“Anti-gay”: Rights, wrongs and everything in between

E-mail Comment Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Furl

“Anti-gay”: Rights, wrongs and everything in between

Nov 23, 2008 Homo sapiens, Medialites, O Mores!

THOUGHTS ON gay rights and the G.O.P.

This entry was posted on Sunday, November 23rd, 2008 at 9:41 pm and is filed under Homo sapiens, Medialites, O Mores!. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

21 Responses to ““Anti-gay”: Rights, wrongs and everything in between”

Josh Says:

November 23rd, 2008 at 9:58 pm
I’ll be honest. I still don’t understand why this protection of a word matters. Or how this right is so radical. I really don’t.
James H Says:

November 23rd, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Ron:

I strongly disagree with your characterization of same-sex marriage as something other than a civil-rights issue. When I look at marriage and rights bundled therein, I see treatment conferred on one portion of the population that is not conferred on another. My own sense of fairness demands that those rights be granted generally.

That said, however, I believe the gay-rights movement has erred tactically in trying to attain its goal. Running matters through the judiciary merely builds resentment among the more general populace. As we’ve seen in California and elsewhere, that populace responds negatively — and strongly — to srong-arm tactics assayed through the judiciary.

I would prefer to see the issue pressed strongly through the legislatures; that kind of tactic is essential to building a favorable consensus around the issue without arousing the three decades of acrimony that resulted from Roe v. Wade.
Punning Pundit Says:

November 23rd, 2008 at 10:12 pm
I’m going to try and write a bit more about this on my own blog tomorrow, but for now:

As long as you’re willing to let them marry, I’m sure the gays will let you tell yourself that it’s a radical new step…
Jason Says:

November 23rd, 2008 at 10:17 pm
What is so radically “different, new, radical” about what we want? Time to stop pretending that love and marriage are a zero-sum game, or that some people have a lock on morality.

Jason
Ron Coleman Says:

November 23rd, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Josh, if it doesn’t matter, why is your side doing so much heavy lifting? Just say: “We want to change the meaning of marriage to include same-sex marriage.” What I hear is, “How dare you deny that ‘marriage’ includes same-sex marriage by definition?” It’s not a fight over the word. It’s a fight over the “right” to call a policy change what it is — a policy change. It’s a right to have policy debates in honest, transparent terms. And that is fundamental to conservatism because it is premised, not on demagoguery or rule by judicial fiat, but in trust of the institutions by which we make governing decisions.

James, at bottom I believe you agree with my narrow point.

Pundit, I am talking about what’s going on now, and the nature of the dialogue now. And I don’t believe that what you say fairly captures that present reality.

Jason, if you can’t recognize that it is a radical departure in human history for the institutions charged with solemnization of monogamous relationships to do so for members of the same sex, you’re right, we have nothing to discuss — you have already proved my point.
Jeff Says:

November 23rd, 2008 at 11:35 pm
This seems to be about two things:

1) Money. Gays in committed relationships would like benefits for their loved one. This is completely understandable, **and is just,** if the commitment is true, and not a farce put on for personal financial gain. Fine; however, gays don’t help the cause by being perceived as promiscuous, and flaunting “the life” in straights’ faces. Appearances mean a lot to those who are looking in from the outside, and to those who don’t understand, and don’t care to, the difference is off-putting. If gays want to be taken seriously, act grown up. Really. And that also means, as the man said, respect for those who disagree with you. People can agree to disagree and not hate or discriminate. I can tolerate, but I don’t have to, and will not be forced to, accept. If you want people to play your game, you gotta play nice, otherwise, the other team will just go home. Naturally, this behavior needs to go both ways. Pardon the pun.

2) Being (THE word) “Married”. I believe marriage is a church-related function. I don’t believe the state should be in the business of marriage – I fail to understand how Government got involved in sanctioning a religious rite, unless it was to tax it, which calls to question the separation of church and state. If gays find a church in which to be “married,” there you go.

If the state wishes to sanction a union irrespective of or without RELIGIOUS sanction, then civil unions are the way to go. The civil union establishes a unit in which benefits may be awarded and all *civil* matters (child custody, health care, inheritance, etc.) may be addressed. Thus, married persons, or persons who wish to be “joined” without benefit of religion, wishing to have the benefits of legal protections, would get a civil union and be recognized by the state; everybody’s happy, end of problem. Since this is a civil procedure, it must be voted upon, and enacted into law. End runs around the will of (the majority of) the people, i.e., prompting hoped-for judicial activism, will only engender resentment from those whose will has been circumvented. Please see #1 above.

A logical extension of the idea of union is multiples of any sort, which will be the next can of worms, to be opened another day….
Jonathan Says:

November 24th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Calling it marriage is changing the rules. Marriage evolved over many generations in response to differences between the sexes and to the needs of children. Calling a same-sex relationship, whether it is legally sanctioned or not, “marriage” does not make it morally equivalent to or — the big point — deserving of the same legal definitions and protections as is traditional marriage. Use of the term “marriage” in regard to homosexual relationships results either from confusion or is an attempt to assert a conclusion about an issue that deserves more open discussion that it receives.
Jonathan Says:

November 24th, 2008 at 12:15 am
S/B: “…than it receives.”
Robert Arvanitis Says:

November 24th, 2008 at 9:27 am
I take strong issue with the claim gay marriage is about money.

It is manifestly not about the economics. For in that case, the pressure would be for a flat tax. Doubt that? Then tell me how much total tax the government ought to extract from three different situations:
a. Two unrelated individuals, each making 50k.
b. A married couple, each making 50k.
c. A married couple, one making 100k, the other at home.

A flat tax solves this. Or else an IRS reg allowing any two people to file jointly without reference to the “M” word. NOT a bitter and uncompromising debate over the nomenclature of “civil union” as not quite good enough.

******

So it’s not economics of marriage “perks.” It is instead a demand by homosexual activists for more than just tolerance — it is a demand for unreserved approval. And that last is deadly to the freedoms of others.

For once government accepts gay marriage, it cannot stop there. The full weight of government swings into protection mode. Not only is gay marriage allowed, it is a “hate” crime to call it immoral, and it must enjoy complete representation in all areas, including speech codes, government funding, quotas, school curricula and all the rest of intrusive social engineering schemes.

For gay activists, it’s like the David Merrick quote: “It’s not enough to succeed. Others must fail.”

******

There is, however, an economic factor here. It is the uneven incidence of the enormous burden of child-rearing. Parents bear the cost of producing new citizens, but society as a whole enjoys the benefits, a “reverse tragedy of the commons.” Note that I explicitly place a positive value on each new person, unlike the eco-extremists who see people as an awful cost to Gaia. With that reverse tragedy, it grows too costly to have children, and we enter the demographic death spiral of the Europeans.
Christopher Taylor Says:

November 24th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
I strongly disagree with your characterization of same-sex marriage as something other than a civil-rights issue.

Good for you. That doesn’t make it a civil rights issue. No one’s civil rights are being violated if everyone is treated exactly the same. I can’t marry a man any more than a homosexual man can. I can’t marry exactly whomever I choose any more than a lesbian can. We all have the same exact restrictions on our ability to marry, no one is treated any differently.

And to be honest, yet again the effort to insist on one position without first defending or convincing people of it is being applied here. If you want a massive cultural shift in morality that violates the ethical principles of thousands of years of human history and every major religion on earth, you have to convince people, not merely stamp your foot and insist it is so. Want me to agree? Convince me, don’t insist your position and insult everyone who disagrees.
Alex Says:

November 24th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I think there’s another point here as well, and it’s related to what James wrote in his second paragraph.

There is a general consensus that religious functionaries (rabbis, priests, ministers, imams, etc.) are not required to solemnize any and all marriages. No one, to the best of my knowledge, has ever taken a rabbi to court for refusing to officiate at the wedding of a Jew and a gentile, even though that is unequivocally a valid marriage in the eyes of American law. Similarly, a Catholic priest can require both members of the couple to have undergone baptism, confirmation, etc. In all cases, the couple are free to seek another church that doesn’t impose such prerequisites.

So far so good. For whatever reason, though, the rules seem to be different for gay couples. If you provide a service to straights, you are now obligated to do the same for gays, even if it is against your religious beliefs (cf. eHarmony). If you preach a sermon about the Biblical view of homosexual behavior, you can be fined and ordered to never publish any such statements again (cf. Stephen Boissoin).

So frankly, as I see it, if gay marriage is made official, the next thing will be a flood of civil-rights lawsuits, making a conscientious objector of any religious functionary who wants nothing more than to render to G-d and to Caesar, without Caesar telling him how to practice his religion.
Anonymous Says:

November 24th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Are people being treated exactly the same? You can marry a woman and so can a gay man, true. However, you might want and even prefer to marry the woman. However, we are denying the ability of gay people to marry those whom they want and prefer to marry. I don’t see how that is being treated equally.

I don’t see how giving gay people the right to marry is a major cultural shift all on its own. This has been a process, and a long one, of there being incremental acceptance of homosexuals.

Sadly, I feel that on this issue there is just too much divide to see each the other side’s point of view.
Josh Says:

November 24th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Are people being treated exactly the same? You can marry a woman and so can a gay man, true. However, you might want and even prefer to marry the woman. However, we are denying the ability of gay people to marry those whom they want and prefer to marry. I don’t see how that is being treated equally.

I don’t see how giving gay people the right to marry is a major cultural shift all on its own. This has been a process, and a long one, of there being incremental acceptance of homosexuals.

Sadly, I feel that on this issue there is just too much divide to see each the other side’s point of view.
Josh Says:

November 24th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Except that eHarmony is a business and not a church.
zach Says:

November 24th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Josh,

I’m generally on your side here, but re: eHarmony, so what that it’s a business? If they want to pass up profit, that’s their beef; and it’s then your right to exploit their shortsightedness and eat their market share as a result. One has the right to boycott a business, even express outrage in as vociferous terms as one cares to. But at the end of the day why should they be obligated to provide a service they don’t want to (and indeed may not be able to) provide?
Josh Says:

November 24th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Upon a reread I think I was misunderstanding the post I was responding to. I thought that he was saying that churches may be forced to perform gay marriages such as eHarmony was and I was trying to point out the difference between the two things. Looking again, it seems like he had jumped on to something else. My final point being that forcing a church to do something and forcing a business to do something are two different levels of government intervention.
EW Says:

November 24th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I think a lot of the members of the leftist illuminati enjoy disliking people who are different from them. This is best done by sterotyping the most extreme example and painting all that way. That’s how you convince yourself that people are evil
James H Says:

November 25th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Laws prohibit any number of businesses from discriminating on certain grounds. Sexual orientation is occasionally one of them. That said, I have all kinds of problems with the eHarmony litigation and settlement.
Jason Says:

December 1st, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Your Comment: Jason, if you can
Ron Coleman Says:

December 1st, 2008 at 11:38 pm
I didn’t say anything about the world crumbling down or that same-sex marriages would lead to remarkable results. Maybe we’re completely speaking past each other. I’m saying that initiating a policy that has never existed in human history — giving state sanction to activity that was actually prosecutable in most jurisdictions in the world only a century ago, and remains so in many if not most to this day and calling it by a word, “marriage,” that until about ten years ago had a literal meaning that simply could not contain such a relationship — is a radical departure. That is objectively a radical change from preexisting moral, legal and political norms. The fact that you argue “It doesn’t really have much of an affect on the world; life goes on” may be a reason to support that change, but it does not make it not a change.

That’s all I’m saying. And you and I have discussed enough in years past that I’d rather have you understand the meaning of my words than agree with me, or with them, Jason.
Just don’t say you’re “sick” « Likelihood of Success Says:

December 8th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
[...] tolerance, understanding, communicating, and open channels utterly don’t get it.