Gay Marriage

[Ulysses G.]

'Gay marriage' confusions

Thomas Sowell

March 9, 2004

Few issues have produced as much confused thinking as the "gay marriage" issue.

There is, for example, the argument that the government has no business getting involved with marriage in the first place. That is a personal relation, the argument goes.

Love affairs are personal relations. Marriage is a legal relation. To say that government should not get involved in legal relations is to say that government has no business governing.

Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that what happens between "consenting adults" in private is none of the government's business. But now gay activists are taking the opposite view, that it is government's business -- and that government has an obligation to give its approval.

Then there are the strained analogies with the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King challenged the racial laws of their time. So, the argument goes, what is wrong with Massachusetts judges and the mayor of San Francisco challenging laws that they consider unjust today?

First of all, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King were private citizens and they did not put themselves above the law. On the contrary, they submitted to arrest in order to gain the public support needed to change the laws.

As private citizens, neither Mrs. Parks nor Dr. King wielded the power of government. Their situation was very different from that of public officials who use the power delegated to them through the framework of law to betray that framework itself, which they swore to uphold as a condition of receiving their power.

The real analogy would be to Governor George Wallace, who defied the law by trying to prevent black students from being enrolled in the University of Alabama under a court order.

After Wallace was no longer governor, he was within his rights to argue for racial segregation, just as civil rights leaders argued against it. But, using the powers of his office as governor to defy the law was a violation of his oath.

If judges of the Massachusetts Supreme Court or the mayor of San Francisco want to resign their jobs and start advocating gay marriage, they have every right to do so. But that is wholly different from using the authority delegated to them under the law to subvert the law.

Gay rights activists argue that activist judges have overturned unjust laws in the past and that society is better off for it. The argument that some good has come from some unlawful acts in the past is hardly a basis for accepting unlawful acts in general.

If you only want to accept particular unlawful acts that you agree with, then of course others will have other unlawful acts that they agree with. Considering how many different groups have how many different sets of values, that road leads to anarchy.

Have we not seen enough anarchy in Haiti, Rwanda and other places to know not to go there?

The last refuge of the gay marriage advocates is that this is an issue of equal rights. But marriage is not an individual right. Otherwise, why limit marriage to unions of two people instead of three or four or five? Why limit it to adult humans, if some want to be united with others of various ages, sexes and species?

Marriage is a social contract because the issues involved go beyond the particular individuals. Unions of a man and a woman produce the future generations on whom the fate of the whole society depends. Society has something to say about that.

Even at the individual level, men and women have different circumstances, if only from the fact that women have babies and men do not. These and other asymmetries in the positions of women and men justify long-term legal arrangements to enable society to keep this asymmetrical relationship viable -- for society's sake.

Neither of these considerations applies to unions where the people are of the same sex.

Centuries of experience in trying to cope with the asymmetries of marriage have built up a large body of laws and practices geared to that particular legal relationship. To then transfer all of that to another relationship that was not contemplated when these laws were passed is to make rhetoric more important than reality.

ฉ2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

[Thaiquila]

That's all very well, but, really, don't we need to take this further to uphold the wonderful institution of marriage, and be consistent with the ridiculous bullshit of that post.

To do so:

Want to get married? Prove the fertility of the man and the woman. This would rule all out menopausal woman.

Breed within five years, or the marriage is declared invalid by the state.

If the couple does breed within five years, divorce should then be illegal.

Make infidelity illegal.

And while we are at it, we have to do something about those promiscuous homosexuals. What, you mean, some of them want to commit to one partner for life. How confusing!

[mrmnp]

The author of the first post is a superb example of the "confusion" regarding same-gender marriage.

His suggestion that the Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court resign for doing their jobs in interpreting the freedoms innumerated in the oldest state consitituion in the United States is only one of the absurdities innumerated in his very "confused" diatribe.

[PvtDick]

If drunk dumb blond dingbats like Britney Spears can make a mockery of the institution by getting "carried away" and marrying some oaf in a Las Vegas drive-in chapel, only to think better of it a few days later, I don't see why two sane, rational people of the same sex who may have been together for 20, 30, or 40 years can't obtain the same legal rights that marriage provides.

[Jeepz]

Ulysses G~

While I agree with you on the duties and responsibilities of an elected official obeying the laws of the land, the duties and responsibilities of a judge are not the same, in this context. They were performing their job, not subverting it. Now, I realize you probably don't like their take on the law in question, but looking at that law in the light of the state constitution and coming to a decision was in their job description. Nothing subversive about that.

Marriage is not specifically about procreation. Not everyone that gets married (under current heterosexual definition) have children. Why they don't varies. A seventy year old man marries a sixty five year old woman. No serious expectation of offspring there. Would you argue they should not have the benefit of matrimony? Probably not. Nor would you argue that a man or woman physically incapable of conceiving be barred from the sanctity of wedlock. Or would you?

What you are argue, it seems, is that centuries old custom (or tradition) is under attack. But I fail to see that attack. There is nothing in the extension of legally recognized bonding to homosexuals that prevents heterosexual couples from enjoying the same benefits of matrimony that they do currently.

There may be religious reasons for denying homosexual rights, or even tolerating homosexual's existance. But those reasons do not have a bearing in a secular society. Perhaps under a Sharia based legal system, you could have a more appropriate argument.

Custom and tradition by themselves are not sufficient for the denial of those benefits to homosexuals. Historical precedent is a slippery slope, as I have pointed out to advocates of homosexual marriage rights. Previously wives and children were the husband's chattel. Women couldn't own property, children had no rights what so ever. That was in place for a long time, but it is no more.

You may look back wistfully to that period when a man was king of his own home and women were legally subservient and could not be beaten with a stick larger than their husband's thumb. Personally, I don't, though I occasionally question why we extended the vote to women. Usually that occurs when I'm discussing a point of politics with a female who has a radically different viewpoint. But then, I get the same stab of remorse when arguing similar points with males of suspect political views. However, I have resigned myself to fact that they all get to vote, whether I think it is good thing or not.

The argument about granting the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage (or civil union) is actually, at its heart, about recognizing whether homosexuality is a valid lifestyle. Older citizens in the USA have a bit of a problem with this due to the enviroment we grew up in. Younger citizens generally do not. (Yes, that is a fairly large brush I'm using.) The older group worries that recognizing homosexual relationships will promote a lifestyle and sexual identity they view as suspect at best and often as simply perverse. The young tykes generally see it as a civil rights discussion, not a moral one.

If homosexuals are allowed to be who they are, without legal suppression of their sexuality, then there is no reason that they cannot create legal relationships between themselves just as heterosexuals do. The older generation may be uncomfortable with that, but only for awhile. We are older and not all that far down the road it won't really matter if it ticks us off or not.

Jeepz

[Ulysses G.]

Jeepz, sorry that I didn't make it clearer, but this is an editorial by the great, black, conservative thinker, Thomas Sowell.

I love the clarity of his writing and his thought, but his opinions are not necessarily mine. However, it is interesting to see how some others automatically dismiss him as some sort of raving Archie Bunker.

I posted this as mostly food for discussion and thought, as I haven't made up my mind on this issue.

My biggest dilemma over this issue is something that you hardly mentioned, Civil Union.

Considering tradition, considering the next logical step in this picture - marriages between more than two consenting adults - if Gays are given all the benefits of marriage, without using the same name, can society be called discriminatory?

I am not so sure.

[Thaiquila]

Jeepz, sorry that I didn't make it clearer, but this is an editorial by the great, black, conservative thinker, Thomas Sowell.

I love the clarity of his writing and his thought, but his opinions are not necessarily mine. However, it is interesting to see how some others automatically dismiss him as some sort of raving Archie Bunker.

I posted this as mostly food for discussion and thought, as I haven't made up my mind on this issue.

My biggest dilemma over this issue is something that you hardly mentioned, Civil Union.

Considering tradition, considering the next logical step in this picture - marriages between more than two consenting adults - if Gays are given all the benefits of marriage, without using the same name, can society be called discriminatory?

I am not so sure.

Hi there,

I got it that you were posting someone else's thoughts. And it does provide food for thought. Unlike you, I am thoroughly unimpressed with this man's arguments, and the point about his blackness is about as relevant as the fact that I prefer chunky peanut butter to smooth.

About discrimination, marriage versus civil union, the answer is obvious.

Replace the word gay with just about any other group and answer this question:

Is it discrimination for people with LOW IQs to be allowed civil unions, but not marrage?

Is it discrimination for HILL TRIBE MINORITIES to be allowed civil unions, but not marrage?

Is it discrimination for people with TERMINAL DISEASES to be allowed civil unions, but not marrage?

Is it discrimination for CUBS FANS to be allowed civil unions, but not marrage?

Is it discrimination for FARANGS to be allowed civil unions, but not marrage?

Duh.

[Jeepz]

Ulysses G~

Sorry, I didn't catch you were quoting Thomas Sowell. So please don't take anything I said personally, but who wrote it doesn't really change anything in my reply.

I applaud the fact that Blacks (Afro-Americans/People of Color/etc etc) have varied political viewpoints. None the less, Mr Sowell's arguments are less than persuasive.

A rehash of my discussion with mrmnp in a thumbnail is: the government, a secular body, should be concerned only with "civil unions" as it has little or no pervue over religious affairs. Civil unions are simply those relationships legally recognized by the state. The state can, by the will of the people and the law of the land, recognize those relationships it wants. All marriages are civil unions (provided they have the license), but in the eyes of some churches or rather religions, not all civil unions are marriages. The same holds true for divorces. Not all churches or religions recognize a civil divorce.

That has the effect of negating a separate but equal problem that seems to disturb so many people. One, that does not disturb me nearly so much, but is easily dealt with.

So in my state the law say a marriage license will be granted to males 18 and over, and not encumbered (already married) and females 18 and over, not encumbered. It does not say " one male and one female". It does not specify a man and woman. Just that men and women, eighteen and over, can get them.

From a purely theoretical standpoint, if the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of a "civil union" (one that is a distinctly different legal entity) are identical to marriage, except for the genders of the individuals invovled, is it discrimination? This is a different "civil union" concept that the one I proposed above. And since it is not available to everyone, it is obviously discriminatory. Whether that discrimination works any real hardship is the actual question.

If benefits were offered for one and refused to the other, then it would. If, for example, marriages could adopt, but civil unions could not, then there would be an actual hardship caused by the distinction. If people were hired by preference of one versus the other, that also would qualify.

So the existance of a civil union for gays versus a marriage for straights does not by itself create a hardship, but it might open the door for their occurance. That is seen occasionally with employment forms that simply ask if you are married or single or divorced. People have been denied jobs simply because they fell into a catagory that the employer did not see as desirable for the duties involved. That it was illegal didn't matter, since the employer would rarely give their real reason for not hiring the individual.

That hasn't kept the question from being asked, because that is information an employer needs in order to provide benefits to their employees. But I can forsee an employer (or their insurer) making actuarial charts on health care costs for marriage versus civil unions (perhaps with an eye toward HIV treatments or some other supposedly identifiable risk factor) and then assessing their costs as a selection criteria.

So I think we should find a solution that limits or negates that potential. Which means we need to lump all of them together. Do we bring the homosexual unions into the "marriage" definition and totally tick off the fundamentalist/traditionalist groups? Do we recognize "civil unions" as the secular aspect of marriage and simply license those and leave the "marriage" aspect to the various religions?

Back to you, Ulysses G.

Jeepz

[Boon Mee]

As far as Gay Marriage is concerned, there's far too much attention being given the subject as it only involves perhaps 6% of the US population at most. My humble opinion is "whatever blows your dress up" but don't make huge issue out of it. Gays already have civil unions where their rights are protected but to be constantly subjected to pictures of dudes putting lip-locks on each other - swapping spit puts me off...

Boon Mee

[Ulysses G.]

About discrimination, marriage versus civil union, the answer is obvious.

Replace the word gay with just about any other group and answer this question:

Is it discrimination for people with LOW IQs to be allowed civil unions, but not marrage?

Is it discrimination for HILL TRIBE MINORITIES to be allowed civil unions, but not marrage?

Is it discrimination for people with TERMINAL DISEASES to be allowed civil unions, but not marrage?

Is it discrimination for CUBS FANS to be allowed civil unions, but not marrage?

Is it discrimination for FARANGS to be allowed civil unions, but not marrage?

Is it discrimination for  dudes putting lip-locks on each other - swapping spit - to be allowed civil unions, but not marrage?

Well, when you put it that way!

[Bluecat]

Marriage is not specifically about procreation. Not everyone that gets married (under current heterosexual definition) have children. Why they don't varies. A seventy year old man marries a sixty five year old woman. No serious expectation of offspring there. Would you argue they should not have the benefit of matrimony? Probably not. Nor would you argue that a man or woman physically incapable of conceiving be barred from the sanctity of wedlock. Or would you?

For once, I agree with Jeepz

Marriage is not (these days anyway) about procreation but about protecting the rights of "partners". When you live together and you "pay" the state together, the minimum is that it is recognized by the state you live in, independent of the genders,...

[PvtDick]

As far as Gay Marriage is concerned, there's far too much attention being given the subject as it only involves perhaps 6% of the US population at most.

Closer to 20%, according to the data I've seen.

[Jeepz]

Closer to 20%, according to the data I've seen.

Somebody must have left the closet door open, eh?

Boon Mee's comment about PDA's (Public Displays of Affection) pretty much runs true for me. I don't have a problem if a guy and gal kiss (versus major tongue wrestling) but get a tad uncomfy if two guys do it in public. Not saying that is right or wrong, it is just how I feel internally. Now two gals do it, and I'm not nearly so offended. Gosh, wonder why. No one said life was fair.

Jeepz

[Bluecat]

Boon Mee's comment about PDA's (Public Displays of Affection) pretty much runs true for me.

It probably runs true for most of the straight people.

As Jeepz said, maybe it is not fair but life has never been fair and never will be,...

[PvtDick]

Same thing would've been said by most people when it came to interracial PDA just a few decades ago. Attitudes change over time.

[mrmnp]

PDA's are so very cultural. You who have difficulty with two males kissing stay away from Russian gymnastics where the coachs routinely kiss their gymnasts on the lips when they have completed their routines, worldwide T.V., olympics, etc.

PDA's of any sort, by anyone at any time, other than pershpas a peck on the cheek, quick peck on the lips, as a form of greeting, seems to me unacceptable and offensive regardless of your gender.

Intimate touching and lip locking and deep throat kissing belongs in the privacy of ones own space, not in public, whoever is doing it. From my observations around the world, it happens so rarely and among so few people that I would guess that public brutality, killing and violence far exceeds PDA's of an inimate type by a great margin.

Lets work on the issue of man's inhumaity to man instead of denying civil rights to a class of citizens for fear of someday enounterig two persons of the same sex disregarding public decorum.

[Jeepz]

The french or continental cheek kissing doesn't bother me at all. The lip to lip thing makes me a bit fidgety. So I would be fidgeting alot while the Russian men did their thing, but I'd probably stick it out to see those cute female gymnasts.

It is really my personal view, not something I'm defending as who can do what where. And rules of conduct are a bit variable. I expect a bit of lip locking at some places, dimly lit bars catering to young or the park in the evening. But in general, I agree with mrmnp and most everyone else. Serious displays of affection should be private.

Jeepz

[Bluecat]

But in general, I agree with mrmnp and most everyone else. Serious displays of affection should be private.

Jeepz

Especially in Thailand where serious display of affection in public places is a no no,...

[Boon Mee]

Nobody's denying any civil rights to anyone with all 50 states in the US granting what's called - civil unions, so put that in your bong and hit it.

What we're addressing here is PDAs where two guys got a lip-lock on each other walking down the street and children are seeing this - gender confusion. Like I said in a previous post, don't care what two (or more) people do behind closed doors, don't make a public display of how cool you are to be different. Especially in Thailand where any PDAs are considered very un-cool!

Boon Mee

[wcr]

mrmnp,

and don't forget all the manly English football players swapping spit at any opportunity.

[huski]

If drunk dumb blond dingbats like Britney Spears can make a mockery of the institution by getting "carried away" and marrying some oaf in a Las Vegas drive-in chapel

i don't appreciate being called an "oaf"...what we had was real, even it was just for a few hours.

everything was going fine until she started singing "i'm not a girl, not quite a woman" in the shower

[PvtDick]

What we're addressing here is PDAs where two guys got a lip-lock on each other walking down the street and children are seeing this - gender confusion.

It's not the children that have a problem with it...it's their close-minded, bigoted parents! Still, I'd be just as happy not to have to see any PDA in public, no matter who it's between.

[Thaiquila]

Nobody's denying any civil rights to anyone with all 50 states in the US granting what's called - civil unions, so put that in your bong and hit it.

What we're addressing here is PDAs where two guys got a lip-lock on each other walking down the street and children are seeing this - gender confusion.  Like I said in a previous post, don't care what two (or more) people do behind closed doors, don't make a public display of how cool you are to be different.  Especially in Thailand where any PDAs are considered very un-cool!

Boon Mee

Boon Mee, your info about civil unions being offered in all 50 US States is just plain wrong! Vermont offers it, and some cities do, although the actual list is fluid.

For people who seriously believe there is no legal difference between civil unions and marriage, please read this link and be enlightened.

http://www.glad.org/Publications/CivilRigh...rriagevcu.shtml

One major difference is that in regards to immigration and federal taxes, civil unions are worthless. So, come off it, denying a whole class of people the same priveledge as everyone else, is plain discrimination, pure and simple.

I have another question about this issue. There are a few countries that do offer legal gay marriage. Denmark is one, I think, and the provice of British Columbia in Canada. Hyphothetical question. If a Canadian had a legal Canadian marriage with a male Thai national, would Thailand treat this couple the same as any married couple with regard to Thai visa rules?

[Boon Mee]

Taiquila~

Believe you're right about the civil union thing not in every state, but you know what? This topic is too hot for me - like debating religion. Too many bruised egos/feelings.

I'm sticking to Liberals & Democrats.

As far as legal prostitution, believe Australia & Holland have legal brothels. The Dutch even have/had plans (maybe it's there already) to put a brothel at Schipol Airport. Bad news - I'm not commuting through there right now...

Boon Mee

[PvtDick]

I have another question about this issue. There are a few countries that do offer legal gay marriage. Denmark is one, I think, and the provice of British Columbia in Canada. Hyphothetical question. If a Canadian had a legal Canadian marriage with a male Thai national, would Thailand treat this couple the same as any married couple with regard to Thai visa rules?

I think not. A marriage involving a Thai national must be registered in Thailand before the Thai government recognizes it.