Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
Was it Oscar Wilde who said that a prerequisite of sanity is to disagree with 2/3s of the public?
Talking of public approval as if that is the measure of what is “moral”, “acceptable”, “accepted” or “right” is rather strange.
Of course, the approval numbers for gay marriage are up because the Left’s narrative that gay marriage is a universal right and opposition to it makes you a homophobe and bigot. No one wants to be a bigot, of course, so people respond in socially acceptable ways.
Doesn’t necessarily mean they actually support it, if they knew what it actually means.
If people knew that a large % of gay marriages are not…monogamous…maybe they might have a different opinion on the matter.
But I do agree overall that the right has lost virtually all moral debates in this country over the last 50 years+. And will continue to do so. I also believe this will have rather bad consequences down the road. We’ve already seen the consequences of the moral battles of the 50s and 60s, and the mess it has created in family structure in the US and the individual.
The only thing that gives me hope is that this LGBT (insert other letters as you see fit) movement is far to…insane…for its own good.
To be fair.. a large % of straight marriages/relationships aren’t exactly monogamous either. Have you seen the statistics for infidelity lately? I believe the last time I looked it up, it was around 40%. Either way, if some homosexual relationships not being without infidelities is a valid basis for completely dismissing the notion of marriage for an entire subset of the population, then why is the same argument not considered for heterosexual marriages? This is where you’re getting into a moral argument, and moral arguments are not going to work against a majority of the population. If that’s your best ammo, then you may as well concede that Fred is correct and the fight is over, because this generation doesn’t hold the same moral values that you do.
Bullocks. We vote on societal changes and social norms all the time. The post-civil war amendments. Prohibition (and it’s repeal). The Civil Rights Act of 1964. etc, etc, etc.
The infidelity numbers you give include people who are not married but in relationships, and at any point in time in their lives.
So it doesn’t reflect the numbers of only “married”.
Second, the numbers for the gay marriage survey I have seen are about the nature of the rlationship: whether it was explicitly monogamous or not. Meaning, one might cheat on a non-married girlfriend/boyfriend once, but that is different from an “open married relationship” where “cheating” may be frequent.
Third, I didn’t give this as a reason for exclusion. Simply as evidence that the “gay couples are just as loving as the rest of us” isn’t necessarily true.
The arguments for “excluding” gays from marriage are rather diverse, and not related to this. I’d say a rather simple legal argument could be made: there are multiple types of partnerships between 2 peoples, just as there are multiple types of partnerships between people in general. Having separate legal definitions and institutions governing each type of relationship is already…the norm…in most human relationships (I can form a LLC with someone, but I can’t call it a corporation, since that is a different form of relationship).
Calling a legal relationship something different, depending on different circumstances, is the norm. It is not an exception for gay people.
I already conceded that Fred is right and this fight is over.
And I am part of “this generation”. I used to hold favorable views of “gay marriage” too at one point, not that long ago, simply because it is socially acceptable to associate gay marriage with “not being a bigot”. That is, however, an intellectually weak and dishonest position I had. And it is the default position of the majority of the people, the majority of the time, on the majority of the issues. Which is why the Left advances on “moral” arguments and the Right loses on “logical” arguments. Most people don’t operate on logic, but on emotions.
Upon deeper reflection, however, the difference becomes apparent. Not only from a moral, religious etc POV (where it clearly is different)
…but simply the pro-gay marriage arguments are not coherent or consistent. Having separate legal regimes for separate types of human relationships is entirely coherent and consistent.
I’m also amused that in ’96, when public sentiment was largely against gay marriage, there was no call to stop arguing for gay marriage. Now in ’13, when gay marriage supporters have a slight majority, respectively speaking, we’re told that we shouldn’t argue it any more.
As I have explained to someone before: The current system that we have (“civil unions”) does not have the same level of legal backing as marriage does. In fact, I’d argue that taking the time draw up new legal definitions and implications in an effort to keep SSM defined differently from HSM is a complete waste of taxpayer money.
That’s because marriage and “civil unions” do not have the same expected outcomes, hence different levels of legal protections.
There is nothing wrong with that. That’s the point I’m making: separate legal regimes for different types of relationships are the norm in the legal world.
2 individuals forming a business relationship can have different legal regimes depending on the nature of the business. You can be one of multiple types of non-profits or one of multiple types of for-profits. It is as “discriminatory” to say that an LLC does not have the same legal protection as a corporation, or a non-profit…as to say that heterosexual marriage has different legal protection than homosexual relationships.
It is certainly a lot cheaper, and a lot less controversial, to try and define legal protections for civil unions in a more comprehensive manner than to try and redefine marriage.
What gays are trying to do is not try and give their relationships more appropriate legal protections to reflect the realities of life. What they are trying to do is the same as a person in an LLC trying to redefine what it means to be in a corporation.
There is no logical reason to do this. Other than the symbolic reasons, which is what most people oppose.
And of course, the argument is made, that it is “discriminatory” to have separate legal regimes. But why is it so in legal marriage, anymore than it is so in other forms of legal relationships between 2 people?
To illustrate the issue more clearly: the difference between a non-profit and a for-profit legal regime are how profits are distributed and taxed. In the first case, profits are not the expected outcome, in the second they are. Other than that, they can provide exactly the same service. But they necessarily require a differentiation in nature, scope, and name.
Similarly, the expected outcome of a heterosexual marriage is children. It is not so in a homosexual relationship. It doesn’t mean that children have to be produced, just as it is not mean that profits will be produced in a for-profit business relationship (you can always lose money). But there is the expectation, and possibility, and the legal regime has to provide protection in cases where it is.
But the only argument of the gay marriage advocates is the: name. They want it to be called “marriage”, otherwise it is “discrimination” . But it isn’t in this case, anymore than calling the Ford Motor Company a corporation, but calling United Way a non-profit is discriminatory to United Way or Ford.
So the name argument is purely meant as a moral argument, and one explicitly intended to redefine the legal terms. It has nothing to do with “equal protection”.
If all gay activists wanted was…appropriate…legal protection under the existing civil union regime, then 90% of people would support them. But that is not their argument.
Pollsters have been asking the wrong question all along. This one would have been a lot more honest:
“Are you in favor of gender-neutral marriage?”
This question would have reflected what happens to the family structure with “SSM”:
“Are you in favor of institutionalizing the step-family structure for children?”
I don’t care what the “majority” of the population thinks. I am not a slave to the majority opinion, and no matter how anyone else decides, I do not believe that there is any such thing as homosexual “marriage”. They can call what their relationship is anything they choose; they can even have the State “bless” their union. But I don’t have to accept it, and I will not. Doesn’t really affect them at all. My state recognizes homosexual “marriage”, but I am not the state.
The trend line preceding ’96 was almost flat compared to this one. It’s not about the data point; its about the velocity and acceleration of the trend line.
I give you: “Separate But Equal”
If “civil unions” for same-sex couples were to offer all the same responsibilities, protections, and benefits of “marriage” for straight couples, then why suffer the redundancy? Separate but equal redundancies tend to ultimately bear out to be unequal.
There is no rational basis that bears heightened scrutiny to pay attention to gender in the (current) definition of marriage. This is why it has worked out the way it has in the courts. If society were to get together and make “potential of child bearing” and “monogamy” a part of the marriage definition there might be reason for having “civil unions” for same-sex couples and “marriage” for opposite-sex couples, but we never have, so thus there’s no rational basis.
What is your opinion of bisexual marriage?
If it’s truly “over,” one wonders why its apologists continue to argue for it.
Old habits die hard?
Jennifer, think of it as a disguised favor to Peter and Rob. There’s nothing like an old fashioned heated dust-up over SSM to get Rico 2.0 traffic numbers back on their feet! Besides, between this thread and Rachel’s, they’re getting double the action. Of course, a number of the original 1.0 combatants don’t seem to have made it to the field, at least yet.
I think this is a fair point. There is a paradox in all of the “equality” movements that the disadvantaged group claiming it is “no different” from anyone else simultaneously finds it necessary to give their goal a unique name. Simply the fact that many (including, admittedly, myself) support the concept of “gay marriage” implies that it is somehow different from normal marriage.
Agree again.
I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with Jennifer this much in an SSM discussion. Leave it to Fred Cole to make claims which are so audacious that he manages to unite SSM opponents and proponents against him.
1) Gender is not the point on which marriage hinges. It is the expected output of the relationship that requires a different legal regime than one with no such expected output.
2) Separate but equal is not the same thing. These are by their very nature two different types of inter-personal relationships. In the racial case, the relationships are identical. Separate types of legal regimes for separate types of personal relationships, based on different circumstances and expected outputs…is the legal norm. This is the norm in business relationships, intra-family non-sexual relationships etc. We have separate legal definitions, and protections, for civil unions, common-law marriage, domestic partnerships etc.
The simple existence of a sexual or non-sexual inter-personal relationship between 2 people does not mean that all such relationships will be legally defined the same. That’s very obvious.
3) We always have defined all types of inter-personal relationships on the bases of their expected output. It’s that way in inter-personal business relationships, and the same way in inter-personal sexual relationships. The entire reason there are legal regimes governing inter-personal sexual relationships is due to the expected output of this relationship, and the application of responsibility. Otherwise, what’s the purpose of having the legal institution of “marriage”?
It is exactly the same logic as for business relationships, since the legal regime on marriage and other types of inter-personal relationships is only concerned with the same thing: application and distribution of responsibilities: inheritance, property, benefits, liabilities etc.
Perhaps, but there is a difference between having two different names for the same legal status and physically separating people.
“Separate but equal” involved physical separation – black children actually went to school in different buildings then white children. That is much different from having two separate boxes on a 1040, one for “married filing jointly” and another for “civil union filing jointly,” which confer identical privileges.
Which is not to say that “separate” civil unions would have no detrimental effect on gay couples whatsoever, but that scenario is simply not comparable with the status of African-Americans pre-Brown.
There is no reason why it would have. If the gay lobby spend 10% of the time it spends trying to redefine marriage, on trying to increase benefits and legal protection on civil unions or other types of appropriate legal regimes for their relationship, they would have it, and they would have 90% of the public on their side.
But obviously, that’s not what they want.
Also, why aren’t…ALL…inter-personal relationships called “marriage”? Say, for example, I have a roommate. Doesn’t matter what gender. I have no sexual relationship with them, I share nothing with them. But I am their friend, and we “love” each other as friends.
If I petitioned the government that on my tax returns I count this relationship as “marriage”, why should I not be allowed to?
If all it takes is 2 people loving each other to define “marriage”, why isn’t every human relationship defined as “marriage”?
The Shiias in Lebanon seem to think that a 1 hour sexual relationship between a man and a woman is called “marriage” after all. Clever guys, those.
Have we? Can you show me the clause in the current federal (or a state) definition of marriage where it mentions “expected output”?
To your other point, it could be very well that the government has no business sanctioning marriage. Putting the genie back in that bottle is un-practicable, however. And besides, two parents are better than one for children — which both gay and straight and even bisexual people have — so maybe we should keep incentivizing marriage through government means as well as socio-religious means for those that do chose to have children.
Like all libertarian arguments this can be summed up as: When an oppressive government shoves the whims of libertarians down the throats of the people then we have true freedom.
I do think that having only civil unions for gays would have some symbolic detriment to gays – it would imply that they still aren’t allowed into a club, even if that club only exists on paper. But that is a separation I could live with if it truly meant that gays could enjoy all of the tangible benefits of marriage.
I agree. I think the gay rights cause would have strengthened its case by taking it one step at a time: first secure the same rights and benefits of marriage through civil unions, then wait a few years to show society that the world didn’t crash down, and only then make the case for full-fledged marriage recognition.
There would be a good case for having two separate but equal boxes on a 1040, as you describe it, if and only if we had some factor like “potential to procreate” in the current definition, but we don’t.
Of course we have. All inter-personal relationships are governed by legal regimes which are not only separate, but unequal. We have friends, girlfriends/boyfriends, spouses, parents, siblings, cousins etc. All have specific legal protection, some general (as in the case of friends), some specific (as in the case of parents or spouses). They all hinge on the expected output, and in fact pre-define or limit the expected output: a inter-sibling sexual relationship is pre-defined as illegal based on the expected output. A girlfriend relationship automatically changes the legal regime if a particular output is produced (i.e. children).
If we didn’t already have separate and unequal inter-personal relationships between people, based explicitly on output and circumstances, then there would be only 1 legal regime for all relationships, and all would be identical.
Of course, that’s where the logical trail leads. If gay marriage is “marriage”, then why isn’t 2 friends “marriage”? Why isn’t 2 siblings “marriage? Why isn’t a consenting adult and an under-age child not “marriage”? Why differentiate at all?
Of course, you can be assured that this is where the discussion will be 20 years down the road. It already is, in some forms.
double post
This post is a great example of the paradox I’ve noticed for a few years. The arguments in favor of redefining marriage to include two or more partners are weak, but winning. The arguments in favor of retaining the pre-state institution of marriage as the means by which society protects the sexual relationships of men and women are really strong. But as people lose the capacity to think through things, it just doesn’t matter.
I find it fascinating that libertarians seem to think that destroying institutions that are bulwarks against the state will lead to … more freedom. But many do.