Tag gay marriage

Preserving the Sanctity of Marriage

See, this is what we can’t allow teh gays to get their hands on, lest they ruin it for everyone:

LEWISTON, Idaho (AP) — A marriage got off to a rocky start after the 21-year-old groom from northern Idaho was arrested twice on his wedding night and charged with assaulting his new wife in nearby eastern Washington. Court records show Nathan Lewis of Lewiston, Idaho, was charged Tuesday in Asotin County Superior Court with second-degree assault and interfering with a report of domestic violence.

The Nez Perce County Sheriff’s Office in Idaho says Lewis was married Sunday and later arrested for drunken and disorderly conduct in Lewiston.

Police say that after Lewis was released on bail, he assaulted his new wife at a home in nearby Clarkston, Wash. The bride told authorities she was slapped and choked during the altercation, the Lewiston Tribune reports.

The fact that these two were allowed to get married should also serve to silence anyone who mounts any kind of “but think of the children!” argument.

Why Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal

Passing on a meme from Le Café Witteveen and Rabid Atheist, by way of Attempts at Rational Behavior:

12 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal

  1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
  2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can’t legally get married because the world needs more children.
  3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
  4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears’s 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
  5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are property, blacks can’t marry whites, and divorce is illegal.
  6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.
  7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
  8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
  9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
  10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
  11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to things like cars or longer life-spans.
  12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “separate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

One quibble I have is with item #1, which lists birth control as something unnatural, but desirable. This Daily Kos poll shows that at least 10% of self-identified Republicans believe both that abortion is murder, and that the pill is abortion (76% who think abortion is murder, minus the 48% who don’t think the pill is abortion and 18% not sure). Then again, people who still identify themselves as Republicans and aren’t using it to make money or get elected don’t seem to be bothered by little things like facts, consistency, or the whole brainy-thinky thing. So this list will probably sail over most of their heads in any case.

(Yes, I’m being condescending. If you don’t like it, you can eat a gay family-sized bag of cocks.)

Prop-8-Apalooza

If anyone hasn’t gotten their fill of Prop 8 trial coverage, here’s a bundle of links:

First of all, mercurynews.com’s day-by-day coverage of the trial. Mercury being, like, an actual news outlet with presuambly journalistic standards, I figured it’d be best to lead off with them. (Free registration required. Or bugmenot. Or, as it turns out, just leaving JavaScript disabled bypasses their compulsory registration system. Huh.)

The Alliance Defense Fund, who support marriage by refusing it to people who want to get married, have their own roundup.

It’s pretty dry, and generally makes a game attempt at hiding the WTF, mostly by being short on details. But the façade isn’t perfect, e.g.:

Professor Chauncey also had a frustrating habit of falsely linking the motivations of those who supported Proposition 8 to those who supported racial segregation a half century ago. He reluctantly agreed that there is nothing wrong with voters considering their individual moral values to decide how to vote on an issue, but then added that people supported racial segregation because of their moral beliefs. People also use their personal moral values to support environmental legislation or health care legislation. Does that mean those voters are just like those who supported racial segregation?

If you’re one of those weirdos who like facts (ugh! Ptooey!) in their arguments, you might be interested in the American Foundation for Equal Rights’s official trial transcripts.

But my favorite is Autostraddle’s Judgment Daze series. Yes, Rachel and Riese are as biased as the ADF (though in the other direction), but Rachel writes like a gay Wonkette, which counts for a lot, and includes links and videos and tasteful pictures of hot women kissing.

Naturally, both sides think they’ve won, and we won’t know which side really really won until the judge rules in, I think, late February. But I’m feeling cautiously optimistic. As in Kitzmiller v. Dover, the defense witnesses don’t seem to be all that familiar with the value of consistency or critical thinking, things that, I gather, count for a lot in a courtroom, especially when there’s no jury to be swayed by emotional appeals.

I also understand that the prosecution wants to show that Prop 8 was motivated primarily by anti-gay animus, and that a bigoted majority can’t just take away the rights of a minority. Sounds like they did a fine job with the examination of Hak-Shing Tam, who basically regurgitated every homophobic stereotype and urban legend you’ve ever heard, and whom the defense side nudged under the bus a bit.

Other arguments, like “marriage is all about raising children” were countered by, say, the observation that the Netherlands have had gay marriage since 2001 or so, and still does not resemble a Mad Maxian apocalyptic hellscape.

But just in case the judge decides that keeping definitions constant is more important than allowing people to pursue happiness, I think I have the perfect solution:

In the last day of testimony, David Blankenhorn said:

Even in instances of a man engaging in polygamous marriage, each marriage is separate. He — one man marries one woman. That’s the way it works.

The scholars then have pointed out that in certain societies, many societies, men of wealth and power then go on to marry additional women. They do not marry as a group. It is not a group marriage. It permits certain men that have access to power to marry more than one woman. Each marriage is a separate marriage of one man and one woman.

So let’s say a guy marries a woman. He then marries another woman, thus forming a family of three. They then divorce the guy, leaving two women married to each other, all fairly within the confines of the traditional definition of marriage.

It could even lead to a cottage industry of professional brides and grooms, who’ll marry any two people for a reasonable fee.

Way to Undermine Your Case

Today’s WSJ has an article about the Proposition 8 suit in California:

Defenders of California’s ban on same-sex marriage began making their case Monday, countering the plaintiffs’ argument that gays and lesbians are subject to discrimination.

Which is all well and good until you see the photo that ran next to the article:

Prop 8 Discrimination

So this guy is holding up a sign saying “No gay rights”. Right in front of the courthouse in which the lawyers for his side are trying to argue that gays aren’t discriminated against.

I believe that counts as an own goal.

BillDo on Sex Ed

Yesterday, BillDo blew a gasket over the use of the phrase “opposite-sex marriage” in the New York Times. Which is, I suppose, his function in the great circle of life.

But then he went on to say:

Here’s how it will play out in the classroom: kindergartners will be told that some adults choose same-sex marriage and some choose opposite-sex marriage. There is no moral difference—it’s just a matter of different strokes for different folks. Not mentioned, of course, will be that some male-on-male sex practices are dangerous.

This brings up some questions: how should one talk about dangerous “male-on-male sex practices” (by which I assume he means anal sex) in a manner that’ll make sense to 2- to 7-year-old children? Should teachers tell them about hetero anal sex at the same time, or wait until after nap time?

In Donohue’s mind, should children also be taught about other potentially dangerous sexual practices, such as autoerotic asphyxiation or BDSM?

Is there any conflict between this and his earlier advocacy of abstinence-only sex ed? Religious conservatives like Bill don’t generally strike me as the type of person who’d want to discuss hot man-on-man action in graphic detail with small children.

Gay Marriage Opponent Doesn’t Know What the Harm in Gay Marriage Is, Either

This AP article recounts a revealing exchange between a California judge and a lawyer arguing that Prop 8 should be maintained:

“What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?” [Judge] Walker asked.

“My answer is, I don’t know. I don’t know,” Cooper answered.

Moments later, after assuring the judge his response did not mean Proposition 8 was doomed to be struck down, Cooper tried to clarify his position. The relevant question was not whether there is proof that same-sex unions jeopardize marriages between men and women, but whether “the state is entitled, when dealing with radical proposals to make changes to bedrock institutions such as this … to take a wait and see attitude,” he said.
…

Walker pressed on, asking again for specific “adverse consequences” that could follow expanding marriage to include same-sex couples. Cooper cited a study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, showing that straight couples were increasingly opting to become domestic partners instead of getting married.

“Has that been harmful to children in the Netherlands? What is the adverse effect?” Walker asked.

Cooper said he did not have the facts at hand.

“But it is not self-evident that there is no chance of any harm, and the people of California are entitled not to take the risk,” he said.

“Since when do Constitutional rights rest on the proof of no harm?” Walker parried, adding the First Amendment right to free speech protects activities that many find offensive, “but we tolerate those in a free society.”

This buttresses something I’ve thought for some time: that the “gay marriage will undermine traditional marriage” argument is just a headline with no body, no substance behind the talking point.

The judge also has the right attitude: that when it comes to rights, the question is not “is there any reason to grant this right?” but rather “is there any reason to deny it?” (except that in the case of Proposition 8, we’re talking about taking away an existing right).

As for the decline of marriage in the Netherlands, let’s assume for the sake of argument that it’s true: that the dropping marriage rate there is directly caused by a liberal zeitgeist that makes people less likely to want to get married, while simultaneously promoting the right of gays to get married should they so choose.

So. Fewer (straight) couples are getting married. Should they be compelled to do so? Obviously not. Presumably the couples in question aren’t being harmed, or else they’d get hitched. What about harm to the children, as judge Walker asked? If there is, the gay marriage opponents might have a case. Cooper couldn’t name any. And as long as the discussion over gay marriage has been going on, if there were anything to this argument, you’d think he or his clients would know.

In short, I have yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that doesn’t boil down to “I don’t like it”. I do sympathize with this, really. But come on, rectifying inequality has got to trump “I don’t like it”.

Activist Judges Uphold Prop 8

As you’ve no doubt heard by now, the California Supreme Court
upheld
Proposition 8, which took away gays’ right to get married in that
state. This sucks, which obviously means that it constitutes judicial
activism. (Update, May 27: Yup: BillDo
describes
the suit as “homosexual radicals sought to do an end-run around the
democratic process and have unelected judges overrule the express will
of the people.“)

Okay, I realize that the question before the court wasn’t “should gays
be allowed to marry?”, but something more narrow, about whether the
referendum was phrased properly, in a way that doesn’t require the
legislature to intervene. I know nothing about California law, so I
can’t comment on whether I agree with the court on this more narrow
question.

While the court was debating this, of course, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and
Maine moved to legalize gay marriage, and DC voted to recognize
marriages from other states. So I’m pretty confident that California
will follow suit soon enough.

Meanwhile, in Bizarro World the Weekly Standard, Sam
Schulman
presents
a novel argument against gay marriage. And by “argument”, I mean
“words and sentences furiously and randomly strung together in the
despearate hope that some of it might form an argument.” I can’t even
summarize it. Though if I had to, it’d probably be “`gay’ means happy,
and married people shouldn’t be happy”.

The fact is that marriage is part of a
much larger institution, which defines the particular shape and
character of marriage: the kinship system. […]

The first [effect of marriage within the kinship system] is the
most important: It is that marriage is concerned above all with female
sexuality. The very existence of kinship depends on the protection of
females from rape, degradation, and concubinage. This is why marriage
between men and women has been necessary in virtually every society
ever known. Marriage, whatever its particular manifestation in a
particular culture or epoch, is essentially about who may and who may
not have sexual access to a woman when she becomes an adult, and is
also about how her adulthood–and sexual accessibility–is
defined.
[…]

This most profound aspect of marriage–protecting and controlling the sexuality of the child-bearing sex–is its only true reason for being, and it has no equivalent in same-sex marriage.

That’s right, folks: if you’re a woman, and you marry another woman,
you’re not allowed to tell your wife that she’s not allowed to sleep
around. Glad that’s settled.

Second, kinship modifies marriage by imposing a set of rules that determines not only whom one may marry (someone from the right clan or family, of the right age, with proper abilities, wealth, or an adjoining vineyard), but, more important, whom one may not marry. Incest prohibition and other kinship rules that dictate one’s few permissible and many impermissible sweethearts are part of traditional marriage. Gay marriage is blissfully free of these constraints. There is no particular reason to ban sexual intercourse between brothers, a father and a son of consenting age, or mother and daughter. There are no questions of ritual pollution: Will a hip Rabbi refuse to marry a Jewish man–even a Cohen–to a Gentile man? Do Irish women avoid Italian women? A same-sex marriage fails utterly to create forbidden relationships.

Oh, noes! If teh gays are allowed to marry, we might get Irish and
Italians marrying! The horror!

Now to live in such a system, in which sexual intercourse can be illicit, is a great nuisance. Many of us feel that licit sexuality loses, moreover, a bit of its oomph. Gay lovers live merrily free of this system. Can we imagine Frank’s family and friends warning him that “If Joe were serious, he would put a ring on your finger”? Do we ask Vera to stop stringing Sally along? Gay sexual practice is not sortable into these categories–licit-if-married but illicit-if-not (children adopted by a gay man or hygienically conceived by a lesbian mom can never be regarded as illegitimate). Neither does gay copulation become in any way more permissible, more noble after marriage. It is a scandal that homosexual intercourse should ever have been illegal, but having become legal, there remains no extra sanction–the kind which fathers with shotguns enforce upon heterosexual lovers. I am not aware of any gay marriage activist who suggests that gay men and women should create a new category of disapproval for their own sexual relationships, after so recently having been freed from the onerous and bigoted legal blight on homosexual acts. But without social disapproval of unmarried sex–what kind of madman would seek marriage?

(emphasis added)

Do I detect someone with unresolved issues?

Few men would ever bother to enter into a
romantic heterosexual marriage–much less three, as I have done–were
it not for the iron grip of necessity that falls upon us when we are
unwise enough to fall in love with a woman other than our
mom.

Oh, and guess who’s going to be sleeping on the couch tonight:

Every day thousands of ordinary heterosexual men surrender the dream of gratifying our immediate erotic desires. Instead, heroically, resignedly, we march up the aisle with our new brides, starting out upon what that cad poet Shelley called the longest journey, attired in the chains of the kinship system–a system from which you have been spared. Imitate our self-surrender.

(emphasis added)

Believe it or not, there’s even more where that came from. As far as I
can tell, Schulman’s point is that marriage means something, and
people who choose to get married aren’t allowed to decide what their
marriage means or should be like, because… well, he doesn’t really
say. History, presumably. Or maybe quantum.

Furthermore, marriage is an unhappy affair, and gays should feel
relieved, rather than discriminated against, that they have been
spared it.

(via Tom Smith
and Sadly, No.)

Why Gay Marriage Is Exclusionary

The reason I read Catholic League releases is that BillDo’s stage persona, that of the hypersensitive apoplectic paranoiac stamping his little feet is amusing. Lately, though, he’s been in a bit of a slump, his tirades not quite over the top enough to be funny.

So I was pleased to see this item from last week:

For all the happy talk about inclusion, gay marriage is positively exclusionary in its effects. How so? Next month we will celebrate Mother’s Day. How do two men tell their legally acquired children that they are excluded from celebrating this special day? How do two women tell their legally acquired children that they are excluded from celebrating Father’s Day?

Stop teh gays from marrying, won’t you? Do it for the children. And for the gay parents who don’t want to explain things to their kids.

NOM Ad Parody

$NOM_ad =~ s/gay/interracial/ ==

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC4B4LknF90&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0]

I think this perfectly illustrates what’s wrong with the
original NOM ad.

(HT Cyde Weys.)

(PS: Amusingly enough, the song that was playing when I got this link was Foreigner’s I Want to Know What Love Is.)

Pursuit of Happiness

Greta Christina
makes a great point:
if conservatives want to argue that gay marriage goes against the
principles that America was founded on, remind them of that founding
principle explicitly spelled out in the declaration of independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness.

If marrying the person you love isn’t pursuit of happiness, I don’t
know what is.

But don’t take my word for it. In the
Loving v. Virginia
decision, SCOTUS chief justice Warren wrote:

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of
the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of
happiness by free men.