This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Banning gay marriage does not "discriminate against a group of people by denying them rights enjoyed by other groups." Under such laws, a gay man can marry a woman but not another man. A non-gay man has exactly the same rights. Whatever may be wrong with traditional marriage restrictions, it isn't equality [Ken Blanchard, "Same Sex Marriage & the Constitution," South Dakota Politics, 2008.11.11].
An anonymous interlocutor (vocabulary is another reason I like Dr. Blanchard) contends that marriage bans constitute unequal treatment under the law by denying homosexuals the right to marry folks with whom they are "physically compatible." I agree with Dr. Blanchard: That's not the best standard to which to appeal. Blanchard suggests that if "physically compatible with" means "physically attracted to," the state already imposes similar restrictions on incestuous or polygamous relationships.
The anonymous interlocutor appears to be thinking about sex, and if I know anything, it's that people tend not to think straight when they think about sex.
To disagree with the good professor, I will appeal not to lust, but to love, to the intentional choice that a free person can make to commit to a relationship with one significant other. That is a valuable, character-building, society-leavening choice. That commitment is about much more than what we do with our naughty bits. It's about sharing a household, raising children, tending each other when sick or dying. Incest and polygamy may still fall under the purview of responsible government, as those behaviors entail problems with power and submission. But if two rational citizens want to make a lasting commitment to each other, we should not contort our law or Constitution into denying that choice.
But what is family? Do you substitute for a woman, Cory? Can a man treat another man as he would a woman?
ReplyDeleteThat is the problem with gay marriage. Keep in mind that radical professors are trying to recruit our kids to accomplish their radical agenda. Men have a different image than women. Women have a different image than men. Why does society want to insult the image of men and women?
Let gays have civil unions with all the attendant benefits. What they have is not marriage, never can be. There wouldn't be such division between gays and straights if they didn't try to continually push the envelope. And don't give me the stuff that they don't have equal rights without marriage; they do if they are allowed civil unions. What they want is marriage, which is something which by the very nature of their union and the definitiion of marriage is impossible.
ReplyDeletePushing for gay marriage was a political blunder. Civil Unions are a monumental step that would give gays a socially defined role with important rights as Anon mentions. Young gays see very few successful long term relationships to pattern themselves especially when they are unrecognized and lack acceptance. Society formally acknowledging the relationship would help break through much of that and give straight people a chance to see who we are: more alike than different. There's no need to call it a marriage, but it is a meaningful personal relationship.
ReplyDeleteI'm formulating a response to conrad, but first, just so I understand clearly, Anons: what is the difference between calling it a civil union, a meaningful personal relationship, and a marriage?
ReplyDeleteMostly a religious distinction, and a belief there is a sacred relationship between a man and a woman. They look at it in a way that fits their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteMarriage is a legal, usually religious, union of a man and a woman. This is the basis of family life, which is the basis of a stable society.
ReplyDeleteA civil union is a union between two people of the same sex to obtain legal rights for their union.
A meaningful relationship? Steady dating! No strings attached!
Conrad: I am not insulted by a man who takes the hand of another man and promises to love, honor, and cherish him 'til death do them part. My wife and I do not feel our marriage is insulted when we learn of two women engaging in a similar relationship. (By the way, liberal professors are not oppressing their conservative students. Nor are professors succeeding at indoctrinating students into lily-livered liberalism: peers have more influence, and even that influence is fleeting. Welcome to reality, Conrad.)
ReplyDeleteAnons: So the distinction between marriage and civil union is mostly religious? Then why does the state have any role at all in the religious union? I was insulted that the state required Erin and me to buy a marriage license. The state should have no role whatsoever in sanctioning a religious institution. It would appear that the state's only proper role in marriage should be to grant it the status of civil union. Beyond that, hands off. If you want to call your relationship with your life partner a marriage, that's between you and your god, not Congress, the courts, or the electorate.
On this earth, how did gender come to be? If evolution is true, why are we not like the trees and like certain worms, which both have hermaphroditic functions? Look at nature. Each gender has its own function in nature. Keep in mind that the functions of both male and female organisms allow them not only to reproduce, but have a relationship with their counterpart. Have you seen a dog fox (a male fox) acting in the place of a vixen fox (a female fox)?
ReplyDeleteSo why does state have to recognize the perversion of a man having sexual relations with another man? When professors try to teach gay movements being like the civil rights movements, they miss the point. Martin Luther King Jr. in his speech wanted his kids to be judged on the quality of their character, not the color of their skin. You will hear even liberal African Americans spurning the gay rights movements that want to associate themselves with the civil rights movement of the 1960's.
Ok Cory, in theory I entirely agree with you that how people define their relationship outside of a legal union should be personal, but much of how people see things is cultural. It wasn't that long ago most people closely associated homosexuality with child molestation. Stonewall was just 1969. Matthew Shepard 1998. I'm content right now not getting beat up, having a chance some day at a civil union, and am forced to accept that most people see us as at least somewhat morally flawed. If gay civil unions are successful and lead to committed relationships society can respect, public opinion will move in a positive direction.
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind that there is implications for what we allow in culture and practice. My dad told me that at his workplace a man decided that he is a woman in a man's body. So that man decided to divorce his wife and become a woman. Now those women who know that he was once a man are not comfortable with him being in their restroom. So what does the workplace have to do? They have to make a restroom that is for him. What does that transgendered person do? That person files litigations against the workplace for discrimination. So now people are going to become confused about what family is and what gender really is. That is just a warning to all my fellow Americans.
ReplyDeleteAs I said above, Conrad, it's not about nookie or your naughty bits. It's about two people making a commitment to each other. When you keep your nose out of other people's crotches, these political questions are easier to answer.
ReplyDeleteAnd you really don't want to argue nature, do you?
Conrad said:
ReplyDelete"On this earth, how did gender come to be? If evolution is true, why are we not like the trees and like certain worms, which both have hermaphroditic functions? Look at nature. Each gender has its own function in nature. Keep in mind that the functions of both male and female organisms allow them not only to reproduce, but have a relationship with their counterpart. Have you seen a dog fox (a male fox) acting in the place of a vixen fox (a female fox)?"
Well, if we look to nature to define how human sexuality should play out, let's consider:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo
These near relatives of ours that don't believe in monogomy, are bisexual, and use sex as a way of introducing themselves amongst other behaviors. Further, the females of that species play all of the male dominated roles of our species.
So, if we look to nature, I would say that we could find equivalent behavior of any choice a human makes.
Why don't you just come out and say that a book written thousands of years ago is dictating your morality. Next you will be telling us that bananas were "designed" to fit into the human hand.
So it's about two people making a commitment to each other. A civil union accomplishes this. Why not be satisfied with that instead of redefining marriage which they know antagonizes people. Answer: They want the confrontation.
ReplyDeleteSo why insist, then, on having the state sanction your preferred religious institution; i.e., marriage? I'll say it again: if the only difference between civil unions and marriage is that sacred element, then the state has no business making rules or definitions about marriage for anyone, gay or straight. That'll end the confrontation right there.
ReplyDelete>Well, if we look to nature to define how human sexuality should play out, let's consider:
ReplyDelete>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo
>These near relatives of ours that don't believe in monogomy, are bisexual, and use sex as a way of introducing themselves amongst other behaviors. Further, the females of that species play all of the male dominated roles of our species.
So you think that your role is to imitate nature? You didn't even answer my question "On this earth, how did gender come to be?" Namely, why do male and female organisms exist?
Remember that some animals like the Kodiak Brown Bear and the King Cobra are cannibalistic. Does that mean that we can be cannibalistic too?
I appreciated learning something from you though. You taught me that we live in a more complicated world than I thought. Scientists are always learning so they do not know completely why Bonobos behave the way they do. Perhaps Bonobos do not view what they do as intercourse? Even if they do view their behavior as sex, that does not waive us from moral codes.
By the way...
ReplyDeleteBesides affecting us all indirectly, Gay marriage might also affect us directly. We wear clothing to protect our warmth, but we also wear clothing to protect our privacy. As it is now, we can undress in a locker room or restroom without fear of arousing another man in South Dakota. Would we like to undress in a locker room with someone who would become aroused to see our private parts?
Sexuality affects more than the individual; it affects the society. A while ago, I read an article something like this one about the Don't Ask Don't Tell. There are reports that when Bill Clinton signed the "Don't Ask. Don't Tell" he hurt the military cohesion. Every law has its implications. Do we see the years ahead when we endorse a legislation?
The bottom line is that I would much rather have a tyrannical ruler like Joseph Stalin than have a anarchic ruler. A tyrannical ruler would wound us physically and make life very hard to bear. But a anarchic ruler would displace law from our life and dissolve culture and morality. That anarchic ruler would dissolve our state and make a huge laughingstock of us all.
Wow -- you are really insecure about your sexuality, aren't you, Conrad?
ReplyDeleteLegally recognizing the lifelong commitment of two men, two women, or a man and a woman have nothing to do with the red herrings you are throwing into the conversation.
Some gay rights activists do want confrontation as a way to expedite change. They want to bust that door open because they demand what they see as equal rights. That's not how I see things personally, but they have a lot more guts and drive than I do and are just not compromising on this issue. Discrimination stinks, and some people get, well, maybe a little too militant.
ReplyDelete