Defense of Marriage

[Venkman]

Good posts, Minn stat. Stanley Kurtz has quite a few articles on the subject in NRO raising the same argument. I think it's hilarious though how people mischaracterize the anti-gay marriage folks as saying gay marriage will instantaneously destroy your marriage and society will crumble overnight.

Not it at all. As you pointed out, it's just a further weakening of the institution of marriage from a standpoint of it's role in bringing up the next generation. (Which as far as society as a whole is concerned is THE purpose of marriage, IMO). The question is whether or not gay marriage will weaken the relationship between marriage and children? If not, no worries. If yes, it will bring about more children being raised in single parent households, which I don't think there is any doubt would result in more societal problems. There's enough work out there to suggest a possible correlation. Not necessarily causation, but enough to take the issue seriously.

We're talking the macro level here people, not your particular marriage. At least YOhio recognizes the legitimacy of the argument (even if he doesn't totally buy it) instead of dismissing it as homophobic ramblings.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Come on. There's no "appeasing" those who want a constitutional amendment. That's the whole point of the amendment. Most these people who want it live in places where they'll never legalize gay marriage anyway. That's not good enough for them. They don't want it anywhere in America. I just hope that the American people retain the good sense not to amend the Constitution.

I'll meet them halfway, though. This is actually more of a state's rights issue for me, believe it or not. If Utahns don't want to legalize gay marriage, where I sit right now I'm not ready to get to fired up to want Congress to make them do it with a federal civil rights statute. (I could change my mind.) But it really enrages me that people in Utah or Alabama or the LDS Church want to tell California or Washington they can't marry gay people or recognize gay marriages. It doubly froths me that they just feel that way becuase they're getting reinforcement of their prejudices since childhood from over the pulpit.

I don't live in Utah or Alabama for a reason, and I don't want to contend with what I regard as their backward mores where I live. For aesthetic reasons, I'd like to see the Bill of Rights remain pristine in terms of protecting not anywhere abridging civil liberties.

I can agree with you on the states rights thing. Let the states decide. I don't believe gay marriage is a fundamental right, so I think it can be denied, but if the people want it, then they should have it.

But what about the argument that the states have to honor contracts made in other states? I know Clinton signed the DOMA but that could be declared unconstitutional. I think it's only a matter of time before this is challenged. And if the SCOTUS comes down on their side then it's "the law of the land", just like abortion. Then it is forced on Utah and Alabama. I mean, I believe in federalism, but I'm not sure the courts always do.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Venkman

I can agree with you on the states rights thing. Let the states decide. I don't believe gay marriage is a fundamental right, so I think it can be denied, but if the people want it, then they should have it.

But what about the argument that the states have to honor contracts made in other states? I know Clinton signed the DOMA but that could be declared unconstitutional. I think it's only a matter of time before this is challenged. And if the SCOTUS comes down on their side then it's "the law of the land", just like abortion. Then it is forced on Utah and Alabama. I mean, I believe in federalism, but I'm not sure the courts always do.

It would fall on the court's to decide applying conflicts of laws rules. Big deal. It's done all the time now in various contexts including family law where laws differe state to state and you have inerstate activities. It would sort itself out. For example, Washington courts have declared punitive damages against public policy in Washington, but sometimes Washington courts apply punitive damages laws from other states to disputes before them and award punitive damages or instruct a jury on them and uphold the award.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

It would fall on the court's to decide applying conflicts of laws rules. Big deal. It's done all the time now in various contexts including family law where laws differe state to state and you have inerstate activities. It would sort itself out. For example, Washington courts have declared punitive damages against public policy in Washington, but sometimes Washington courts apply punitive damages laws from other states to disputes before them and award punitive damages or instruct a jury on them and uphold the award.

No kidding the courts would decide. And there's the real possibility they could force it on the nation as a whole. So "let the states decide" is out the window just like that. Why not an ammendment to basically codify federalism on this issue - i.e. no state will be forced to recognize another state's same-sex marriage. It would keep it at the state level and take activist courts out of the equation.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Venkman

No kidding the courts would decide. And there's the real possibility they could force it on the nation as a whole. So "let the states decide" is out the window just like that. Why not an ammendment to basically codify federalism on this issue - i.e. no state will be forced to recognize another state's same-sex marriage. It would keep it at the state level and take activist courts out of the equation.

I don't agree that a Utah court adjudicating family law issues arising from a gay marriage consumated in another state, applying the other state's laws, would mean Utah is "recognizing" gay marriage. Courts do that sort of thing all the time, even enforce laws repugnant to the forum state, as in my punitive damages example. If there is no local law addressing gay marriage, the forum state would apply the law of the state in which the marriage was consumated under conflicts of laws principles. For more certitude gays could enter into pre-nups. Children? I bet there are gays with adopted children living in Utah right now and a Utah court is liable to have to adjudicate visitation rights if the couple splits up. ANd as always the guiding rule will be "best interests of the child."

How else might a state with no gay marriage be forced to "recognize" gay marriage? Taxes? No marriage tax break for gay couples in Utah. Fine.

[minn_stat]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

minn_stat,

Are you saying that gay marriage itself will cause calamities spoken of by prophets or that gay marriage will piss God off and he will send punishment?

The 749 gay couples (did I get the number right?) causing the problems you stated seems way off base. Unless, of course, the population of Sweden is under about 2500 people.

...

Neither. The disassociation of parenting from marriage will be the cause, at least unless or until we find an adequate replacement for properly socializing children. This disassociation is already taking place, as Kiernan notes. And the impact on the next generation, as I carefully noted, is real. "This research overwhelmingly shows the harmful effects of de-coupling marriage and parenting."

This disassociation has been taking place without gay marriage being implemented. Even if gay marriage is not implemented, it may well continue to take place. But it is hard to see how implementing gay marriage doesn't hasten this disassociation.

[minn_stat]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

It's called homophobia, a special case of paranoia. "Defense of Marriage" is PR. It's so smarmy sounding. They don't have the courage to say why they really want to corrupt the Bill of Rights this way--they believe homosexuality is a sin, or they don't like gays. Those are the real reasons but they can't say it.

So you say.

Note that many, if not most, of those against gay marriage are fine with allowing them a set of legal rights that are pretty much equivalent to marriage. Civil unions, or whatever you call them. If they are homophobes, why would they be for that? They recognize the legitimacy of the relationships of two men (or two women), and how can we stand for that? Because they aren't homophobes. But allowing civil unions gives them the rights, while still preserving the unique and important connection of marriage and parenting.

[MikeWaters]

I'm still waiting for a convincing argument of how it weakens marriage.

Are you arguing that fewer heterosexuals will be willing to get married if gays can marry?

Conservatives say it will weaken marriage, as if it is obvious, and never explain HOW it will weaken marriage.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Venkman

Good posts, Minn stat. Stanley Kurtz has quite a few articles on the subject in NRO raising the same argument. I think it's hilarious though how people mischaracterize the anti-gay marriage folks as saying gay marriage will instantaneously destroy your marriage and society will crumble overnight.

Not it at all. As you pointed out, it's just a further weakening of the institution of marriage from a standpoint of it's role in bringing up the next generation. (Which as far as society as a whole is concerned is THE purpose of marriage, IMO). The question is whether or not gay marriage will weaken the relationship between marriage and children? If not, no worries. If yes, it will bring about more children being raised in single parent households, which I don't think there is any doubt would result in more societal problems. There's enough work out there to suggest a possible correlation. Not necessarily causation, but enough to take the issue seriously.

We're talking the macro level here people, not your particular marriage. At least YOhio recognizes the legitimacy of the argument (even if he doesn't totally buy it) instead of dismissing it as homophobic ramblings.

Please walk me through how gay marriage would "weaken the institution of marriage" as well as how it affects the role of bringing up the next generation.

Heterosexual marriages are already ending in divorce at record high numbers. The single parent/divorce phenomenon is something that heterosexuals coined and minted ages ago. Nobody does divorce, adultery, and child abuse better than heterosexuals. Also, i would venture to guess that somewhere in the lines of about 100% of homosexuals were reared as children in heterosexual households.

Are you saying that allowing gays to marry and adopt children will somehow skew those numbers in the negative? How is that even mathematically possible given the ratio of hetero to homosexual in this country? Can't homosexuals raise children to be loving, law abiding, etc?

Also, gays can already adopt children and be parents to them. The argument that gay marriage will have a negative impact on child rearing is another scaremongering tactic.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by YOhio

They are granted full and equal privileges. There is no statutory exclusion that homosexuals not be allowed to marry, they just have to marry a member of another gender. I imagine you reject that notion and say that the statute is facially discriminatory and I can see your point.

As I said in my original post, I remain conflicted about the whole matter. I don't pretend to know the correct course of action in the SSM debate. I know you feel like this is strictly a civil rights issue and I sympathize with this position. Then again, I'm not comfortable with the idea of changing the definition of marriage without a more thorough understanding of the potential consequences. But there will be consequences. You and others say they will be positive. Others say they will be negative. That's why I prefer to take a wait and see approach.

I will admit that I'm turned off by the rhetoric from both sides. I don't like the Adam and Steve jokes and find them tasteless. There are people who are intolerant of homosexuals and they have muddied the debate. I also don't like the accusations of homophobia when genuine concerns exist and the mocking attitude towards those concerned about how this change will affect their families and future generations. The bottom line is that those concerned about the consequences of this change need to be appeased and it won't suffice to merely make fun of them.

Appreciate your response and I respect your position.

I am close with only 2 gay people. I have met some of their friends who are gay, but am not close with them. In talking to both of my good friends, they both have the same concern....."why wont my country allow me to be married, just like everyone else?" They have no public political agenda. They have no interest in forcing their lifestyle on me. One of them is LDS and loves the Gospel. They don't go to Gay Pride parades. They don't have AIDS or HIV. They both want to experience parenthood and child-rearing, so they are very interested in adoption. Basically, these are just normal, good people, productive members of society, law abiding, and loving folks.

It is next to impossible for me to respond to my close friends, keep a straight face, and say, "well, i am just not convinced you need to be married. Let's wait and see....meantime, I will pat you patronizingly on the head and pretend like I really consider you my equal and that you merit the same opportunities as everyone else. By the way, legally you can marry a woman, so stop complaining."

Y, I am not saying you are being patronizing, I am just stating how it makes me feel to express those sentiments to my two friends. It is actually almost embarrassing because I cant come up with any cogent argument as to why they cant get married...at least not without bringing up arguments that assume that most or all homosexuals are pedophiles or promiscuous sex addicts. Like you, I agree it is a difficult issue and very confusing at time. While your approach is "wait and see," I guess mine is "err on the side of civil rights."

We tried the "wait and see" approach with blacks. It took 100 years to err on the side of civil rights. Fortunately, after the Civil Right Act, society did not come to an end because blacks all of a sudden could sit at the front of the bus and drink out of my drinking fountain.

PS You are good at summarizing stuff.