Homosexual marriage II

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

One interesting thing about this is the general silence coming from Republican politicians. Right-wing commentators, yes; has-beens like Gingrinch, yes; but not so much from actual pols.

I mean they'll come out against it if asked the question, but nobody seems to be eager to be the one identified with leading the opposition. Compare this to what it would have been like even 5 or 6 years ago.

Probably because the "right wing" movement has seen most of its activity in the past two years (since Obama) in the libertarian anti-government wing (as noted with the emergence of the whole Tea Party movement) and not with the traditional stuffed suit republican fat cat lobby or even the Jerry Falwell right wing christian types (although both these groups have certainly been attempting to ride their coat tails and will no doubt have some success come November). And these folks have a hard time arguing for government control over one part of the population even if they are disgusting gays. So in a way its a matter of which thing do they hate the most. Is it a good thing that they have generally chosen to hate the government more than homosexuals?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

It's not control; not sanctioning gay marriages is a form of governmental inaction. It seems to me (as an outsider, I admit) that libertarian values would better fit the abolition of marriage as an institution of the state altogether, than the extension of the boundaries of that institution.

[inked]

The state has a vested interest in the orderly devolution of property and responsibility for offspring. Why should it change historical and biological realities to suit a few narcissists is beyond me. It's not uniformity under law they want, which they have with civil unions, it is the word and societal respect accorded to marriage. "Equality, bah, give me what I want and the rest of society be damned along with me." And as the judge hesitates not to create truthiness as the "basis" of his "opinion" we see the narcissists winning.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

It's not control; not sanctioning gay marriages is a form of governmental inaction.

Absolutely, just as not sanctioning interracial marriages was a form of government inaction- if your definitionof inaction is the government legally recognizing an institution, establishing special rights for people who qualify under those laws, and barring certain categories of people from partaking in that institution.

It seems to me (as an outsider, I admit) that libertarian values would better fit the abolition of marriage as an institution of the state altogether, than the extension of the boundaries of that institution.

Should be, yes.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

The state has a vested interest in the orderly devolution of property and responsibility for offspring.

Demographer Gary Gates of the Williams Institute at the University of California-Los Angeles also has studied same-sex families. His new analysis of the 2008 American Community Survey showed that 31% of same-sex couples who identify themselves as spouses are raising kids compared with 43% of heterosexual couples. That survey marked the first available Census data about same-sex spouses and gay U.S. families. Gates says same-sex couples who identify as married are similar to heterosexual couples in many ways, including the fact that almost one-third are raising children.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...nts05_ST_N.htm

Or are you saying gay people don't have property, or shouldn't be allowed to decide who they want to pass it onto?

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir

It seems to me (as an outsider, I admit) that libertarian values would better fit the abolition of marriage as an institution of the state altogether, than the extension of the boundaries of that institution.

Yes and no; libertarian values as I understand them do recognize that there are certain, limited fields in which the state can have a positive role (this being what distinguishes them from anarchic values; libertarianism is not entirely about eliminating the state, only restricting it to its narrow fields) and I believe the social goods bound up the institution of marriage are usually included. Only if you believe state involvement in marriage is itself a bad thing (which is an entirely different debate) would eliminating marriage as a province of state action be a libertarian ideal. Rather, since the libertarian ideal of the (minimalist) state involves setting up broad outlines within which human liberty can do the work, the state should, while still providing for the institution of marriage, refrain as much as possible from weighing that institution with any particular bias, leaving it as a framework within which people can make their own decisions - in this case, I would argue, specifically removing the bias against homosexual relationships.

[inked]

GM, your rhetorical question is a bit absurd, but I shall answer it.

Yes gays do have property.
NO, gays do not have children - there is that egg/sperm thingy again, and biology. They may adopt them, they may borrow eggs, they may borrow sperm, they may borrow uteruses or penises - but they emphatically do not have them in the biological sense of reproduction.

The state has interest in property. The state has interest in children. Unless of course the state combines the interest and makes children merely property for the accessorizing of relationships.

Clearer?

Or did you miss the relationship to state regulation in different areas might have similar principles operative which are not limited to the alleged "rights" as opposed to the best interests of children?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

GM, your rhetorical question is a bit absurd, but I shall answer it.

Yes gays do have property.
NO, gays do not have children - there is that egg/sperm thingy again, and biology. They may adopt them, they may borrow eggs, they may borrow sperm, they may borrow uteruses or penises - but they emphatically do not have them in the biological sense of reproduction.

The state has interest in property. The state has interest in children. Unless of course the state combines the interest and makes children merely property for the accessorizing of relationships.

Clearer?

Absolutely- you're saying infertile couples should not be allowed to marry- got it.

[GrayMouser]

Latest opinion polls:

The age difference is to be expected- opposition is literally dying out.

The gender gap is surprising- I'd say pretty clear evidence that a lot of the opposition is based on manly men getting all squirmy at the thought of teh gays- "Support gay marriage?-hey, I ain't no fruit!"


CNN/OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION POLL -- AUG 6 to 10, 2010
Question 37A
Do you think gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married and have
their marriage recognized by law as valid?

For .........52%
Against....46%

Age:.......under 50........50+

For ............61%..........41%
Against......39% ..........56%

Sex: .........Women........Men

For..............67%..........37%
Against........32%..........61%


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/im...1/rel11a1a.pdf

[The Gaffer]

Interesting gender difference in that poll.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

The gender gap is surprising- I'd say pretty clear evidence that a lot of the opposition is based on manly men getting all squirmy at the thought of teh gays- "Support gay marriage?-hey, I ain't no fruit!"

That's certainly one aspect of the sex disparity. Of course, there are many factors which contribute; another is the desire, widespread among American women, to be a "fag hag" (generally attributed to Will and Grace).

[inked]

AH, here's and interesting judicial twist in logic to correlate with Walker's allegations of findings of fact:

The federal judge who overturned California's same-sex marriage ban has more bad news for the measure's sponsors: he not only is unwilling to keep gay couples from marrying beyond next Wednesday, he doubts the ban's backers have the right to challenge his ruling.

"Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker on Thursday rejected a request to delay his decision striking down Proposition 8 from taking effect until high courts can take up an appeal lodged by its supporters. One of the reasons, the judge said, is he's not sure the proponents have the authority to appeal since they would not be affected by or responsible for implementing his ruling.

By contrast, same-sex couples are being denied their constitutional rights every day they are prohibited from marrying, Walker said.

The ban's backers "point to harm resulting from a 'cloud of uncertainty' surrounding the validity of marriages performed after judgment is entered but before proponents' appeal is resolved," he said. "Proponents have not, however, argued that any of them seek to wed a same-sex spouse.""

You cannot appeal a law because you disagree with it even in a court setting and following normal procedure. Good one for illogic, that.

[Count Comfect]

Actually, that's a well-established precedent; it's called "standing," and it reflects the idea that simply disagreeing with a decision or a law is insufficient to allow you to bring a legal claim. There must be actual harm to you.

[Comic Book Guy]

Originally Posted by inked

AH, here's and interesting judicial twist in logic to correlate with Walker's allegations of findings of fact:

The federal judge who overturned California's same-sex marriage ban has more bad news for the measure's sponsors: he not only is unwilling to keep gay couples from marrying beyond next Wednesday, he doubts the ban's backers have the right to challenge his ruling.

"Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker on Thursday rejected a request to delay his decision striking down Proposition 8 from taking effect until high courts can take up an appeal lodged by its supporters. One of the reasons, the judge said, is he's not sure the proponents have the authority to appeal since they would not be affected by or responsible for implementing his ruling.

By contrast, same-sex couples are being denied their constitutional rights every day they are prohibited from marrying, Walker said.

The ban's backers "point to harm resulting from a 'cloud of uncertainty' surrounding the validity of marriages performed after judgment is entered but before proponents' appeal is resolved," he said. "Proponents have not, however, argued that any of them seek to wed a same-sex spouse.""

You cannot appeal a law because you disagree with it even in a court setting and following normal procedure. Good one for illogic, that.

What's it to do with "illogic"?

If you ever get round to reading your own post you'll see the Judge explain that the bigots don't "have the authority to appeal since they would not be affected by or responsible for implementing his ruling."

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I just came across some interesting thoughts on same-sex marriage from an Anglo-Catholic priest in a long term relationship with another man. This fellow's not a philosopher or anything, so his thoughts aren't as organized as they could be and are certainly flawed, but he brings up some ideas and parallels that, at least from a traditionally Christian point of view, are interesting, and attempt to provide an account of how it's possible to disagree with same-sex marriage without being homophobic or negative about gays and gay relationships. Certainly, this doesn't constitute real, substantial argument, but hopefully it can at least provide food for thought from a perspective other than the stereotypical poles that tend to define these discussions:

I wouldn’t want to take it too far down the line, but I think there is a
comparison with religious communities. … Now, the very nature of that
community is that it doesn’t reproduce itself. Why do convents and monasteries
continue? They’re not self-perpetuating communities. They only
continue by people being drawn to that lifestyle. As I say, I don’t want to
take the comparison too far, but the Church has always had those people
who have once removed themselves from the things of the world in order
to serve the Lord. … It is not an escapism from the world, it is a very high
calling, I believe, by God to a few. Now I wouldn’t want to make great
comparisons with that and the gay lifestyle, but the gay lifestyle is, I
believe, something we’re called to. I didn’t choose it. It was given to me
from somewhere, whether in my genes or in my environment, whatever. I
quite like it, thank you, but I didn’t actually go to the shop and collect it.
And it is a high calling given to some and not to others, and it is that thing that isn’t self-perpetuating. Two men can’t, in the normal course of events,
have babies. And therefore it is a lifestyle that you join. And, like the
religious communities, you meet other people of the same lifestyle. It’s an
interesting comparison, worth thinking about.

[GrayMouser]

like to read more--link, please

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I found it in an article trying to explain anecdotally the strong gay presence in Anglo-Catholicism; this particular line of thought wasn't something that was really developed in the rest of the article. Here is the link, but you might not be able to download the full text without a university account. If not, feel free to PM me, and I can e-mail it you.

[GrayMouser]

No, that's okay, I can see what he's getting at- was reading it the wrong way round the first time.

[GrayMouser]

More on standing:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20100813.html

The case, after all, is Perry v. Schwarzenegger, so the defendants should have been either Gov. Arnold or State Attorney-General Jerry Brown; niether of them chose to contest it, and neither will appeal. Since the Governator is retiring, he's pretty well immune to the wrath of the voters, but they have a clear choice between Whitman and Brown on this issue.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I have recently come across the archive of a blog called Dreadnought, which is basically about what it means to be a "gay, faithful Catholic." I find the fellow to be quite cogent, and he often resonates with my own views; at any rate, it may be for some interesting resource, to help understand under-represented viewpoints.