no intended...or maybe.
Here's how the shows intro could start:
"most of us, whether we admit it or not, find the same sex attractive....at least a little bit, but some of us, are either so straight or so gay, that it is impossible for them to marry the against their sexual orientation, until right now. Whether it be by boredom, or just for the fun of you and me...here is
So i married the same sex...
By FDuquette on August 27, 2010 8:32 PM
Gays currently have the right to marry. It is their choice of mate that is restricted on gender, age and number of applicants.
Here, here. Bravo. Well put!
I always thought that the appropriate ending to the movie The truth about cats and dogs was the obvious one. All three loved each other and wanted to be together. It really was a true love story. If I had two such girls interested in me, you can bet your boots that I wouldn't give a damn if I had a piece of paper or not. Besides, let's face it, the piece of paper more than anything else is for the legal separation issues of money, property, etc. Love isn't even a close second.
Yet, Hollywood didn't have the brass to give it a "they lived happily ever after" ending, which does upon occasion happen. So it got the contrived ending which I have forgotten. But I have never forgotten those girls. Uhmmm girls!
Here's my story and I'm sticking to it.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/08/im-sorry-ctd-3.html
Come on, Roger! Everybody knows that Homosexuals are secretly planning on overthrowing the government. It's written in their sacred literature!
The Catholic Church has always considered marriage a sacrament. The formal definition may have occured at the Council of Trent, but the Church has never had a different understanding. To wit:
31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother: and shall cleave to his wife. And they shall be two in one flesh. 32 This is a great sacrament....
Letter of St. Paul to the Ephesians, 5:31-32.
Among all nations and all men, therefore, the advantage of marriage is for the sake of begetting offspring and in the fidelity of chastity. In the case of the people of God, however, there is also the holiness of the sacrament, on which account a woman is not permitted, even when she leaves with a repudiation, to marry another while her husband yet lives, not even for the sake of bearing children. Although this is the only reason why marriage takes place, even if this for which marriage takes place does not follow, the marriage bond is loosed only by the death of a spouse (On the Good of Marriage 24:32 [A.D. 401]).
St. Augustine
In marriage, however, let the blessings of marriage be loved: offspring, fidelity, and the sacramental bond. Offspring, not so much that it may be born, but because it can be reborn [as a Christian]; for it is born to punishment unless it be reborn to life. Fidelity, but not such as even the unbelievers have among themselves, ardent as they are for the flesh. . . . The sacramental bond, which they lose neither through separation nor through adultery-this the spouses should guard chastely and harmoniously (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:17:19[A.D. 419]).
St. Augustine
No matter how we feel about same-sex marriage, the exegesis for the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Genesis makes us uncomfortable. Why? Because the deed Adam and Eve did, according to the evidence, was sodomy--the mystery the bishop of Hippo almost solved 1600 years ago. (He thought the sin was penile/vaginal.) For more information google The First Scandal Adam and Eve. Then click, read, and click again.
As part of my job, I sit down and talk with new patients to a cancer clinic. Presumably I am there to talk with just one person, but nearly always there is a family of some configuration crowded into a little exam room. People bring parents, children, ex-spouses, step-siblings, friends, you name it. This to me is what family is - the people by your side in a crisis.
Anyway, vividly I remember meeting a man who was obviously dying. He was in terrible pain much of the time. He was elderly, and had another elderly man at his side who did all the talking for him and made all his appointments and arrangements. This as it turned out was the patient's boyfriend of many decades, who watched over him patiently and lovingly. As I was finishing up my visit, he asked me if I could make a photocopy of some paperwork for him. I said that I could, and just as he handed it over to me he hesistated, for just a moment, with a strange expression. I realized why when I took it to the copier and saw what it was - this was a legal document drawn up to name him as the health proxy and give him power of attorney.
That moment of hesitation in retrospect breaks my fucking heart. Because that piece of paper was the only thing that allowed this man to take care of his partner, to talk to the doctors and handle things that would have been too taxing for the very ill patient. And these men had no way of knowing whether I was going to be professional or if I would turn out to be some kind of hateful idiot who would choose to make their day even harder for no good reason. The love and devotion I saw in that day and the fear imposed upon it is something I will never forget.
A married couple would not have to visit a lawyer and pay lawyer-sized fees to have legal documents drawn up that a number of people would be inclined to ignore anyway. A straight husband would be recognized and listened to without needing to explain how long they had been together and how much his spouse was suffering. Thank goodness I live in a state that recognizes gay marriage, but this couple had traveled to us from a state that did not, and so could not be married, and lacked the protections and privileges automatically conferred onto the married.
It is absolutely shameful that America does not allow legal gay marriage in every state. Shameful. I say let the churches do as they will, and unbind civil marriage from religious ceremony for ALL couples straight and gay. Anybody who wants their extra special separate better-than-the-rest-of-us union can have their church wedding and call themselves more blessed, but any two people who love each other should be equal in the eyes of the law.
(Let me also add that I couldn't have married my own significant other just a few decades ago, because he is black and I am white. It would have been illegal and possibly even fatal. So don't talk to me about "protecting marriage". Not so long ago you were protecting it from US.)
Huh. Here's where I first even considered the idea of gay people... loving each other... tho' I worked for a gay couple at the time.
http://tommydark.blogspot.com/2005/10/man-from-xebos.html
Took a man from outer space to put the thought in my mind. 1971. Why do I suddenly hear my bones rattling?
@Steve--
YOu have a great grasp of history, but could use a little dose of theology. A "Sacrament" is church terminology, which may have come along whenever you said it did--doesn't matter. The "Church" didn't come around until after Jesus was on earth--other than of course the Jewish synagogue. The church didn't create marriage--God did. God is the one who made marriage "sacred" and God has been in existence forever--His earth and people, according to the Bible has been here 6000 years. How people got married in ancient times could have been a wedding, or sometimes it was just that they were put in the same tent and were considered married--perhaps the wife was bought like you said, but in God's eyes, a marriage is sacred, even if the persons involved don't believe in Him. Because marriage is more there to meet God's purposes, not ours.
@Straight Grandmother: Honey, if I could reach through the internet and smother you in hugs and kisses, I would. It's funny how often people who loudly proclaim their "family values" and their concern for "the children" are callously indifferent to the harm and heartbreak they cause to real people. I have nothing but respect and honour for anyone who takes on the awesome responsibility of bringing a life into this work, and nurturing it into a healthy and productive adult. It's HARD WORK without ignorance and fear making it that much harder.
There was a typo on my title earlier;
i meant "so i married the other sex'
which might not be that good of title..
maybe...
'changing teams'
so it doesnt necessarily have to be a marriage
@Patrick Yaeger
Actually, I personally don't feel icky or uncomfortable about it-I just think it's against what God wants. And I love God fiercely.
Interestingly, I have an ex-husband who has been missing for 3 months right now. Our latest hunch is that it's because he is has realized he is gay and is afraid of the fall-out of coming out of the closet. It's unfortunate that he doesn't get that we would love him unconditionally, if that's the case. His mother is a devoted Catholic, but as she said--this is her son--she would love him no matter what. Most of his 5 brothers would be shocked, but they love him so much. That's what's tough about this whole "gay" thing--the hate of other humans. Even though I don't agree with homosexuality as a lifestyle, I love my ex as a human being, and can't imagine the pain he's going through with this realization and thinking he has to cut off his whole life. It is very painful for me as well to think of him hurting, as he is someone I spent 11 years with and was my childrens devoted stepfather.
Now, that's all well and good of ya to talk about how gay marriage is a dream come true for all the gays... But what about us good, upstanding Christian folk? How are we supposed to maintain our monopoly on social issues when you've got the gays and the Muslims and the blacks runnin' around, makin' all these rules and whatnot? By God, how's my little ones Jesse and Warren gonna grow up in a nice, safe Christian environment when you've got gay black Muslims tryin' to legalize drugs and sinful behaviors? Now, I ain't sayin' that I got anything against the gays and Muslims and blacks, but how's this fine country supposed to maintain its core Christian values when you've got homosexuals dictatin' the law? Where I'm from, if you're a homo, you don't tell anybody, and if ya do tell anybody, well then, you'll probably get beaten to death. And now we've got homos all over the place just wantin' to get married and do whatsoever they may please. Well, I just have one question: Will Jesus have mercy on their souls come Judgment Day when their transgressions are recounted and its shown that not only did they not fight their sinful urges, but that they fought FOR them? I believe that the manner in which you answer that question reveals a deep truth about your spirit, and your relationship with Jesus Christ, lord and savior.
KEN TREECE:
yes, and to your view on the sacraments, one can look at the OT practice of circumcision as symbolic of the covenant, yet real in its declaration of allegiance to God. Of course, Jesus replaces these OT requirements, but one can take the practice of sacramental observances well back to Moses.
In additon to your Augustine, Aquinas adds an interesting hermeneutical principle, that signification in sacred doctrine has a dual property: words are signifiers of a literal sense, but that literal signification has itself a spiritual property of signification which goes beyond its original literal significance. (Summa Theologica 1.1 Sacred Doctrine) "...that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification."
The symbol itself, once adopted, has a spiritual life of its own,a connection to the divine. Hence, even if the manner of a marriage ceremony is "voted on" by a council, it has force beyond the coucil's power. So it is still "just a symbol" in its creation and constitution yet its power is self-generated (as an incarnation of God's will).
Symbols of sin also have an independent status: their power needs no guidance from we fools who construct them.
Today Glenn Beck, along with Sarah Palin and, shockingly, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s niece Alveda, held a rally at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to mark the 37th anniversary of Dr. King’s infamous “I Have a Dream” speech. Mr. Beck claims to have intended the event to occur on September 12th to fulfill his promise to the “9/12 Moms” he created back in March of 2009, but fearing a breach of religious law to work on the Sabbath, he settled on this day. Supposedly unaware of today’s important historical significance, he called his decision “divine providence.” For the record, Mr. Beck will be holding interviews on Fox News tomorrow afternoon, on the Sabbath.
Tens of thousands of people from all over the country filled the mall (or at least half of it) to listen to Mr. Beck and Mrs. Palin cry out for America’s need for a religious revival. I was unable to be among those in attendance this morning because of a sick dog I am babysitting, but as I watch the highlights, I have a few thoughts on the civil religion that Mr. Beck seems to believe in so firmly. According to Mr. Beck – and I’m sure Mrs. Palin agrees – America as a nation was founded upon the God-given rights of every man as enumerated in the catechism, or Constitution, of the United States. When the Founding Fathers penned the Constitution’s seven articles, they had effectively created the greatest system of government the world had ever seen, and after being ratified in 1789, the Bill of Rights was added to appease the greatest critics of the sacred text.
It was at this point, I think, that Mr. Beck, Mrs. Palin, the tens of thousands of gatherers, and of course the countless who couldn’t make it, believe God divinely inspired his great American prophets to put quill-to-scroll and establish mankind’s inalienable rights, and in doing so, give birth to the Church of the United States of America. For Mr. Beck, our rights as a citizen in this country come not from the Founding Fathers, but rather from God himself. For this reason, Mr. Beck and his minions believe that our Constitution is sacred, even holy – the pinnacle of moral thinking. This is why Mr. Beck chose Washington, D.C. – his Mecca – to be the stage for his call for revival. I am actually stunned, and relieved, he didn’t charge that the crowd go forth throughout the District and drive out the blasphemers who brought healthcare to nearly every American and prevented Wall Street from robbing us blind. But no, this was a peaceful rally.
Rights, as defined by a secular text called a dictionary – a book I assume Mr. Beck and especially Mrs. Palin rarely refer to – are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement – i.e. rights are normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. Rights, therefore, have no religious connotation whatsoever; they are established, not endowed. When Thomas Jefferson wrote a very eloquent letter to the King of England, he was wrong when he said they were. But he was right about the government’s role in securing them, and by adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, Jefferson’s assertions were realized. Justice Kagan also realized this when she explained to Senator Jeff Sessions during her judiciary committee hearing that she does not know of any other rights apart from those enumerated in the Constitution.
Despite the massive turnout, Mr. Beck and Mrs. Palin are going to have a difficult time convincing those outside of their congregations to embrace candidates this November that support a religious revival more than an economic revival. The Republican National Committee even disagrees with Mr. Beck, suggesting to their candidates that they soft-pedal social conservatism and drive home the GOP economic message. In the end, Mr. Beck did little to advance the ideas circulating in Congress about how to restore investor confidence and create jobs, and instead offered America’s religious conservatives a time to worship at their civic church and forever confuse the First Amendment’s order to separate Church and State, an idea inspired by St. Thomas Jefferson and St. Benjamin Franklin. No wonder Glenn Beck belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
As a gay man, I belong to a group that pre-dates Christianity, the United States and most modern civilizations. We're not abnormal, we've always been here.
My partner and I have been together 10 years. We're more a married couple by default than most straight couples we know.
Marriage is a man made institution. Marriage isn't what joins people, it's the relationship we enjoy. It's the desire to spend our daily lives together.
@Rachel
Men created marriage. Men declared marriage a sacrament. They took an existing institution and crafted new rules around it that fit with what they believed. God had nothing to do with it. Believe it's holy if you want, but please don't claim such nonsense.
Besides, it's completely irrelevant what the Church says about it. There is separation of church and state. This isn't a theocracy. They can say whatever they want, but its legal meaning and relevance is exactly nil.
Yes, there are things like canon law. A church may decide to not marry someone who is divorced. Or not marry gay people for that matter. But in the secular world that's irrelevant.
In some European countries, the secular nature of modern marriage is more clear. There you don't just get a marriage license that you can then use however you want. But you HAVE to get married in front of a civil authority of some kind, even if you want a church wedding People who put more emphasis on the church wedding just don't have an elaborate ceremony at the civil one.
Just thought i’d post this for those who have never read it. It’s kind of old, but points to religious arguments that express why God doesn’t have a problem with homosexuals. It actually breaks down each scripture traditionally used to argue against homosexuality on a religious context and shows the error in translation and interpretation.
Here goes: http://www.godmademegay.com/Letter.htm
Although I agree that religious views are immaterial to laws regarding homosexuals (Separation of church and state duh), I still feel it proves as a good way to form rebuttal to religious arguments, as well as a positive influence for those that are Christian and Gay or Ally.
I'm 31, straight and a ardent supporter of gay marriage. Here's why:
A little over 20 years ago, my parents decided to divorce. I still remember both of them gathering my brother, my sisters and I together to tell us what was going on. I specifically remember my parents telling us "When two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their live together with each other, they get married. When they don't love each other, they get divorced." The key here is that they didn't say "man and woman", but rather "two people". That conversation has stayed in my memory banks since that day and I'll likely never forget it.
Because of that conversation and the fact that my parents encouraged all 4 of us to decide on our own what we thought of the world, among other things, I've always thought that marriage is between two people, regardless of sex.
The religious right loves to shout from the mountaintops that they will be forced to marry gay people. Here's a simple solution:
Write in a religious exemption to allow churches to not have to perform marriage ceremonies for gays if doing so violates the laws and customs of the religion. If gay couples wanted to get married in a church, I'm sure they could find one that would do that. If they can't find one, a justice of the peace will do the ceremony.
In the eyes of the federal government, the marriage between a man and a woman isn't legal until they sign a marriage license. The last time I checked, it wasn't necessary for the couple to get married in a church in order to receive a license. All they need is their signatures, witnesses' signatures and other requirements fulfilled. No religious ceremony needed.
Currently, there are over 1,000 rights and responsibilities that married people get.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States
"we now know that the word has gone out to the GOP's 2010 candidates to soft-pedal opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage."
Here in California, a judge just ruled that state law (Proposition 8) against same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Both the Republican governor and the Democratic attorney general opposed the law, and refused to defend it in court, and when the court overturned Prop 8, both filed motions with the court urging that same-sex marriages be allowed to resume immediately.
In contrast, Meg Whitman, the Republican candidate for governor, has said she will support Prop 8. She remains a strong opponent of same-sex marriage. I wonder how many votes she'll lose because of that stance.
I'm so dismayed by the talk of "activist judges" and assertions that voters - "the people" - should get to decide who can marry. Voters shouldn't get to decide that only some of us are entitled to certain rights. The Constitution is very clear about equal protection under the law for all citizens.
Gary Robbins, I suspect we may disagree on much, at least politically, but I want to thank you for your comment. You and a few others have raised my spirits. It's true that the most powerful and lasting change toward gay acceptance comes one person at a time, and your comment gives me hope for other Reagan-Palin-etc. Republicans.
Thank you.
Ahhh, I just read where Paris got busted yet again. She's been arrested more times than Dillinger and Capone combined.
It's depressing. Then you got Mel Gibson on those tapes. Gees. Ya can't believe in anything anymore. Bummer. People making a big deal out of building a Mosque that no one, not even New Yorker's are sure where it is located. Is there anything left to smile about?
@ big boobs (how big?) - You don't buy that banning gay marriage is harmful to gay people? Perhaps you believe the same thing about segregation? Because that's what it is when it comes down to it. It may not be as obvious, but in effect it does the same thing: tells one group of people they don't deserve the same things everyone else does. You can dress it up all you want; you can say God's against it (you have to be a pretty arrogant SOB to proclaim to know what God is thinking), there was no gay marriage in olden times (how exactly this proves anything, I'm not sure; there were no computers in olden times, either); it damages the sanctity of marriage (sanctity, my ass). No matter what argument you use, it derives from your own prejudices. I think it's hilarious that all these anti-gay marriage types think THEY'RE the ones taking the moral high ground, when they're literally telling a group of people that they're second-class citizens, for no other reason than that they're different.
Also, you said something about gay people being an "enormously successful group." This statement makes no sense in more ways than I have time to point out. First of all, it's an incredibly broad generalization that has no bearing whatsoever on individual experience. Second of all, even if it were true, it serves nothing to prove your point. From what I gather, you're saying that because some gay people have managed to do well for themselves, the prospect of them being able to marry whomever they choose should no longer concern them; i.e. they've already succeeded on a professional level, who are they to ask for success in their personal lives, as well? Give me a break.
Some people here (and many others) have tried to make the "evil" comparisons to polygamy, incest, etc. that always get people angry in this debate.
Here's a better question, Mr. Ebert -- you've mentioned the distinction between religious marriages versus those recognized by the state.
Why do we need the state to decide who is married? This was a notion essentially invented with the reaction to the Protestant Reformation. Catholics said only those married by priests were validly married, which undermined Protestant marriages; Protestants countered by making the state the arbiter of marriage.
But now that the Reformation is over, why do we still need the government deciding who can get married AT ALL? If, as gay marriage advocates argue, marriage is no longer tied to traditional family units or procreation or whatever, why not just turn it into a standard bundled contract? Obviously, like any contract, you need consent from the people agreeing to it, but why should "marriage" even be a separate category?
I absolutely agree with you, Mr. Ebert, that there should be a distinction between religious and civil marriage. But to me the distinction should be that civil marriage doesn't need to exist at all separate from standard contract law. If people want to have greater "meaning" bestowed upon their union, go to a church, go to whatever person you respect to get "married" -- but what the devil does the state have to do with conferring any SIGNIFICANCE on your relationship?
Tell me, Mr. Ebert, if the government shouldn't care about what I do in my bedroom, why does it need to regulate it at all? What purpose does civil marriage serve these days?
The argument here really opened my eyes to the possibilities:
http://www.heracliteanriver.com/?p=4
To lizvelrene on August 28, 2010 4:33 PM: Beautifully written.
Now to Rachel on August 28, 2010 4:48 PM:
First, one needs a dose of theology like one needs a heart attack. And if God made marriage sacred he sure seemed oddly inclined towards sabotage by then creating homosexual urges. But a whole host of contradictions and fallacies are going to be found if one takes the Bible as the literal truth as you seem to do. I could point at the mountains (literal and figurative) of evidence that refute your young earth claim but I won't in the hope that you'll do the intellectual work yourself and because the burden, frankly, rests on you to prove it.
But this is precisely the problem I have with fundamentalists who wade into the gay marriage and other "moral issue" debates. You make outrageous statements about what god made, thinks, and does. You never back them up with any facts or cogent reasons. And their being based on texts written millennia ago by people who knew less about the world than today's average 5th grader never deters you. How you then decide you have enough basis to discriminate against others is astounding. And like lizvelrene said: shameful.
To Josh, who is hysterical about activist homosexuals:
I have to dispel any confusion there may be between us due to a common namesake. First, you seem to wish the continued association of Catholicism and children which in these days, I must admit, sends a shudder down my spine.
Second, you seem to believe that the ruling prohibiting Catholic adoption agencies from discriminating against gay couples is a bad thing. And apparently you didn't read the article you cite either since England's High Court of Justice were the ones stopping the Catholic Agencies, not "the homosexual community" and the, "ultimatum to conform or close" was self-imposed by then archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor in reaction to the regulation.
I'll also suggest you get your facts straight before voicing your bigoted suspicions of "radical homosexual activists".
I wrote this 5 page thing then decided I probably don't have anything that important to say and deleted it. I'll just say I grew up at the end of a dirt road on a farm in a large Catholic family and I guess we were just to busy working to be concerned with what others were doing in their spare time. My Dad believed that you didn't have to agree with what others did but as long as they weren't hurting others they should be free to do whatever they liked. It's called America, he explained. It's what makes us different.
I don't usually comment twice in the same thread but have to here. For everyone who thinks that it's not appropriate for judges to decide whether gay marriage is legal, a brief refresher course in how separation of powers works might help.
JUDGES: Determine whether the law today requires that gay marriage must be legal.
LEGISLATORS: Determine whether the law should be changed if the judges decide that the law today requires that gay marriage must be legal.
So the "five unelected judges" decide nothing more than that the Constitution in its current format requires gay marriage. The elected officials can, of course, amend the Constitution to change that. In California they tried. But the US Constitution apparently sets the rule that California can't do this by itself. So it takes a federal constitutional amendment. Okay, so get to work then. But if you think you wouldn't get the amendment, maybe that's an indication that you realize your position isn't actually such an overwhelming majority. At which point then yes, you have to live under the laws as they stand. But we all do. I don't like the Second Amendment, but I acknowledge it to be a valid and enforceable law.
Alright already! Are we going to talk about anything that ISN'T on the far left agenda? The grim future of Bond movies perhaps? Insights into the writing of Ebert's memoirs? Hey, I got one: The new Nintendo system that displays in 3D WITHOUT the use of glasses. There's a combo of blog fodder for ya! Eh? EH?
you can click on my link for my essay on gay marriage. i just don't see how any heterosexual marriage is threatened by the advent of homosexual marriage. i don't want to hear about the "institution of marriage." if i'm jewish and my neighbor is catholic, does he threaten the "institution" of my religion?
Not every desire should be acted upon and/or justified through constitutional law.
Roger, the best piece of video on this is from the VP debates between Palin and Biden.
Palin rolls out the constitutional amendment argument--idiotic on its face as half the Republican party is on a state's rights binge--and Biden rolls out the same old criticism of the Bush administration's policies--idiotic as well, as Bush isn't running.
Then the interesting thing happens. The moderator asks Biden point-blank if the Obama camp is in favor of gay marriage. Biden looks shocked. To his credit, or maybe to his lack of adroitness, he answers the question head-on. "No," he says.
I've seen nothing more illustrative than this exchange to show the shallowness of both these parties and these people. Biden's happy to give voice to a stand he will not make in order to make political points; Palin is happy to espouse a technique she will soon happily eschew for more time in the spotlight. These are hopeless, brittle people, and we are idiots for paying any attention to them at all.
The poor gay people are caught in the middle. I call them poor because they are the only ones with a legitimate stake in this fight, and no one will give their cause a fair shake. No one cares, aside from the political traction and face-time they can squeeze out of it.
Greetings fellow readers and Roger!
As another one of my fellow Canadians has pointed out we in the land of the maple leaf have had legally recognized same-sex marriages for some time.
The reasons this, or any other social advance occurred, was chiefly due to the courage of our parliamentarians who were acting in the aftermath of sustained and courageous input from citizen activists.
I make my living as a political (Green Party) organizer. What sustains me is the general and universal good will found in people when all is thought to be forfeit.
To our friends South of the border, keep going, social justice is worth the struggle because it changes peoples' lives for the better.
Chris Alders
Ottawa, Canada
No one, despite whatever gender they are attracted to, has the right to marry someone of the same gender. No government can give them this right because it does not exist. Only men and women are sexually complimentary.
Homosexuality is a smoke screen in terms of this debate. What really matters is whether the government has the authority to change objective truth to fit subjective desires. They do not. If two males go to Iowa and get a marriage liscence that is fully reconized in every state, they are still not married.
The question is not whether the definition of marriage will change. It won't. The only question is will we change...
big boobs:
//3. if gays can marry then what is to legally stop polygamy or other arrangements???//
The same thing that stops gays from marrying just because heterosexual couples can marry.
A good friend told me once that you should vote for whom you really want than for whom you think could win. A vote for whom you didn't really want is a thrown away vote that sustains the two similar party two similar person system we have now. I think this was very good advice.
This far into Obama's presidency I don't know if he's voting for what he wants or if he is voting for what he thinks he must. I know he promised universal health care and settled for forced private insurance. I know he promised liberty and signed bills to take it away such as the one supporting the right of the police to get telephone records of people without a court order. I know he's allowing the U.S. government to assassinate people (including U.S. citizens) instead of trying to capture and try them. I know he promised change and yet had the federal reserve print ridiculous amounts of money to give to big corporations that he picked should get it and decided which smaller corporations and funds should surrender their owed debts to those big companies.
Obama is already hated by enough people for the wrong reasons. He's hated for being black, for being muslim, for being atheist, for being socialist, for being democrat, for having a different name, for being born to Africans, and a whole slew of other reasons. In light of that he needs to absolutely forget caring about re-election and needs to make every moment of his presidency count.
He needs to stop listening to polls, to fox news, to religious lobbyists, to billionaires, to oil companies, to unions and start making sure that every comment, every signature and every speech is something HE believes is right.
Obama is either being a fool doing what he's told, or he's doing what he believes and is no different than any of the presidents who came before him in the last decades.
My criticism of Obama is that he's not a change, and that's all his fault. He's president of the United States. If a billionaire or company tries to tell him what to do, he should remember that he's more powerful.
I saw that video clip of the head of Goldman Sach's (sp?) telling Ronald Reagan to hurry up what he's saying and Reagan saying, "Oh okay." I saw proof that presidents of this country are traditionally puppets of the rich.
Obama isn't going to get re-elected as a puppet. So elected or not he needs to be himself, and at least then his presidency will mean something. If he believes in equality for all people, he needs to start prooving it, and this topic in question of who can marry whom is no different. When Roger Ebert thinks Obama is more conservative than the last Bush, you know Obama has screwed up so far.
I wish people in general would stop calling it "gay marriage" or "homosexual marriage" because this is really about liberty.
Besides, that , I think that just about everyone is bisexual (at least a tiny bit) and so the label isn't accurate 90% of the time (and for "straight" people too).
On a job application, it says that we are not allowed to discriminate based on religion, age, race, sexual orientation, and so aside from the issue of space, there's a reason why they don't list all of them (no discrimination for ages 16--130; Mexicans, Canadians; straights, bis, or gays).
Do you see how it becomes divisive once you start listing it?
Just call it same-sex marriage so we don't start off listing it, because it's not about whose in the list, but that we shouldn't have a list in the first place.
When you say "gay marriage" that's like saying, "black marriage" or "Mexican marriage" or "age 45 marriage" or "Buddhist marriage" or even "half-black/white age 45 Christian Buddhist to 1/4 Korean 3/4 Portugese Islamic Christian marriage" when it doesn't really matter what specific sexual orientation it is, or specific race, or specific age or specific relgion.
It's about liberty, not about one specific group. That's why you should call it same-sex marriage because it doesn't necessarily mean that the people marrying are gay just that they are the same-sex. Equality is about neutrality, which means we should be neutral about age, race, religion, or sexual orientation, which means we should not make it about any specific one of those.
@ Josh (on August 28, 2010 12:55 PM),
You actually have the audacity to claim that Christians are the victims of the evil gay agenda. Excuse me, but who exactly is doing the discriminating here? In every example the Christian is discriminating against the gay couple because of the Christian's religious beliefs. I challenge you to find a story of a gay couple denying services to a Christian couple. You won't find one. Why do you think that is, Josh?
First of all, adoptions are not a requirement for a church to function. The First Amendment protects your right to practice your faith without interference. Adoptions have nothing to do with praying in church. Secondly, if the church is accepting taxpayer money to fund the adoptions, then are considered secular in nature. In other words, gay taxpaying citizens are actually helping to fund the adoption agency so it would be illegal to discriminate against them. Pretty simple to understand. I'm surprised that you didn't bring up the "pavilion story". That has the same answer: taxpayer money funded the pavilion, so you can't discriminate against gay couples.
When churches get involved in secular institutions (adoption, renting out pavilions) and receive taxpayer monies in doing so, they cannot discriminate against gay couples, or black couples, or Muslim couples, etc.
Good to talk with you again Ebert.
I wanted to put in my 2 cents. I spent part of Dubya's presidency in Utah, surrounded by his supporters who were also part of the LDS church. In contrast, I spent my childhood growing up in a partially gay neighborhood(lesbians not men).
The arguments I heard against gay marirage were truly outlandish. There was one that went, "If gays are allowed to marry, what's to stop a man from marrying a pet goat?" which was the most ridiculous and also very popular. The polygamy argument was used as well, this being FLDS territory, with giant compounds in the middle of nowhere with giant outsized houses to house the polygamous families. If gays could marry, what's to stop polygamy from spreading as a legal entity?
The news was dire about the current young LDS gay members, it was found the suicide rate was sky high among these poor souls. The ones that survived had to cut off ALL ties to family.
In the midst of this turmoil, Dubya began to tell churches that their religious liberties would be under attack if gays were allowed to marry, that their priests would soon be under the tyranny of a young gay couple.
In retrospect, human behavior is so baffling. The dominant group who had nothing to fear was the most fearful, terrified at the prospects of a minority group gaining rights. The minority group was tolerant of the LDS, even if they poked fun at them.
The one explanation I can think of is that most of the bigotry was being stirred by politicians, to create a reeking concoction that would keep them in their seats no matter what the latest scandal was. It stinks of a democracy gone off track, one in which voting reasons ate often being created by savvy marketers instead of reflecting the peoples unadulterated best interests. It's a sad situation....
Your mom had great gaydar. One of my closest friends is gay and he has a lot of trouble telling what persuasion a person it.
Thanks for posting this Roger. Was just reading The five most common regrets of the dying:
http://www.inspirationandchai.com/Regrets-of-the-Dying.html and it made me think of what you wrote.
Ebert: I'm currently not dying (not any more than anyone else), but I can promise you these are true.
Amazed no one's quoted this yet:
Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President, the Bible does.
Bartlet: Yes, it does. Leviticus.
Jacobs: 18:22.
Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side-by-side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing, while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.
"evil gay agenda"?
wow, talk about paranoid.
I'll be honest, I'm against it for religious reasons. Not in an intolerant way, I'm perfectly accepting of homosexuals, but I'm just uncomfortable with it. That being said, as a conservative I actually don't think the government has a right to make it illegal. I'm all for lesser government, as other conservatives claim to be, and for that reason I believe the fed doesn't have the right to tell Church's (or other houses of worship) what they can or can't do as religious institutions.
So to sum it all up, I'm personally not in agreement with it, but if a particular house of worship happens to want it, I don't see why the government has a right to get in the way.
News flash: If you oppose gay marriage you're a bigot. That’s right, all you Midwestern and Southern rubes with your outdated notions that marriage is between a man and a woman – YOU’RE BIGOTS! Obviously you hate gay people. Why else would you be in favor of drawing distinctions?
“Civil union” ain’t going to cut it. After gay marriage is legalized the next step is to ban the word "homosexual" entirely. Homosexuals deserve to be treated the SAME as heterosexuals. I propose (for the sake of clarity) that instead of referring to two men who are sexually active together as "homosexuals" we refer to them as "heterosexuals". It’s only fair! Do heterosexuals think they are the only ones who have the right to be in heterosexual relationships? That’s discrimination!
All of you people out there who insist that words have meaning are BIGOTS!!!
While I was watching an especially mesmorizing story arc about a teenaged girl's sexuality on the great ABC drama "Once and Again", I thought about your review for "Personal Best", in which you intuited that the two female leads were attracted to each other, and how wonderful it would be if they kissed. That's how I felt while watching the relationship between the characters played by Evan Rachel Wood and Mischa Barton play out. I thought, no way, are they actually going to allow girl-on-girl kissing on network television? (This was 2001, mind you.) Just as you might have felt back in 198(2?), in which the medium and gatekeeper, of course, was film and the major studio. It was such a great kiss. It was such a great show. On the other hand, there's this little-seen gem called "Arranged"(available from Film Movement) that tells the story of two schoolteachers(a Jew and a Muslim) who you sense are attracted to each other, but never act on that impulse, probably because of their strict religious upbringings.
Your very first commenter, Wes Lawson, stated:
We're at a point, finally, where more of the country is for gay marriage than opposed to it, but I can imagine that for any sitting president, coming down firmly on one side or the other will surely alienate voters and possibly cost them an election.
Harry Truman desegregated the armed forces and civil service in the face of great opposition--AND won his second term. Sometimes a politician must do what's right, no matter the risk.
Obama promised to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Well?
I voted for him because I thought he was principled and would bring change. But he seems to have become more and more like a typical politician--it's all about getting elected again.
bb writes: "3. if gays can marry then what is to legally stop polygamy or other arrangements???"
If straight people can marry, then what is to legally stop polygamy or other arrangements?
Your slippery slope argument is one against all marriage.
Someone earlier mentioned gay marriage paving the way for polygamy.
So?
If consenting adults want to engage in a multiple marriage, why is that wrong?
People need to stop butting in to others' business.
What's odd is that when people should stand up for something, like a crime or violent act, no one wants to get involved.
Sad.
@Steve Paradis: great catch from a great show, thanks!
The problem with polygamy is mostly a legal one. What if the husband dies or is unconscious and someone needs to make a medical decision. Which of the wives gets to make the decision? How is inheritance handled? What about custody for children? It's a mess. The Mormons must have some ways to handle it, but you simply don't have those problems in a one-to-one relationship.
Aside from that, polygamy historically tends be all about patriarchy. The husband has all the power and the wives are subordinate. Polyandry (one wife with several husbands) is very, very rare.
Honestly, if the legal issues could be settled, I'd have nothing against a real group marriage where everyone is absolutely equal. But that's really more of an ideal than reality.
By Robert H on August 30, 2010 12:07 AM
Your comment had nothing to do with mine. I just wanted that clear for other people. Nothing.
Not to be a stickler for details, but it seems to me that it really comes down to how the law defines marriage, and not who has a RIGHT to marry or not. One could argue that every human being has the exact same "right" to marry as every other human being, provided that three conditions are met: 1) each party is of the minimum required age as set by their state, 2) each party freely enters into the marriage contract, and 3) the parties have to be of different sexes. I, as a straight male, do not have the right to marry another man; I may only marry a woman. Same for gay men. They have no more, or less, "rights" in this regard than I do.
Where the system breaks down of course, is in the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. If they were to simply change the law to say that two consenting adults of ANY sex can marry, then it would preserve the same equal protections we have now, while acknowledging that gay people are not likely to be satisfied with marrying an opposite sex partner. This is how it SHOULD be in a civilized society.
In my very-red state of South Carolina, we passed a Constitutional amendment a few years ago defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I voted against the measure (though it passed by huge margins) because I believe Constitutions exist to GIVE people rights, not take them away.
I don't care for gay marriage but my prejudice towards the government runs far deeper than any mild homophobia I may have.
By the way, to the conservative bashers, you have a Democrat controlled Congress and a Democrat in the White House. Hows that working out for that gay marriage? I'm guessing that's going to get put on the back burner until the Congress goes Republican in November. Then Obama can sit back in relief and blame Republicans.
In response to Lea's query:
By Lea S. on August 27, 2010 4:42 PM
One argument I've heard in favor of gay marriage has always confused me--the argument that if a gay couple is married, then one partner can leave his things to the other in his will. But if a millionaire widow can leave her millions to some insufferable chihuahua, then why would a marriage be necessary? Now I haven't done much research on this so for all I know there are some sort of inheritance laws out there, but if anyone can shed some light on this...
Generally speaking, in your will, you may leave your estate to any person, animal, or institution that you wish. That person need not be biologically or legally related (e.g. marriage, adoption) to you. However, marriage can facilitate the inheritance process (such as through joint tenancy with right of survivorship) and prevent one or the other partner from being left bereft if the relationship sours. Same-sex marriage proponents usually focus on other legal benefits, such as various tax reductions.
wow, reading lots of these comments...cements that fact that CIVICS Needs to be Taught in this country...are people this dumb really..?...or its thier Man-Made Religions that Blind them to Humanity? MY head hurts reading the stupidity of some of these comentators...yikes. At 50yrs old I've witnessed this country DEVOLVE int he last 30yrs....especially the last 12. Somehow being smart now - means you're an "Elistist"? ..and bing like Sarah Palin is considered "Folksy"...Im hoping for a windfall soon, so I can get the hell out of this country,and go where ALL people are treated EQUALLY...America's 3rd world status, in education, reality, and respect is becoming more and more transparent.
I like that passage from The West Wing. I first listened to Dr. Laura when I worked for Child Protective Services. I thought then that she does more harm than good. Now I'm sure of it. I used to think, "Who in their right mind would be stupid enough to call Dr. Laura for advice on anything?"
Now I'm pretty sure I know: Masochists.
Ever notice how many callers start with telling Dr. Laura how much they love her?
Dave Van Dyke makes a prediction: Like Truman before him, Obama will embrace an oppressed minority (gay Americans) during his second term.
But my comment does relate to yours Keith Carrizosa. You don’t like labels like “Gay Marriage”. Neither do I. A qualifier like “gay” diminishes marriage. In fact, terms like “gay” and “homosexual” are loaded terms used to underscore differences between groups. Like you said, “Do you see how it becomes divisive once you start listing it?” Yes I do!
You say equality is about neutrality. I agree. That’s why I propose that we eliminate loaded terms that are anything but neutral. If two men are in a committed, government recognized, monogamous relationship with one another, we should simply say that Steve and Bruce are married. Likewise, instead of describing Steve and Bruce as homosexual or gay, we should simply call them heterosexual and straight. After all, are we going to allow the same bigots who have been defining “marriage” as a union between a man and a woman, hijack the word “heterosexual” too? Hell no! Defining “heterosexual” as between a man and a woman is not only arbitrary but exclusionary and discriminatory as well. Who do these bigots think they are depriving Steve and Bruce of the opportunity to have a heterosexual relationship with each other?!
Good morning, Mr. Ebert:
Do you believe the movie industry has become more enlightened and mature in its portrayal of gay and lesbian characters? Or are movies still too susceptible to the temptation of including a gay/lesbian character for their titillatingly erotic allure?
As Mr. Wes Lawson mentioned, besides "Wonder Boys", what other movies impressed you with their portrayal of homosexuality/lesbianism?
P.S: Your father was apparently a very private person in some aspects.
You had a great mom. They were just two nice people to her.
"At the end of the day, you get better interviews if you're a sympathetic listener than an attorney for the prosecution."
Actually, any time of the day you'd be better off listening rather than condemning.
I find it admirable that you post so many critical comments. Were I to run a blog, I would probably filter them out, unless I thought they actually added to the conversation; most of the negative comments only showcase the narrow experience (and general lack of compassion/empathy) on the part of the writers. Perhaps at the start of the conversation, people may be uninformed about the vast legal framework that would all have to be amended to put civil unions on par with "marriage": tax benefits, inheritance, legal standing, and immigration are just a few areas that would have to be rewritten. Perhaps everyone having a civil union (that carried all the current legal weight of marriage) and then an optional religious marriage would be preferrable, but it isn't going to just magically happen. It is not the case today, for certain. Hearing the refrain that civil unions should be good enough when they manifestly are not is tedious.
While your blog is less of an echo chamber than most (and this is to your credit), I'm not sure I'm seeing the benefits that some claim accrue to getting outside the echo chamber. I don't see much growth or people saying, hmm, I hadn't thought of that. Now we do have testimonials about how personal experience in the past has led to a re-evaluation of one's beliefs, and that is good, but still mostly feeds into the self-reinforcing