In light of the New York State Senate's decision on Wednesday to vote down gay marriage, I've been thinking a little bit more about what happened last month in Maine, where voters passed Question 1 -- reversing the state legislature's decision to allow for gay marriage -- by roughly a 5-point margin.
We had previously developed a statistical model, based on the result of ballot initiatives in other states, which predicted that gay marriage would most likely be upheld in Maine. The model was somewhat well hedged, giving itself as much as a 1 in 3 chance of being wrong depending on what assumptions were made. Nevertheless, this was certainly a disappointing result -- from both a policy and a forecasting perspective -- especially considering that the vote wasn't actually all that close. It's one that's worth a little self-reflection.
There are essentially three conclusions that we might come to in evaluating the model's performance:
1) It was a basically good model that got a little "unlucky";
2) It was a poorly specified model that missed important factors in play in Maine;
3) It was a decent enough model, but missed some sort of national backlash against gay marriage.
The third conclusion is tempting in light of what happened in New York. But there's not a lot of evidence for it. Back in March, the last time we did a systematic review of gay marriage polling, we found an average of about 41 percent of Americans in support of full marriage rights. Since then, there have been nine polls on gay marriage, which have shown, respectively, 49, 46, 45, 44, 41, 40, 39, 38, and 35 percent support for gay marriage. You see a pattern there? I don't. It works out to an average of 42, exactly in line with our previous estimate. (Nor is there any particular trendline in the data: the two most recent polls, from NBC/WSJ and AP-GfK, showed gay marriage with 41 and 46 percent support respectively.)
In addition, on the same day that Maine voted down gay marriage, voters in Washington State approved Referendum 71, which greatly expanded domestic partnership rights. And as for New York, we should remember that this was a decision of the state legislature rather than anticipated many months ago.
So maybe the model was just "unlucky" -- we did hedge our bets, after all. This conclusion, as always, is tempting. I was rather fond of the model: it was simple and intuitive and yet had a lot of explanatory power. Those are the sorts of models I tend to trust the most (whether I develop them myself or someone else does).
But it has since occurred to me that there was one important factor that the model may have missed -- something I'd mentioned in passing but not thought seriously about. In Maine, in contrast to every other state that voted on gay marriage, there was not a constitutional question at stake. Question 1 did not amend the state's constitution; it merely 'vetoed' the law that the legislature had passed. Maine's Supreme Judicial Court could rule tomorrow that gay marriage was protected by the state's constitution and gay marriage would again become legal there. Although I'm not certain about this, it also appears that the legislature could again approve gay marriage whenever it wanted. In 1998, for example, a law to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was overturned by people's veto in Maine. But a nearly-identical law was passed in 2005 -- it went through the people's veto process again, but this time was upheld.
Does this make a difference? Because Question 1 was the first gay marriage ballot initiative not to impact its state's constitution, there is no good comparable at the state level. But some national numbers suggest that it the wording of the initiative might have mattered.
There were five polls conducted in 2008 that asked about a federal Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage (nobody has asked this question so far in 2009, so these are the most recent results). And those polls showed that the Constitutional amendment idea was not so popular, with an average of 40 percent of voters in favor versus 54 percent opposed:
Now, compare these numbers to those that we described earlier. Whereas a 54 percent majority opposes an amendment to ban gay marriage (versus 40 percent in favor), a 53 percent majority -- between the last nine national polls -- also oppose allowing gay marriage (versus 42 percent in favor).
What that means is that there's a "swing vote" of about 10 percent of the electorate that is not yet ready to allow gay marriage, but is also not willing to ban it (at least not Constitutionally). This is enough to tip the national balance on the question of gay marriage. And it may have tipped the balance in Maine. Question 1 did not actually ban gay marriage but rather overturned the legislature's affirmation of it.
I realize that this will seem like a semantic distinction, but such distinctions are frequently important in polling and it stands to reason that they might be important for ballot initiatives as well. Besides, the distinction is not entirely semantic; since constitutional amendments have a higher bar to clear in Maine, requiring the approval of 2/3 of the legislature in addition to a majority of the people.
Here, in any event, is what I think we can and cannot say in light of the recent results.
Firstly, I don't think there is any evidence of a national backlash against gay marriage. It should be borne in mind that gay marriage is still opposed by a small majority or large plurality of Americans. But there's not really any evidence that the numbers are getting worse; instead, they appear to be v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y getting better.
Secondly, it's not clear that the results in Maine are comparable to those in other states. Question 1 was the only gay marriage ballot initiative that did not seek to rewrite its state's constitution. If Question 1 had addressed the same question as Proposition 8 in California, which did alter its state's constitution, it might not have passed.
Thirdly, building statistical models is tricky. It is good practice to model one's uncertainty whenever we are forecasting a result. But very often, there is uncertainty about the uncertainty.
In Maine, we had a "known unknown" -- I knew that the nature of the ballot initiative was different as compared with other states. But there was no particularly good way to model the uncertainty. And so I did what most people do and ignored it.
Ironically, known unknowns are often tougher to deal with than unknown unknowns. We know we can't know everything. But because this type of uncertainty is inevitable, we have a host of statistical techniques to handle it; it is essentially what is accounted for by the standard error of a forecast. But sometimes, we know there's an additional factor or two in play -- something that contributes to greater-than-average uncertainty -- but we just don't know how to quantify it. There is not much we can do in these cases but be prepared to be wrong.
12.04.2009
Maine Revisited: Is There a Backlash Against Same-Sex Marriage?
@ 8:17 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
139 comments
I wonder whether people say 1 thing then vote another... is there any discrepancy between what voters tell a robo poll on this and what voters tell a human pollster?
Interesting post. But a few missed points. Isn't it clear now that gay marriage tends to overpoll? There was Marist poll yesterday that polled NY at 51-42 in favor of gay marriage. But it seems that four or five of the "pro" side dissipates in the ballot box, and one probably should consider most of the "undecided" vote as likely, but perhaps embarassed, opposition.
As for the direction of the poll numbers, people around here put a lot of stock in the inevitibility argument. I don't. Abortion rights have been loosing ground in the polls for two decades now, and we sit basically where we did in the 1970s. It's not clear where today's enthusiastic youth will go on gay marriage as they get older, get married, have children.
Finally, Nate hit the nail on the head with this point about amending constitutions. Which is why the court's usurpations are such an outrage. Even if the democracy pushes back against overreaching courts, the bar has been raised and the traditionalist side has been handicapped. Amazingly, they still manage to win almost everywhere - and wind up amending their state constitutions. Whenever this happens, the higher bar then has to be cleared by the pro-gay marriage side. They now have to amend the constitution of their state. In other words, despite successes in the North East, the strategy of using the courts has backfired in most cases.
Isn't that maddening.
"Swing" voters are against BOTH banning and approving a particular measure (regardless of the underlying policy).
I imagine there are "swing" voters who are against government spending, but oppose any budgetary cuts.
I don't think the outcome in New York is especially predictive in any way. It's more of an outcome of New York's own disfunction. For years, the NY legislative districts have been set up to ensure Democratic majorities in the Assembly and Republican majorities in the Senate. Last year's Democratic wave managed to upset the system, but still left the Senate significantly more conservative than the state.
As evidence of this, witness that the Assembly passed the bill for the third time, with a wider margin than ever, and about one minute of debate. The governor is in favor. And polling shows a popular majority in favor.
Marriage equality should have passed in New York, but the structure of the State Senate will keep it down for a few more years, most likely.
The problem wasn't your model, but ours.
amending the constitution on a state level is not very difficult, you only need a majority vote. Far, far easier than the super majority bars needed to amend the federal constitution.
as for the popularity of abortion, a ban on the South Dakota ballot last year, in 2008, lost 55% vs 45%.
If a conservative rural state that Shrub carried twice, each time with 60% of the vote, could only muster 45% of the vote to overturn Roe, then national polls to the contrary are obviously overpolling the anti-choie answer.
Agree w Alex. The defeat in NYS reflects the disfunction of the NYS Assembly, more than the issue itself.
The Assembly is embroiled in its chronic budget impasse. Gov Paterson ususally makes the worst of difficult situations (see Senate appointment). My suspicion is that he brought up the gay marriage bill to divert attention from the budget impasse.
Also note -- ALL of the Senate Republicans (no surprise) and eight Senate Democrats (mainly from ideologically conservative Hispanic districts around NYC).
I think as we get older we dislike abortion. I know since I am now a grandfather I am no great supporter of abortion but I think at the same time people don't want to ban it.
Abortion is a fact of life, if it is illegal woman would go back to back alley abortion mills run by organized crime.
We need to keep abortion safe, legal and rare. We need better birth control advice, adoption options but I think in the first trimester it is a womans choice.
Also most reasonable people do not want the govt telling a woman what to do with her body.
Nate:
I would reword Option 3 to say: There is not majority support among the nation's voters for rewriting the definition of marriage to include same sex couples.
Your model assumes that opposition to same sex marriage laws and court decisions is religiously based and thus more secular states are more likely to approve of such laws and decisions. Marriage is just as much a deeply ingrained cultural institution as it is a religious sacrament. One may not be particularly religious and still have a strong opinion that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. This cultural opinion appears to be shared across the country.
I do not see any evidence that the form of the law - constitutional or legislative - makes any difference in initiative votes. Every single time voters were asked whether they supported maintaining the definition of marriage as one man and one woman, a majority has said yes no matter the legal reason the question came before them. They have reversed court opinions, legislation and voted to preempt either in the future.
@Jeff: Abortion and Gay Marriage are fundamentally different when it comes to how popularity moves.
Abortion being legal doesn't make it seem desirable when it happens, and it makes the horrors of illegalized abortion recede from memory. Thus, abortion will tend to get less popular over time if it's legalized. Also, the anti-abortion arguments aren't disproven by people getting abortions!
Meanwhile, gay marriage does seem desirable when it happens - if you know a gay person who gets married, you're a lot less likely to think of it as a bad thing. Likewise, most of the anti-gay-marriage arguments collapse when society fails to crumble despite legalized gay marriage.
Gay marriage is going to go the way of interracial marriage. Sooner or later it will become legal everywhere and then in a generation nobody is going to really "get" why people were opposed to it.
Well, there are people (like me) who would like to see all legal rights extended to gay couples (incl. adoption), but are squeamish about using laws to (re)define a word with significant religious content for many.
So I would expect wording to matter, yes. And I would not be surprised that there was a difference between denying an affirmation versus affirming a denial.
@BDP
marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
Yes, but which man and which woman? And is it only one man and one woman in the whole nation? or one of each in every state? i.e., are we allowing only one married couple in the whole country, or can each state have one?
You'd think, since Republicans are so very big on the sanctity of contract law, that they'd allow anyone who wants to form the legal contract that is recognized by the government as being a "marriage". I mean, what right has the government got to tell two people that they may not sign a contract together? That's like telling a bank that it may not merge with another bank! (Corporations are people too, according to Republican philosophy.)
I think the idea that people are changing their votes on this solely based on whether it amends the Constitution vs. simply vetoes a law rings false. Noone pulled that lever for yes who actually wanted gay marriage because they wanted it to be a constitutional amendment instead. There might be a shift, however, based on the wording that had to be forced on the the question as a result of this. I'll get there later.
I think there are meaningful differences to be found in the wording of the questions. California Prop. 8 simply read,
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Whereas Maine's Question 1 read,
"Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?"
There are simply more "outs" and ways to get confused in this passage. The outs are similar to the Bradley effect. Someone who is against gay marriage, but doesn't want to admit it can say after the fact, "Well, I was okay with gay marriage, but I don't think the state should be able to force churches/individuals to marry them." This was probably accounted for in part by the low religious score in Maine, but the appearance of the word "individual" might have sunk it. Which brings me to my next point, regarding confusion and wording.
The conventional wisdom is that you always want to be the "NO" side of a ballot proposal. (Aside: this seems testable. Hint hint. *bats eyelashes*) If people are confused, they're more likely to vote no. In a highly publicized, relatively evenly split proposal like this, I'm not sure that matters as much, on a statistical basis. People might be confused one way or the other, but it's likely to balance out. For example: the thinking, "Vote for Same-Sex Marriage" could lead to an erroneous yes, while the thinking "Vote for no gay marriage" is an erroneous no.
What might matter more is that the language of the law had to be shoehorned into the ballot question.
This brings us back to your original point. Had it been a Constitutional amendment, proposed by same-sex marriage proponents, it could have read,
"The State of Maine recognizes the right of same-sex couples to marry and guarantees that sworn officials of the State may not refuse to perform a marriage of this type."
This isn't as good as the law overturned by Question 1 (since you might need to track down a Justice of the Peace, rather than just go to your church or ask a lawyer. Incidentally, any lawyer may perform marriages in Maine--I assume this is the "individuals" referred to in the Question.), and it puts gay marriage on the YES side. But it gets around the use of the words "individual" and "religious".
Succinctly, while the conventional wisdom is that you always want to be on the NO side of these proposals, you'd like to avoid the appearance of curtailing religious and individual freedom.
Sorry about the length.
--AH in EL
*
Marriage is just as much a deeply ingrained cultural institution as it is a religious sacrament.
what bullshit.
Tell it to Bristol Palin.
Half of all marriages break up. Just ask Gingrich, Limbaugh, and Beck.
The question is: Can states acknowledge gender?
Supporters of same sex marriage keep making comparisons to civil rights movement (or if you're a famous Hollywood actor, you can get away with comparing it to the holocaust). While supporters keep hammering away at that comparison, same sex marriage continues to lose in general elections because the majority of people simply don't believe gender, particularly when if reference to the act of coupling, is the same thing as race.
The foundation of the 60's civil rights legislation was that in the eyes of the law a black person (or person of any other race) will be legally defined as being the same as any other person. Certainly there are equality laws that exist regarding the equality of gender as well. So far these have, in most states, only applied to individuals.
The way in which advocates of same sex marriage have pursued their cause (by asking that the idea of individual equal protection be applied to couples) will, I believe, strip the laws ability to even acknowledge the existence of gender.
I believe same sex marriage continues to struggle in general elections because, even if most people don't articulate this idea clearly, a majority of voters in most states simply do not agree that a man is the same thing as a woman.
As I said, the law provides equality to individuals, but most states laws can still acknowledge the existence and importance of gender (along with a variety of other restrictions) when coupling. Based on Maine's and even liberal California's vote, it would seem that most people do not find that opposite- and same-gender couples are not the same thing. The majority feels this way for a variety of religious and social and biological reasons that lead them to feel comfortable with laws that tread different kinds of couples differently.
This of course does not mean that the state should be forbidden from recognizing opposite-gender couples, or granting them rights, but I believe those rights should be legislated in such a way that they do not eliminate the idea that gender exists from our society's legal and social foundation.
The political reality is that marriage is subject to what the majority of people think it should be. If the majority of people felt the age of consent should be 14 years old, that's what the law would be. If the majority of people felt the relationship of the marrying parties shouldn't be a factor, that's what the law would be. If the majority of people felt the number of people in a marriage should not matter, that's what the law would be.
I feel (and for now, a majority states feel) that the marriage laws should only apply to opposite-sex couples, but the demographics seems to show that the day will come that that majority will probably find itself in the minority and then the laws will change.
Welcome to democracy.
There's a couple of things about this that frustrate me.
1) Separate but Equal? Didn't we already try that? How'd that work out? Not too good as I recall. The idea that there has to be a separate class of citizens, one of which gets to use one legitimate sounding word, and the other a very technical sounding word, speaks to an underlying attitude whereby one class is considered to be 'normal' and the other abnormal, inferior, lesser-than. Buddy, I do just as much for this country as you do. Why do you get to be superior in the eyes of the law to me?
2) Religion. Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion... and yet you are asking Congress to pass a law respecting the establishment of a religion. Many religions already perform marriage ceremonies for same-gendered couples. But you want Congress to ignore them, and only pay attention to religions that forbid it. One set of religious views gets codified into law, the other set gets violated by the law. Legislating from the basis of religion will always run into thsi problem, because there is so much diversity of religious and non-religious thought. By passing a law saying the Episcopalian vision fo religion (any 2 consenting adults) is inferior and unrecognized by law, byt the Catholic view of religion (heterosexual couples, not always adults) has the full force of law, you are saying Episcopalian doctrine is illegal and Catholic doctrine is the law of the land.
How does that sit with your conscience?
Now, back to the first point-ingherent in the desire for a separate class for which GLBT people are asked to occupy vis-a-vis their heterosexual peers is the idea that heterosexuals are superior to GLBTs in some form or fashion. That belief is the basis for hate crimes perpetuated upon GLBTs. If we're not as good as heterosexuals, then it's more acceptable to kill or physically harm or harass or discriminate against us. You're setting us up as targets for abuse by suggesting that we're not really human, or if we are, then we're some weird sort of subclass of human -sub-human. And therefore, the moral restrictions against harming us are less than they would be for straights.
Think about how that must feel for a second. When you sit there and patronizingly state that you're uncomfortable with us being equal before the law to you, even over one damn word, what we hear is:
"I still think you're disgusting on a visceral level. It's unpopular to say I ahte you outright, so I'll just stick with something safer, like 'your very existence makes me uncomfortable"
Now, how do you think I'm gonna recieve that? Will I embrace you warmly, and shout
"Oh, Massa! Thank you, o you superior heterosexual guy, thank you for treating me as if I were sub-human! At lest you,re not treating me like I'm a wild animal to be hunted anymore, so I should be grateful that you're just treating em like a pet dog now! Thanky thanky thanky!"
?
shrinkers said...
You'd think, since Republicans are so very big on the sanctity of contract law, that they'd allow anyone who wants to form the legal contract that is recognized by the government as being a "marriage". I mean, what right has the government got to tell two people that they may not sign a contract together? That's like telling a bank that it may not merge with another bank! (Corporations are people too, according to Republican philosophy.)
====================================
BAM! Ya hit the nail on the head.
That's the "excuse" the 30 senators who voted against the Franken rape bill use: they said government shouldn't get involved in employer contracts, even when rape is involved.
shrinkers said...
You'd think, since Republicans are so very big on the sanctity of contract law, that they'd allow anyone who wants to form the legal contract that is recognized by the government as being a "marriage". I mean, what right has the government got to tell two people that they may not sign a contract together? That's like telling a bank that it may not merge with another bank! (Corporations are people too, according to Republican philosophy.)
You are conflating two very different things.
1) It is perfectly legal, as traditional marriage proponents frequently point out, for a homosexual couple to enter into a contract providing one another rights and responsibilities enjoyed by a married couple. It is also perfectly legal for a homosexual couple to undergo a ceremony, exchange rings, live together and proclaim to the world that they are married.
2) Recognition by the state of same sex civil marriage is not a contract between the couple, but rather a set of recognitions, rights and responsibilities provided by statute.
This issue has always been far less about the rights and responsibilities of marriage than it is about compelling society to recognize homosexual unions as the equivalent of marriage. This is what a majority of voters are unwilling to do.
Jenny said...
BD: Marriage is just as much a deeply ingrained cultural institution as it is a religious sacrament.
what bullshit. Half of all marriages break up. Just ask Gingrich, Limbaugh, and Beck.
Just because folks fail at marriage does not mean they do not believe in the institution. See the remarriage rate after divorce.
HINT: You are not going to sway voters to support rewriting marriage to include same sex couples by attacking the institution itself.
I think the results in Washington state and Maine are indeed consistent with each other.
Most people want the government to stay out of their bedrooms and want two people who are sincerely dedicated to each other to have the civil rights that should accompany any committed relationship. Thus the Washington state vote.
But for the majority the term "marriage" is reserved for the relationship between a man and a woman. Its how nature designed the parts to fit together and, in many cases, has at least the possibility of procreation. Strong religious beliefs or just the "eewww" factor cause people to want to reserve the term "marriage" for heterosexual relationships. Thus the Maine vote.
@BDP
1) It is perfectly legal, as traditional marriage proponents frequently point out, for a homosexual couple to enter into a contract providing one another rights and responsibilities enjoyed by a married couple. It is also perfectly legal for a homosexual couple to undergo a ceremony, exchange rings, live together and proclaim to the world that they are married.
2) Recognition by the state of same sex civil marriage is not a contract between the couple, but rather a set of recognitions, rights and responsibilities provided by statute.
You're right. I don't see the difference between these two.
If we recognize the legal and binding contract, doesn't that mean we recognize the legal and binding contract? I'm confused.
Just because folks fail at marriage does not mean they do not believe in the institution.
you're ridiculous. you must be snorting Rush's oxy. their acts make a mockery of marriage - it degrades marriage - it turns it into a laughing stock. If they believed in the institution they wouldn't REPEATEDLY break their vows (... death do us part).
@Jenny
What are you, like, 15 or something?! OMG!
And Rick Perry is so gay. Of course some of my best friends are gay.
BRING BACK BUSH!
BRING BACK...
you get the idea.
Shirkers:
A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two parties where each party provides consideration to the other.
A civil marriage statute is not a contract but rather an affirmative grant of rights and imposition of responsibilities by the state upon citizens who enter into civil marriage.
Maine already has a strong domestic partnership law which conveyed most of the rights of being married, so I'm inclined to think it was more about the word "marriage".
I also suspect that turnout was disproportionate in the northern counties than along the coast (Q1 was defeated in most of the coastal counties).
I'm thinking the odd-year turnout patterns are probably more significant than whether or not it is a constitutional revision, personally.
@Bart DePalma
A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two parties where each party provides consideration to the other.
A civil marriage statute is not a contract but rather an affirmative grant of rights and imposition of responsibilities by the state upon citizens who enter into civil marriage.
So, if a couple enters into a contract which grants certain rights on each other, and imposes responsibilities on each other, should the state recognize that or not? For instance, if they agree to be each others' beneficiaries for purpose of inheritance and medical insurance, should the state allow them to do this, or should the state prevent it?
IF two people agree to share the responsibility of raising an adopted child, should the state prevent this agreement?
What contractual obligations and rights, exactly, do you think the state should prevent that are part of a recognized marriage?
Just because folks fail at marriage does not mean they do not believe in the institution.
Only on planet Nutcase. In the real world when lots of people break the same vow, it degrades the meaning of the vow.
I don't see why conservatives fight against this.
Over time, it will become law across the U.S. People will look back in history and wonder what was wrong with Americans back then when people used to vote against giving everyone the same rights.
You just don't write discrimination into laws. That's not what they are for.
Heterosexual marriage in Western Civilization evolved to enforce widespread heterosexual monogamy, a vital social function. It diverts male polygyny and female hyperandry into monogamy, thereby synchronizing disparate male and female sex drives. The problem, I believe is in the language of rights, not of same-sex coupling per se. Much of the argumentation used to oppose the extending STATE ENDORSEMENT, which is what marriage is, of same sex couples is silly. The one really substantive argument is that if such recognition is a fundamental right then there's no good reason that right doesn't exist for multi-party unions.
Hello, polygamy.
Instead, of hysterically shrieking about "rights" and "oppression", supporters of same-sex union STATE ENDORSEMENT would be best served by arguing how their policies benefit society.
BTW, marriage is NOT a contract between two people. It is a contract between two parties A) the two people in question B) the rest of society. It is an agreement to enforce heterosexual monogamy, the couple does not stray and the state protects from interlopers. Outside of that function, marriage has no social value, at all. So-called gay marriage will achieve STATE ENDORSEMENT when supporters present arguments to voters that such STATE ENDORSEMENT is in the overall interests of society.
Conservatives are also boneheadedly stupid when then argue that marriage is about children. It clearly is not about children, because all it takes is some sperm and an egg, and, voila, a child.
@Real Persuter
"Just because I prefer the gentle caress of another man doesn't mean my whole life should be lived in fear and anxiety."
Let me get this straight.
The state doesn't AFFIRMATIVELY ENDORSE the union of you and another man. Therefore ... You live your life in fear and anxiety. That makes no sense, since there's all sorts of stuff that the state doesn't endorse for individuals without creating fear and anxiety.
The state doesn't issue me a law license, because I haven't passed the bar exam (or attended law school for that matter). I don't live my life in fear and anxiety despite the fact that the state refuses to AFFIRMATIVELY ENDORSE my status related to practicing law.
The idea that the state not AFFIRMATIVELY ENDORSING your personal life circumstances creates fear and anxiety is ... well, it's just really, really weird. Why are you obsessed with others endorsing your particular life circumstances?
@Bartbuster
In the real world when lots of people break the same vow, it degrades the meaning of the vow.
You're right. Frankly, with the rates of divorce and infidelity being what they are, I don't think heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry any more. They are destroying the sanctity of marriage.
The only good way would be to require people to be married at least ten years before they're allowed to get married. It's the only way to know if they're serious.
(What? That didn't make sense? It makes at least as much sense as the arguments against allowing same-sex couples to be married...)
Jenny,
The South Dakota vote was significant, but that was a very extreme law that was proposed. A less extreme rollback of abortion would have fared better. The voters also have to "defy" the Supreme Court to vote for such a law, a law that would almost certainly have been struck down. It wasn't a real test of pro-life opinion. How would such a law have fared if first the judicial abomination of Roe v. Wade were overturned.
Michael,
You make some fair points. I think most "traditionalists", furthermore, view abortion as a far greater problem than gay marriage. I was making a point that social "trends" don't always continue to move in one direction. Your confident prediction that gay marriage will some day be seen like interracial marriage is a guess - and I think its an unlikely one. I think, for instance, that the reasons (whether you think they are bigoted or not) that most parents don't want their children to be gay are more engrained than the reasons why our grandparents didn't want them to marry other races. But you make some fair points. The more science reveals about abortion, the more people are repulsed by it. Gay marriage doesn't face a similar obstacle. On abortion, by the way, what I'm driving at is captured here, in a pro-choice article by NY Magazine:
http://nymag.com/news/features/62379/
Joel,
You should read that article. I'm not sure how we're supposed to "keep" abortion "rare" when there are presently 1.2 million a year in the US. There have been almost 50 million abortions in the US since 1973. It ain't rare. Read that article.
The fact that the state refuses to AFFIRMATIVELY ENDORSE your particular life circumstances does not restrict your behavior. Marriage is a state action. When you go to the state and ask for a marriage license you are asking the state to engage in an action endorsing you. If the state refuses to endorse you it has placed no affirmative burden on you to act in any particular manner, as you can go on living your life exactly as you were before asking the state for a marriage license.
Slavery is completely different, as it imposes an affirmative burden on an individual's behavior. If you're a slave you have to act in whatever way you're commmanded.
For some reason, the major hangup is this word marriage.
Marriage, the make it or break it word.
I would like to see some data driven analysis on the polling of civil rights laws (or constitutional amendments) for homosexuals - and their subsequent passing, vs polling of gay MARRIAGE laws (and amendments) and their subsequent passing.
It seems, without looking at the data exactly, that the public is in HUGE support (even if just on the face - as in "i don't want to look bigoted, so I will say and vote for this") for civil rights of homosexuals, but as soon as the word marriage comes in to describe this union, people get up in arms about it. Even states that we thought everything was in the favor of marriage rights (maine - I worked on the advertising campaign for the no one one...that was a sad post election day), it fails.
Even the Morman Church, who helped fund the prop 8 campaign, agreed to accept civil rights for homosexual couples, as long as it doesn't infringe on marriage.
Now, maybe this is the way we should be drafting legislation now? Civil rights is better than what we have now, right?
But, for my own personal beliefs, even after long discussions with very religious people who truly regard homosexuals as a morally wrong thing (and I understand their desire to fight based on that), I do not understand how they are OK with civil unions that achieve most of the same things that they are not OK when it's called Marriage.
Soon, that word isn't going to make a difference, and we will have rights for every human...
but I would love to see the data and see if my hypothesis is correct on the civil rights vs marriage....
@Real Persuter
The argument from social utility is that the circumstance of same-sex coupling lacks the qualification of social utility. It is of no social utility to issue me a law license. It is also of no social utility to issue two men or two women a marriage license.
Your very argument that it is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT is precisely the problem for supporters of gay marriage. I believe that is what people are rejecting. I'm an atheist and have no issues with two people doing whatever they want with each other. My problem is with the ever advancing notion of the absolute rights of the entitled, autonomous, sovereign individual.
Homosexual marriage is frivolous in the most basic sense. It has no social utility, and, furthermore, when endorsement of same sex unions becomes state policy it is rarely taken advantage of by those in same sex relationships.
Get off the language of rights and start making arguments from social utility and gay marriage will pass, easily.
@Esthetique
BTW, marriage is NOT a contract between two people. It is a contract between two parties A) the two people in question B) the rest of society. It is an agreement to enforce heterosexual monogamy, the couple does not stray and the state protects from interlopers.
That's an interesting argument - but infidelity is no longer a crime in most states. That is, the state does not "enforce" the contract of marriage unless one of the parties sues the other for divorce.
Where the state comes into play is in requiring third entities, like insurance companies and hospitals, to recognize the legal contract between the two individuals. Also, the state grants certain rights in the tax laws, and rights of inheritance and the like.
I really think that, at its base, those who argue against same-sex marriage have two sources of their opposition : a) religious (i.e., they want to impose their narrow religious intolerance upon all of society) and b) economic (they don't want to grant the same economic benefits to same-sex couples because they are afraid they, personally, will somehow lose money over the deal).
It's a silly and self-centered argument for those opposed to same-sex marriage rights. But then, the right wing tends to be sily and self-centered.
Shirkers:
BD: A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two parties where each party provides consideration to the other.
A civil marriage statute is not a contract but rather an affirmative grant of rights and imposition of responsibilities by the state upon citizens who enter into civil marriage.
So, if a couple enters into a contract which grants certain rights on each other, and imposes responsibilities on each other, should the state recognize that or not?
I already posted that it is perfectly legal to enter into a contract where the parties grant one another powers which are provided for by civil marriage. There are two important caveats, though:
1) The parties to the contract cannot grant one another benefits provided by the government to married couples. They can only grant one another rights which the party holds like control over his or her affairs.
2) The contract cannot allocate anything barred by law. For example, state family law expressly prohibiting homosexuals from adopting children will take precedence over a contract provision between two lesbians when the natural mother of a child recognizes her partner as the second mother of the child.
For instance, if they agree to be each others' beneficiaries for purpose of inheritance...
Each party will need to draft a will which complies with the state probate code. A contract agreeing to do so is not enough. I know of no probate code which discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and such discrimination is unlikely to survive an EPC challenge under even the rational relationship test.
...and medical insurance?
That is controlled by the insurance policy. There are multiple insurance policies which extend coverage to unmarried partners.
IF two people agree to share the responsibility of raising an adopted child, should the state prevent this agreement?
That is a matter for each state to decide. I have no personal problem with it.
"You" and "your significant other" are not the parties to a marriage contract. The two relevant parties in the contract are "you and your significant other" and "the state and society". The marriage contract has particular social utility in enforcing heterosexual monogamy.
Marriage and heterosexual monogamy is socialism, sexual socialism, in that it redistributes male access to female sexuality. The human species has a natural male polygyny and female hyperandry, we are not naturally monogamous. A natural human sexual environment would probably consist of 20 to 25 percent of the men having sex with all the women. When a man enters the mating market it does not guarantee that a woman enters the market. So, there is always the potential of a difference between demanders and suppliers. Marriage addresses this problem, that of the natural imbalance in the heterosexual mating market.
There is no such imbalance in the homosexual mating market. For every demander there is, axiomatically, a supplier.
@Esthetique
The fact that the state refuses to AFFIRMATIVELY ENDORSE your particular life circumstances
blah blah blah.
Whys should the state AFFIRMATIVELY ENDORSE your particular life circumstances? All the arguments you might make in favor of hetero marriage also apply to same-sex marriage. There isn't any reason for you to be granted special rights.
As a straight male, I'm offended by the idea that I need special protection by the law. Being granted these special rights is offensive. If everyone can't have them, then I don't want them either.
Why shouldn't society AFFIRMATIVELY ENDORSE the contract agreed to by two people? Isn't that what a capitalist society is supposed to do? Why do you hate America?
@Bart
1) The parties to the contract cannot grant one another benefits provided by the government to married couples. They can only grant one another rights which the party holds like control over his or her affairs.
2) The contract cannot allocate anything barred by law. For example, state family law expressly prohibiting homosexuals from adopting children will take precedence over a contract provision between two lesbians when the natural mother of a child recognizes her partner as the second mother of the child.
Yes, this is the current state of affairs. Since you are phrasing it in purely legal terms, there is a purely legal solution - alter the laws.
For example, to solve the problem that "The parties to the contract cannot grant one another benefits provided by the government to married couples," all we need do is change the law to allow the parties to the contract to have the rights provided by the government to married couples. Viola!
Unless there are some "benefits provided by the government to married couples" which you don't think same-sex couples should have. If so, what are they?
@shrinkers
I'm a staunch atheist.
That out of the way, just because infidelity is no longer punished does not mean end of the social utility of marriage. Sure, the ability to robustly enforce heterosexual monogamy is diminished. But there still is a great deal of social taboo built up around marriage. Personally, I don't touch a married woman, but I have no problems going after someone's girlfriend, no matter how long they've been together, unless I have some personal attachment to the man in the relationship (i.e. I'm not gonna try and steal my brother's girlfriend but I have no problems trying to steal the girlfriend of some stranger at the bar).
No, I think what you're seeing is a social rejection of absolute rights. Homeless rights advocates claim that mentally ill drug addicts have an absolute right to take a dump in the the street. The most sadistic illegal combatants have a "right" to not get smacked with a bare hand. Etc., etc, etc.
A few hundred years ago, assertions of rights mainly were made to protect the vast bulk of the "middle" of society from rapacious elites. Today, almst all assertions of rights are made AGAINST that same middle for various fringes, sometimes very anti-social fringes.
A couple of years ago I began taking issue in conversations with anyone who even mentioned the term "rights" in any context in a conversation. As soon as that word arises I divert the discussion into a Nietzschean criticism of the very notion.
Great fun, too.
@Esthetique
Marriage and heterosexual monogamy is socialism, sexual socialism,
Love it.
You hear that Bart? Esthetique called you a socialist.
Esthetique, let me see if I understand your argument. For you, the point of "marriage" is to prevent men from stealing the women that belong to other men. Is that about right?
@shrinkers
Whys should the state AFFIRMATIVELY ENDORSE your particular life circumstances? All the arguments you might make in favor of hetero marriage also apply to same-sex marriage. There isn't any reason for you to be granted special rights.
As a straight male, I'm offended by the idea that I need special protection by the law. Being granted these special rights is offensive. If everyone can't have them, then I don't want them either."
Actually, OBJECTIVELY, as a straight male you do need protections, regardless, of whether or not you can understand it. Men who have sex with women can be cuckolded. Men who have sex with men can't. Your personal feelings about the issue are utterly irrelevant.
Men, as an entire class, need as much protection from female cuckoldry as females, as an entire class, need protection from male rape.
Cuckoldry is to men what rape is to women.
@Esthetique
"BTW, marriage is NOT a contract between two people. It is a contract between two parties A) the two people in question B) the rest of society."
I disagree. If you want to say its a contract, it is a contract with the two people, and the STATE - NOT society.
The contract allows the state to recognize the union of the two people as if they are the SAME FAMILY, allowing them some basic ability to be recognized by the state as such - especially for things that involve next of kin.
Now, to your statement about someone living in fear of their chosen lifestyle because it is not endorsed by the state makes no sense in this argument.
The difference here is that basic things like next of kin, and being afraid of losing jobs thanks to societies disgust at a practice that has been around for longer then Christianity.
Now, if on the other hand, with your example you are currently a practicing lawyer and have yet to be endorsed by the state, you WOULD live in fear of being outed and lose your job, and credibility in your society.
@Shrinker
Esthetique, let me see if I understand your argument. For you, the point of "marriage" is to prevent men from stealing the women that belong to other men. Is that about right?
I'm not sure what you mean by "belong", that word has pretty broad usage. I mean if I get married, impregnate a woman, and then run off with another woman, it is practically fair to say that some of my future labor "belongs" to the mother of the child to support that child.
But, no, under marriage, the two parties do not "belong" to one another in the conventional propertarian sense.
@JamesY
The difference here is that basic things like next of kin, and being afraid of losing jobs thanks to societies disgust at a practice that has been around for longer then Christianity.
Discrimination between same-sex relationships and opposite-sex relationships is as old as same-sex relationships themselves. I suspect that so-called homophobia is about as genetically determined as homosexuality. Seriously.
But I like your admission. You have just admitted that state endorsement of same-sex relationships is about social engineering and not fundamental rights.
Intuitively, people understand this and are rejecting it. Amusingly, you've just admitted to the objections being raised against so-called gay marriage.
"You" and "your significant other" are not the parties to a marriage contract. The two relevant parties in the contract are "you and your significant other" and "the state and society". The marriage contract has particular social utility in enforcing heterosexual monogamy.
The state plays no role whatsoever in enforcing monogamy. Your argument is absurdly false on its face.
When you say that you, personally, don't like to "go after" married women, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the state's actions. That is a purely personal (or, if you prefer, cultural) taboo.
Personally, I don't touch a married woman, but I have no problems going after someone's girlfriend
The claim that marriage makes you slightly less of a scumbag has no bearing on whether it should be reserved for hetersexuals only.
Esthetique
Maybe I'm just too damn macho to worry much about having to compete with other men over my woman. I don't need society to protect me that way. *shrug*
Seems to me, though, that all the benefits regarding the prevention of mate-stealing would be equally useful to same-sex couples. After all, I'm sure there are jealousies and infidelity problems in that community too, don't'cha think? Or do you suspect that same-sex couples are completely drama-free?
Again, guys, get away from the language of rights and argue from social order and utility. When you do this, state endorsement of same-sex couples will be a foregone conclusion.
@shrinkers
I know where you're going with the whole "belong" line of reasoning. You're trying to sneak in a sexist, anti-woman, insinuation; i.e. that marriage is patriarchal oppression of women. My response is that such constraining of both female and male sexuality is necessary for advanced civilization. When you decouple male provision for their own biological offspring from sexual access then men have very little incentive to economically produce. Africa, where women do about 75 percent of the agricultural labor, is an excellent example of this situation.
The push for gay marriage is not primarily about homosexuals, at all. It is mostly another offensive in the feminist war on men.
But I like your admission. You have just admitted that state endorsement of same-sex relationships is about social engineering and not fundamental rights.
And you've just admitted the that opposition to same-sex marriage is really just about not wanting to grant the same rights that hetero couples have. Thanks for that admission of bigotry.
@shrinkers
Maybe I'm just too damn macho to worry much about having to compete with other men over my woman. I don't need society to protect me that way. *shrug*
Seems to me, though, that all the benefits regarding the prevention of mate-stealing would be equally useful to same-sex couples. After all, I'm sure there are jealousies and infidelity problems in that community too, don't'cha think? Or do you suspect that same-sex couples are completely drama-free?
Again, completely dodging the issue of cuckoldry. Marriage protects straight men whether they acknowledge it or not. Gay men can't be cuckolded.
*sighs*
This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Going after women who are "girlfriends" does not make me a scumbag. It is pretty much standard practice, now, in large metropolitan areas. Sorry, this is a scenario that has been created by the concentrated effort of social elites to devalue heterosexual monogamy. Don't blame me, I'm just a product of my environment.
My response is that such constraining of both female and male sexuality is necessary for advanced civilization. When you decouple male provision for their own biological offspring from sexual access then men have very little incentive to economically produce.
I think all states in the US require fathers to provide for their children regardless of whether or not they are married to the child's mother. Ironically, biological fathers (in some states) can be excused from providing for their children if the mother marries someone else. In that case the state is using the institution of marriage to weaken the father's responsibilities to his children.
Are you actually trying to write as many false statements about the nature of marriage in contemporary society as possible? Or does it just come naturally?
Again, completely dodging the issue of cuckoldry. Marriage protects straight men whether they acknowledge it or not. Gay men can't be cuckolded.
Ah. You're afraid you woman might have some other man's kid. Sounds like a personal problem. And once more, no, I don't need society to protect me there - if my wife wants to have another man's kid, then there is something seriously wrong with our relationship, and legal pressures won't fix it.
This is the stupidest argument against same-sex marriage I've ever heard. Sorry to be disparaging, but gods, it sounds like you're pretty insecure.
@shrinkers
And you've just admitted the that opposition to same-sex marriage is really just about not wanting to grant the same rights that hetero couples have. Thanks for that admission of bigotry
"Bigotry" does not mean what you seem to think it means. An anti-gay bigot would be someone who thinks that gay individuals are incapable of anything positive. I'd wager that the term "bigot", in general, is probably the most misused and abused term in political conversation.
Okay, the argument that gay men don't have the right to marry that straight men have, is palpably false. This conservatives actually manage to get this right. A gay man has the exact same legal right to marry a woman, as does a straight man. The next objection is that gays are not allowed to marry the individual that they love in the way that staights can. Still irrelevant. The state has no interests at all in "love". The state does have a vested interest in regulating sexual access and enforcing obligations to provide for children. When I was 19 I was totally in love with Sarah K, who went on to get pregnant by a drug dealing thug who got three other woman pregnant. I wasn't able to marry the person I loved either, so marriage is NOT about love, but about social utility and obligation.
What this is really about is reaching a point where the state is not allowed to distinguish between men and women. It is about radical feminism and social engineering and not about rights, at all.
But what's really funny about this entire conversation is that I am not opposed to "gay marriage" per se. What I'm opposed to is the rampant and nihilistic assertion of the absolute rights of the sovereign, autonomous individual.
Esthetique, would you just once try to explain how it is that think the State uses the marriage contract to prevent cuckoldry?
As this is the linchpin of your argument it would be nice if you could support it in some way. I, personally, can think of no state action of any kind by which cuckoldry is made any less likely for a married couple than for an unmarried couple, so your argument seems like patent nonsense to me.
Let us take a famous recent case of marital infidelity: Tiger Woods. What state action will he face now that his transgressions have come to light?
Maybe the amendment versus non-amendment effect is really a proactive (no same-sex marriage yet) versus reactive (same-sex marriage exists) effect. If so, then an amendment would have had the same outcome in Maine.
While most state amendments, and the proposed federal amendment, are proactive, at least California's was reactive. If there are other examples, then maybe Nate has enough data to explore this effect.
Also, didn't California pass a legislative referendum prohibiting same-sex marriages prior to Proposition 8?
The state does have a vested interest in regulating sexual access and enforcing obligations to provide for children.
I don't agree with the former (the part about sexual access), but the latter can be enforced without the concept of "marriage" at all - it takes merely the concept of DNA testing. Parents can be identified and held responsible without bringing marriage into the question.
Your attempt to reduce marriage to these two functions is unrealistic. Marriage serves a great number of other needs and functions, and you know it.
And if you see the goal of wanting to create a more just society to be some kind of undesirable "social engineering", then there isn't much I can say to that. Having a just society is what America is supposed to be about.
Similarly, if you object to treating men and women equally under the law, then it's scarcely surprising that you object also to treating gays and straights equally under the law.
@yoink
I think all states in the US require fathers to provide for their children regardless of whether or not they are married to the child's mother.
Yes, but it provides no reciprocal obligation for females. This is why marriage is losing its social utility among heterosexuals, and it's why men are so reticent to marry.
BTW, this statement is partially incorrect, as many men are forced to provide for children not their own. And, axiomatically, the real biological fathers of those children are not required to provide for their children. The reason for this is that family law has shifted from being about social utility and order to "the best interests of the child". And this has disastrous consequences.
Are you actually trying to write as many false statements about the nature of marriage in contemporary society as possible?
As I just explained, your statement, about provisions for children, is factually incorrect. Also, I'm making an argument about the potential social utility, what there remains of it, of marriage. I mean you don't need the institution of marriage to enforce paternal provision. So, why not do away with marriage altogether, since it no longer has any social utility.
@shrinker
Yes, I *am* insecure, and not in a subjective, psychological manner but in an objective way. Objective insecurity is the state of nature, and human beings create societies and social obligations to reduce such objective insecurity.
Basically, your "argument" boils down to hysterically shrieking pronouncements of "fundamental rights". It's not an argument, at all, but a metaphysical assertion. Where do rights, in general, come from, then? Was gay marriage a right a hundred years ago? What about 500? What about 10,000 years ago? The position just unravels and, so, your left with nothing but emotive shrieking and ad hominem attacks, such as pronouncing me "insecure".
BTW, this reminds me of the joke, well, my own, actually:
Q: Why did the man disagree with the feminist?
A: Because he has a small penis
Your entire position ends up being nothing more than one big ad hom attack on the people with whom you disagree.
My position is that men and women, in objective reality, are different. Therefore, a combination of a man and a woman is different than tha of a combination of a man and a man. I may end up being EMPRICALLY incorrect about inferring B from A, but that does not make me a bigot, emotionally insecure (although we are all objectively insecure), or mean I have a small penis (it's about average).
Maybe it is just the wording that was wrong. If you ask someone, do you think that marriage should be between a man and a woman, they would say yes.
I think that the gay community should word it in a better way, like:
No Judge or Justice of Peace shall discriminate against individual because of their sexual orientation.
Remember how African Americans were able to end segregation, because the Jim Crow laws violated their 14th amendment rights, which is equality for all.
The gay community needs to come up with a plan that promotes equality without making people uneasy about it.
Beside, Rome was not created in one day, so they need to take small steps to get their rights.
I think the thing to recognize is that there is no trend. Every gay marriage battle is hard fought but the people remain relatively conservative on this issue. Many people may be willing to give legal protections to gay unions as a matter of decency (as in Washington), but don't want to change "marriage."
Courts breached this issue but the people are not the courts. Some states have taken moral courage from the courts, but this doesn't constitute a trend, only an alignment of populations in the various states. More readjustment may occur - Maine may approve gay marriage in a few years, but don't expect a cascade that will accord with a model or line graph.
@Esthetique
"You" and "your significant other" are not the parties to a marriage contract. The two relevant parties in the contract are "you and your significant other" and "the state and society"
Thinking about this more -
You're simply wrong. A legal contract requires the persons entering into the contract to sign it. A marriage contract holds the signatures of the two people getting married, not "the couple" and "society". "The state and society" has never signed a marriage contract.
What you and Bart seem to be objecting to, at its base, is simply that you don't want a marriage contract between same-sex couples to have the same social meaning as does a marriage contract between hetero couples. You come up with contorted arguments that try to limit the meaning of "marriage" to stuff regarding procreation and the like, when all that is really irrelevant to your objection (clearly the reproductive arguments, and Esthetique's new one about "cuckoldry" are red herrings, else we would not allow childless couples to claim to be "married").
No, plain and simply - you personally don't want to have to recognize a same-sex couple as being married. You don't want society to recognize it. Esthetique gave it away by admitting that he thinks the drive for acceptance of same-sex marriage is "social engineering". You see some unspecified but undoubtedly horrible result to the very fabric of society if we acknowledge same-sex unions as having the same force in our culture as hetero unions do.
We survived mixed-race marriages. Trust me, we'll survive this, too.
@shrinkers
I don't agree with the former, the part about sexual access),
Well, you're just wrong here. Inferring from evidence, such as sexual dimorphism and differing genetic variability between mtDNA and HapTypes, it's pretty clear that human beings are not monogamous. A human sexuality that maps directly to instinct would likely consist of about 20 to 25 percent of males having sex with 100 percent of the females.
We can see what societies look like when they don't regulate heterosexual relations: Africa and African ghettos in Western societies. When male sexual access to females is decoupled from providing for biological children and social taboos, men have no reason to economically engage in productive activity.
Do you know why young, black men join gangs? It's not for economic reasons, but for reasons of sexual access. The average street gang member earns less than minimum wage and in an occupation that is far more dangerous than flipping burgers. So why join? There's a reason 'lil Wayne sang "Shawty wanna thug".
So, your claim that society has no interest in regulating male sexual access to females is patently incorrect. In fact, it may be the single most overriding concern for societies of advanced civilization.
@Persuter
You're hilarious, I mean you're talking to a young urban, atheist in Seattle, the most atheist city in the US. I'm clearly making arguments from a blatantly Darwinistic, biologically reductive position. Yet, you repeatedly ignore the evidence and insist taht I am a Bible-thumping Christian.
See, this shrieiking hysteria is what turns off so many otherwise friendly people to the cause of gay marriage. Knock off the blatantly ad hom attacks and the wild-eyed, shrieking hysteria and your cause will have a better chance.
Remember, the original post was about investigating the reasons why gay marriage is being rejected by voters. I'm giving you the reason. Seize the day.
Esthetique wrote:
"Bigotry" does not mean what you seem to think it means. An anti-gay bigot would be someone who thinks that gay individuals are incapable of anything positive. I'd wager that the term "bigot", in general, is probably the most misused and abused term in political conversation.
Your definition of 'bigot' is highly idiosyncratic and is not supported by either the etymology (it is a contraction of 'by god') or historical use of the word. Its original meaning, per the OED, is 'A religious hypocrite; a superstitious adherent of religion'. The relevant meaning in social/political discourse, attested since the 17th century, is: 'In extended use: a fanatical adherent or believer; a person characterized by obstinate, intolerant, or strongly partisan beliefs.'
"The relevant meaning in social/political discourse, attested since the 17th century, is: 'In extended use: a fanatical adherent or believer; a person characterized by obstinate, intolerant, or STRONGLY PARTISAN BELIEFS."
Oh, damn. That would mean virtually everyone posting here is a bigot.
So, your claim that society has no interest in regulating male sexual access to females is patently incorrect. In fact, it may be the single most overriding concern for societies of advanced civilization.
Wow. I bet you read all those Gor novels, don't'cha?
Well okay, I know where you're coming from. You want to make sure you get your share of the good stuff, and you not only want social structures in place to make sure you get it, but you also don't want those social structures to be used for any purpose other than to make sure Us Guys get our proper pieces of booty.
You'da done well in one of those ancient raiding parties that went after the next village's women.
I really and truly don't feel the need to restrict marriage to being a vehicle for making sure my wife's kids are mine - especially since marriage has never before been restricted to that sole function.
And if you want to control someone else's sexual behavior - well, good luck with that, but keep the government out of my bedroom, fella.
@shrinkers
You're simply wrong. A legal contract requires the persons entering into the contract to sign it. A marriage contract holds the signatures of the two people getting married, not "the couple" and "society". "The state and society" has never signed a marriage contract.
This is simply incorrect. A marriage license, like any other license, is an implicit contract between some party and the state. I have a driver's license that is a contract between me and the state, but the state never signed it. In fact, I believe that all licenses adhere to this form, including licenses issued to companies owned by multiple investors, such as corporations.
What you and Bart seem to be objecting to, at its base, is simply that you don't want a marriage contract between same-sex couples to have the same social meaning as does a marriage contract between hetero couples.
No, no, no, no, NO! I don't give a rat's ass about some "meaning" of marriage. Unlike Bart, I care about it's function, which is where conservatives fall flat on their face. A homosexual marriage license conveys no social function, unlike the historical function of heterosexual marriage licenses. Now, you may argue that heterosexual marriage no longer advances the vital social function of monogamy, but that is an argument for the state to get out of the marriage business altogether.
It's the libertarian position, and one I held when I used to be a libertarian.
So, let's get to your claims of a "more just socity". Let's imagine two possible futures:
A) where the state leaves the marriage endorsement business altogether
B) where the state endorses both same-sex and opposite-sex couplings
Now by your criteria, both situations are equally just. But would they be equally good? I mean if your only criteria of passing laws is "equal justice" then why are 99 percent of those crying about "injustice" advocating option B. I mean, if there's no difference between option A and option B, it would seem logical to just flip a coin and half of you would advocate A and half advocate B.
Well, it's because this is not about justice but about social engineering. And it's not about engineering a "more just society", but about engineering an androgynous future. It's why I pointed out earlier that "gay marriage" is not primarily about homosexuals but about advancing the feminist war on men.
One more thing: I deny that there is any one universally binding standard of justice. There are as many different, and incommensurate, types of justice as there are different types of human life and society. Life is a war of aggression between those competing functions of justice.
"Going after women who are 'girlfriends' does not make me a scumbag. It is pretty much standard practice, now, in large metropolitan areas."
Haha... man that is a hilariously absurd thing to say for so many reasons. Not sure who you associate with there Erotique, but I can assure you that you it is highly frowned upon out here in NYC.
Esthetique said...
I'm clearly making arguments from a blatantly Darwinistic, biologically reductive position.
You left out "faux". :) Because really that just an excuse, you don't actually make the link. You just toss out an absurd "Cuckoldry is to men what rape is to women?" WTF? You don't actually establish the link between cuckoldry protection and marriage laws...because the it no longer exists!
The real laws dealing with cuckoldry are dead. It's the rare jurisdiction (if they even exist in the US?) where there is even a law on the books where you can be arrested for sex out of wedlock/adultery.
'A religious hypocrite; a superstitious adherent of religion'
By this definition, I exhibit no bigotry here.
'In extended use: a fanatical adherent or believer; a person characterized by obstinate, intolerant, or strongly partisan beliefs.'
By this definition, pretty much anyone who presents a sustained argument for their position is a bigot.
Mine is functionally closer to a coherent usage.
function over form
function over form
function over form
meaning is largely function
You're hilarious, I mean you're talking to a young urban, atheist in Seattle, the most atheist city in the US. I'm clearly making arguments from a blatantly Darwinistic, biologically reductive position. Yet, you repeatedly ignore the evidence and insist taht I am a Bible-thumping Christian.
Esthetique, please note that the "Persuter" you are talking to is a troll who has appropriated my name and is making deliberately ridiculous comments to provoke reactions.
That having been said, some of your comments seem equally ridiculous, particularly "Men who have sex with women can be cuckolded. Men who have sex with men can't," followed up by the even more bizarre phrase, "Cuckoldry is to men what rape is to women."
This does not strike me as a particularly reasonable worldview. You seem to essentially be deliberately taking what you yourself say is an unpopular stance - that this whole "rights" thing has just about run its course.
As for the "marriage" contracts you mention, Bart, as you yourself point out, "marriage" contracts don't provide many benefits at all.
I would note that many of the benefits people derive from marriage are not benefits from the state itself, but rather benefits from companies who require a couple to be in a legally married state. The most obvious are health benefits - while many major companies have domestic partnership clauses, it's not the case for all employers. Hospital visiting hours, family and bereavement leave, etc. etc.
Fundamentally, in my opinion, pushing for same-sex marriage has been the worst idea the GLBT community has had since they decided that Berlin was the best place on Earth for homosexuals in the early 1930s. Civil union laws in which, by statute, civil unions must be treated exactly like marriage by everyone are far more likely to pass, and while I certainly acknowledge Statler's point that it's obviously "separate but equal", I'd rather have civil unions than stand on principle and lose election after election. When California and New York are voting against us, it's not helping our cause.
Not to mention that as there are more civil unions, people will presumably see that society will not, in fact, collapse. That's going to make it a lot easier to pass same-sex marriage in the future. Moreover, I think it will be a lot easier on the judicial side of things to persuade a court that "civil unions" are, in fact, "separate but equal" manifestations of marriage and thus should be changed to marriage, rather than simply trying to talk a judge into the belief that same-sex marriage is in fact a right.
So, while I certainly wouldn't vote against a same-sex marriage law, I think that the gay community should switch back to "civil unions". I think pushing for something that is explicitly called marriage is ridiculous and is doing nothing but hurting our cause time and time again.
"Do you know why young, black men join gangs? It's not for economic reasons, but for reasons of sexual access."
This a controversial and nonobvious assertion of fact. It is entitled to zero weight without some empirical backing. Cite?
It's why I pointed out earlier that "gay marriage" is not primarily about homosexuals but about advancing the feminist war on men.
Everyone, I mean, seriously... I think it's time to stop responding to Esthetique. He couldn't be any more of a troll if he ate Billy Goats Gruff for dinner.
@Persuter
Yes but it is freakin' hilarious to read this stuff! Unfortunately, no one at work talks like Acidique.
@shrinker
We survived mixed-race marriages. Trust me, we'll survive this, too.
We survived mixed marriage, largely, through residual social taboos and voluntary self-segregation. Widespread mixed-marriage would have precipitated complete social collapse, which is another thing that conservatives get wrong.
Wow. I bet you read all those Gor novels, don't'cha?
I actually had to google this to know what you were talking about. BTW, from the few things I picked up, it would seem that the novels have some basis in the facts of instinctual human sexuality, as do pretty much all concepts. By about the age of 12 I couldnt read more than 3 or 4 pages of popular novels before getting bored. Pretty much everything I argue here is from evo bio/psych stuff.
Well okay, I know where you're coming from. You want to make sure you get your share of the good stuff, and you not only want social structures in place to make sure you get it, but you also don't want those social structures to be used for any purpose other than to make sure Us Guys get our proper pieces of booty.
Bingo! Because the alternative is what you see in black ghettos in the US, where males spend no time but trying to woo pussy using displays of aggression. The only difference being, of course, that black ghettos are economically supported by white taxpayers.
As I said before, all human life is about absolute war between competing and incommensurate notions of justice, serving function different objective types of life.
And if you want to control someone else's sexual behavior - well, good luck with that, but keep the government out of my bedroom, fella.
A society that doesn't provide for some regulation of human sexuality is a society doomed to collapse. Deal with it. Currently, I am forced to provide the support, economic and social infrastructure for children not my own. You could argue that the entire welfare state is one large system of cuckoldry. That will change. Either men like me will take control and reassert control, or society will collapse and, likely, be conquered by a society that does regulate human sexuality.
This is why Europe is doomed to conquest from Islam. Fifty years from now Muslim men will be routinely raping young French girls with no obstacle. It's already starting to happen in some pplaces in Europe.
Haven't checked to see if this has already been said, but here's my thought. An issue like this is akin to a primary in that it will attract a lot of people with strongly held convictions, but not necessarily a bi proportion of people who would normally vote. So, I suspect that while the concept is strongly supported by many, that among those who are really zealous about the issue, the anti-gay marriage people far outweigh the zealous pro gay marriage people. And those that aren't "zealous" may or may not turnout. Very hard to predict
A) where the state leaves the marriage endorsement business altogether
B) where the state endorses both same-sex and opposite-sex couplings
I'd be fine with either of these. For option A, Allow "marriage" to be simply something that a religious organization does if it wants to. Allow "civil unions" that convey all the benefits of joint property ownership, inheritance, familial ties for legal purposes, hospital visitation, etc. that we currently think of as coming with a "legal marriage". So, abolish the term "marriage" in a legal sense. No more "legal marriages", and anyone who wants to enter into a "civil union" may do so. Works for me.
As for the reason that most people prefer option B), clearly it is because you are simply wrong when you say that marriage serves only the functions of controlling men's access to women and preventing cuckoldry. There are a host of other functions - familial ties, emotional ties, all the legal things I listed above regarding "civil unions", certain tax implications, certain rights in court regarding testimony, etc. etc. Historically, there have been even more functions, including dynastic, tying together different families for political purposes, inter- and intra-clan support and dependence, and so on. Every one of these functions, both current and historical, can also be valuable to same-sex couples.
You just don't want society to recognize same-sex unions as being the equal of hetero unions, and you are trying to redefine "marriage" as serving only one function so you can justify denying the benefits of marriage to people who have a different sexual orientation from yours.
Bingo! Because the alternative is what you see in black ghettos in the US, where males spend no time but trying to woo pussy using displays of aggression. The only difference being, of course, that black ghettos are economically supported by white taxpayers.
Haha, yes! Teach us more, Ettitique. I'm certain this, as well as all of your freakin' awesome stuff is well grounded in rigorous empirical study, the sort of study that allows you to make sweeping and unequivocal statements like this.
Keep riffin', dude!
I see nothing in your model where you account for the possibility that a person may tell a poll one thing and then vote in a different manner.
Pollers have personal information about the pollee. In a subject that is very emotionally involved, the pollee may give what is determined to be a safe answer.
There was a great deal in the news about the emotional (and sometimes violent) reaction by pro-gay-marriage individuals. There was no corresponding reaction reported on the part of anti-gay-marriage individuals.
Therefore, a pollee may be inclined to think it safer to give an answer that is pro-gay-marriage.
In a voting booth, no one knows how you vote. Therefore, you can vote as you wish.
What are your thoughts on this?
@Persuer
"Men who have sex with women can be cuckolded. Men who have sex with men can't," followed up by the even more bizarre phrase, "Cuckoldry is to men what rape is to women."
I'm not sure how in the world you can claim this is ridiculous. This first statement is obviously true, since men can't impregnate men, and women can't impregnate women. The second follows from the fact that, in advanced society, a man's ability to biologically reproduce has largely been tied to his ability to demonstrate his abilities as a provider for his own children. On the other hand, a woman's ability to produce has largely been tied to her physical health and bodily integrity. Cuckoldry damages the first and rape the second.
So, rape is to women what cuckoldry is to men. Now, it is entirely reasonable to claim that the welfare state is one giant system of cuckoldry. But that is just admitting that the welfare state is, basically, the rape of men, once, widespread monogamy and two parent families break down.
as you yourself point out, "marriage" contracts don't provide many benefits at all.
They may provide very little in way of legal benefits, but they still carry fairly robust social taboos. Most men I know, myself included, make very large distinctions between married women and women who are just girlfriends. In my case, this is because I understand that women who settle down and get married are often signaling a serious intent to start a family. No such thing for two people who are just dating, so, it's game on.
@Esthetique
Widespread mixed-marriage would have precipitated complete social collapse,
Wow. Okay, it's been fun. I'm not sure I want to see what other prejudices you've got. Peace.
@Ryan F
Gang membership can enhance prestige or status among friends (Baccaglini, 1993), especially girls (for boys) (Decker and Van Winkle, 1996), and provide opportunities to be with them (Slayton, Stephens, and MacKenna, 1993).
So gang membership, hell, almost all activities of young hetero males, always sexual access to females in the background. However, joining a gang to get sex, and working at a career to be a good provider to get sex, have different societal consequences.
Once you decouple male sexual access from providership males will compete for females using displays of naked agression.
The first, arguably, documented war in human history, the Trojan War, was over a woman.
Also, Yanomamo tribes in the Brazilian rainforest go to war with each other solely for the purpose of acquiring fertile females.
Hell, you could say that the advance of civilization is incomprehensible without including the factor of subordinating individual sexual desire to societal goals.
@shrinker
Wow. Okay, it's been fun. I'm not sure I want to see what other prejudices you've got. Peace.
"prejudice" does not mean what you think it means. Consider the following statement:
A) Black males are more promiscuous than white males
This is a factually true statement and holds across cultures, so it certainly has a genetic component. Now consider the following inference from statement A:
B) All black males are more promiscuous than all white males.
That is prejudice and factually false. In fact, there are large average differences between black and white males when it comes to things like sexual behavior, propensity to use violence/aggression and socio-economic productivity. Stating the facts is not prejudice, but what would be prejudicial would be to infer individual's attributes from averages in groups.
Learn to use basic words properly.
Can someone IP ban that troll who impersonates Persuter? Trolls are degrading the conversation immensely lately.
I don't buy the rhetoric of calling it "separate but equal" - is that in some sort of "how to talk to the opponents" guide? Because it seems to turn up again and again, with similar words, despite being completely over the top.
No one is suggesting building second-class buildings for gays, or that they get the worst seats on the bus. It's just an awful analogy.
The only difference would be a word - and me, I'll gladly let go of that too. Remove the word "marriage" from every law, replace it with some other word (which would be the same as for homosexual marriages), and leave defining the word "marriage" to churches, public opinion, whatever.
Going after women who are "girlfriends" does not make me a scumbag. It is pretty much standard practice, now, in large metropolitan areas.
I hope you don't let the fact that many see you as a scumbag stop you from the practice of going after women with boyfriends. If anything, I think you should do it more often. Preferably right in front of the boyfriend. With any luck your "success" will be reported on the national news.
Ryan F. said...
Yes but it is freakin' hilarious to read this stuff!
He certainly has the chuputz to pretend it's the 19th century when as far as the legal system was concerned women were chattel and the marriage laws were to enforce a man's privilage and reproduction rights. It fits with his "unwashed savages" view, too.
It's as though Rip Van Winkle fell aside on the Oregon Trail where someone recently found him and brought him home to Seattle where he woke up and learned to type.
@Dwight
Yes, functional knowledge and understanding of human nature and dynamics has in many ways regressed, not advanced since the 18th century. We have been able to afford such decays in knowledge due to the vast advance of technology to make our lives more comfortable and reduce conflict over resources. That is quickly coming to an end as the rest of the world catches up to the West in technological access.
That being said, I'm certainly glad that things like rank prejudice, slavery and the concept of distinct races are gone. They have no place in a good society, and are anti-knowledge, just like all the Politically correct blather I see coming from the likes of this comment section.
Unlike, the 18th century I do not consider females the lesser of males. Amusingly, though, many self-styled progressives actually do treat woman as some weaker class in need of help against men, as a class.
Notice that the only arguments being made against me are pure and blatant ad homs.
The sensibilities of the 18th century were largely rooted in reality, although often exaggerated. Most stereotypes have a hefty amount of truth to them.
@Aromatique
"Gang membership can enhance prestige or status among friends (Baccaglini, 1993), especially girls (for boys) (Decker and Van Winkle, 1996), and provide opportunities to be with them (Slayton, Stephens, and MacKenna, 1993)."
Weak! Is that all our friendship means to you? A quick and dirty google search and a quick copy-and-paste job?
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/jjbulletin/9808/why.html
As you must know, this article does not at all support your contention that "pussy" is the single overarching motivation for gang activity. It mentions it as one of many, many factors. And that "decoupling" section you keep talking about is conspicuously absent.
Notice that the only arguments being made against me are pure and blatant ad homs.
Ummm, no. I [correctly] point out that you are full of bullshit that marriage laws are about preventing cluckoldry. That aspect has been wiped from the books, buh-bye, all gone. For the effect you mention in cluckoldry there is no need for the state to enforce marriage laws, at all. Yet the laws remain and remain used and useful. Ergo you are flat out wrong, that is not their purpose [anymore].
In truth your *cough* interesting moray about not "touching" wifes but chasing GFs is flawed given that the state actually recognizes (degree depending on jurisdiction) marriages that don't even occur. It's called "common law". :)
Well it looks like I've got an impersonater using my name, too. :/
I'm not even gay, WTF? ;)
Note that the last 3 digits are the same. You have to look further left than that to tell the difference.
I don't buy the rhetoric of calling it "separate but equal" - is that in some sort of "how to talk to the opponents" guide? Because it seems to turn up again and again, with similar words, despite being completely over the top.
No one is suggesting building second-class buildings for gays, or that they get the worst seats on the bus. It's just an awful analogy.
It turns up again and again because it seems to be a rather obvious analogy. I do not see it as "completely over the top". Your insistence that "separate but equal" can only apply to former specific manifestations is what seems "over the top" to me.
Having civil unions which are statutorily the same as marriage, while marriage is restricted to straight people only, seems rather obviously to at least possibly fall under a "separate but equal" decision. Note that Brown did not say that "separate but equal" would be OK if the facilities really were the same, it said that even if they were the same, segregation would still be a harmful policy.
Esthetique said...
Conservatives are also boneheadedly stupid
~~~~~~~~~~
Indeed! especially when they are sooo lonely they feel the need to impersonate progressive posters. How pathetic!
Amazing how (5) words can sum up a thread ...
Having read through this entire comments section, I believe I can summarize Esthetique's views in 4 simple points:
1. We gots ta keep bitches on leashes cuz otherwise bitches be runnin' wild.
2. I desperately need people to think I'm smart.
3. The world is only safe when 100% of the power lies in the hands of white men, as opposed to the mere 99% that white men currently have.
4. I call my penis average, but who are we kidding, I know the score...
Notice that the only arguments being made against me are pure and blatant ad homs.
Hell yeah. One of the social functions of insults is to inform the person on the receiving end that their comments/views/conduct is unreasonable. Moreover, they help lubricate the great battle of incommensurable values.
Tiger Woods is living proof for why the religious sanctity of MARRIAGE must remain the sole provenance for Male + Female & worth fighting to prevent LGBT such reciprocal rights...
or maybe not so much
seems like it has now been revealed as little more than a contract/business deal [pre-nup] - where the male feels he is free to play around all he wants
yeah, Marriage is too sacred to allow gays to enjoy equal priveleges...
Yoink wrote:
I think all states in the US require fathers to provide for their children regardless of whether or not they are married to the child's mother.
To which Esthetique replied:
Yes, but it provides no reciprocal obligation for females. This is why marriage is losing its social utility among heterosexuals, and it's why men are so reticent to marry.
BTW, this statement is partially incorrect, as many men are forced to provide for children not their own.
Esthetique, please try to actually read what I wrote. The statement that fathers are obligated to provide for their children irrespective of marriage contains no implications one way or the other as to whether mothers are similarly obligated. The statement cannot, therefore, be "partially incorrect" if it happens to be true (as it is not) that mothers are not obligated by the state to provide for their children. So you're wrong on both fact and logic.
And, again, if marriage has no "social utility" because it does not, in fact, provide a mechanism to protect heterosexual males from being cuckolded (as it does not) then your entire argument about the nature of marriage is clearly wrong.
Marriage does NOT serve the purpose of enforcing monogamy, you now seem to agree that it does not serve that purpose, so what argument do have left?
Your entire argument lies in tatters at your feet but you are, alas, incapable of seeing it.
Doesn't it make more sense for gay rights activists to attack this from the other direction? Instead of trying to legalize gay marriage, change all marriages in the eyes of the government to "civil unions", and leave the word marriage to the churches. I think it's the word "marriage" that screws it all up. Get government out of the marriage business and in to the civil union business instead.
Esthetique writes:
Notice that the only arguments being made against me are pure and blatant ad homs.
No, those are the only arguments to which you are responding.
How about about responding to this question of mine from waaaay up thread:
Let us take a famous recent case of marital infidelity: Tiger Woods. What state action will he face now that his transgressions have come to light?
The fact that you didn't answer that question shows that you know it completely destroys your entire argument. Marriage may once have been (in part) designed to enforce monogamous relationships between husband and wife. The state, however, has long since renounced any such role. So much for your claim that that is the essential purpose of marriage.
Doesn't it make more sense for gay rights activists to attack this from the other direction? Instead of trying to legalize gay marriage, change all marriages in the eyes of the government to "civil unions", and leave the word marriage to the churches.
Why should the churches have the word "marriage"? There are millions of married atheists throughout the world (I'm one myself) who never had the least church involvement in their marriage. I got married in a registry office. "God" was never mentioned once. My marriage is regarded as a valid marriage in every nation on the planet.
I do think there is a reasonable argument to made that the state could "get out of the marriage business" and recognize nothing but "civil unions" (I think this is a political non-starter in the US because it will be dismissed by gays as being an end-run around granting equality, but I actually think it would have been a pretty good way forward). However just because the state stopped using the word "marriage" wouldn't mean that the word suddenly gained an exclusively religious meaning. Gay couples would call themselves "married" and have "weddings" and "marriage ceremonies" just as freely as straight couples. The only time the word "civil union" would be used was when you were dealing with state bureaucracy.
sounds like someone has been reading The Black Swan... :)
seems like it has now been revealed as little more than a contract/business deal [pre-nup] - where the male feels he is free to play around all he wants
The rear window of his Escalade seems to disagree that he's free to play around all he wants, or that it was just a business deal. :)
Instead of trying to legalize gay marriage, change all marriages in the eyes of the government to "civil unions", and leave the word marriage to the churches. I think it's the word "marriage" that screws it all up. Get government out of the marriage business and in to the civil union business instead.
It'll never work. Think about what the current argument is: Including same-sex marriage under the heading of statutorily-defined marriage weakens marriage in general.
So the concept of abolishing statutorily-defined marriage altogether, particularly when it's clearly just so gays can get married, is really not going to work at all.
Not to mention, no politician is ever going to run under the "abolishment of marriage" platform. There's just no way.
So Esthetique, how many times have you gone to a wedding and objected to:
- The marriage because the woman is post-menopausal?
- There has not been a test you have access to that PROVES the couple is fertile to each other - not just each is fertile, but as a couple the couple is fertile?
- That the marriage is not valid because one or both parties violated a previous 'marriage contract' in one way or another?
- Etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
Mike in Maryland
Maine is a very unattractive state to pass marriage equality in a popular vote. The evidence from WA, CA and now ME suggests that you need:
a) large cohort of wealthy people;
b) large cohort of adults with college educated or better;
c) high incomes; and
d) low proportion of adults without HS diploma.
Please see http://bit.ly/marriage-oaksun for more information.
Further, the model I built to assess probability of marriage equality passing in a public vote, ranked the states as follows:
6. Washington state
7. Washington DC
10. CA
15. NY
24. Maine
Sometime last year, I joined the AARP listserv, because I felt it was a good idea to stand up for vulnerable populations, and old people are kinda vulnerable.
These last few weeks, the GLBT community has taken alot of hits. From a law in Uganda that says the government of Uganda will kill me if I go to their country, to a brutal murder in Puerto Rico, to Maine and New York voting that I am not worthy of equal justice before the law... it's been rough.
I heard a few days ago that the divide ont he Equal Marriage issue is generational, that there's a pretty distinct split. The younger you are, the more likely you are to favor GLBT civil rights.
I just marked all the AARP action alerts in my inbox as spam. I figure that if the oldest generation is that hostile to my community, they can just go fend for themselves.
You know, if we could just get over these stupid prejudices that divide us, and if all the vulnerable populations in the US got together-the young, the old, the GLBT, the laborer, the religious and political minorities, women-all the people that the dominant power structure tries to undermine and exploit, we could change all that. If environmentalists and labor unions got together, there would be no more chainsawing of the old growth forests. If GLBTs and women got together, we could stop domestic violence, marital rape and workplace discrimination in both of our communities. If Healthcare advocates and retirees and ethnic minorities and labor unions got together, along with the environmentalists-opur workplaces and neighborhoods could become pollution free and safe, with health clinics and clean air and water.
But as long as we're going to keep stabbing each other in the back-the way the seniors are stabbing GLBTs in the back-we're never going to get anywhere. I reached out to help you, old people-why won't you reach back and help me?
SnW
actually, one need only be 50 to join AARP these days.
AARP agressively recruits the 50-62 demo for sheer #'s as well as marketing purposes
and AARP is in the forefront of promoting real HCR - even with pushbacks against the lies & distortions from the right & insurance
usually they also favor support for civil unions [if not gay marriages per se] because seniors often live in common-law 'marriages' [straight & gay] that need & deserve equal protection
living in FL, I see many seniors as not only vunerable - but easy to confuse with dis-info. so having an ally like AARP on your side can be huge for influencing public policy
AARP is one of the good guys - voluntary membership, and with the strength of a union for a common cause
this week, they came out in favor of the DEMs cutting future funding for Medicare Advantage. they have analyzed it & know it is a Bush boondoggle benefitting the insurers - and the GOOPers are furious
imho, AARP leans toward the progressive agenda in many areas of public policy - but they try to do it quietly & influence policy by lobbying
wv - exangle [flip-flop]
SnW
my point above, it is not AARP & senios per se that are the 'enemy'
yes, the electoral data does show that seniors vote down gay marriage
but it is not the senior lobby that opposes it - in reality AARP does not push that agenda
rather it is the influence of religion & unchristian churches/pastors that are to blame imho
religiosity has an unduly heavy influence on seniors & other low-info demos in particular
it is the homophobia from the pulpit & TV evangalists that you should direct your ire toward - but yes, unfortunately seniors are most prone to be influenced by those self-serving unchristian bigots who abuse their positions of power & push their spiteful agendas to demonize LGBT
DCM
Maybe, but if AARP and MOveOn and FDL and the other groups don't get off their butts and do something positive for the GLBT community-if they don't include us in their agendas (agendae? agendi? I have no idea what the plural of that word is), why the fuck should I include them in my agenda?
I'm so damn tired of everybody expecting me to help them out and them ignoring me in my time of need. I mean, come on! The DNC is famous for this shit-they always try to take or money during campaign season, and then during the legislative session they turn a deaf ear. And they'll continue to so long as it looks like it's just GLBTs that are asking them to treat us like human beings. Until we get all the different groups to back each other up-for the old people to stand up for the GLBTs as much as the GLBTs stand up for the old people-then why should we do anything to help them?
It's so fucking codependent to let somebody use you like that.
Listen, until the AARP gets off it's ass and stands up for us-I have no use for people that consistently throw us under the goddamn bus. Even if Golden Girls is a good show.
@Esthetique - I think the state and societal benefits of monogamy for gay couples are many. Let's detail them as I see it:
1) Monogamy helps prevent the spread of disease. Next to complete abstinence (which is highly unlikely for anyone, straight or gay), monogamy ensures exposure to new diseases is rare.
2) Monogamy creates stable households. Many gay couples do have children (31% according to the few statistics we have on the subject) and it would be beneficial to these children to have access to such legal avenues as child support, shared custody, parental guardianship rights (so Mom doesn't need to fly in from her business trip to sign a permission slip when Mommy could just sign it?) While many of these arrangements could be made separately, it is far more costly to do so then it is to get a simple marriage license which covers all the bases in one package - this is the real reason why marriage persists even among atheists like yourself, I think.
3) Monogamy naturally settles people, helps keep them away from destructive influences like drugs and prostitution, and in general makes adults more productive members of society, including in many ways that have nothing to do with producing children themselves.
4) Married gay couples provide an ideal home (supported by all scientifically rigorous peer-reviewed research) for foster children and orphans who would have nowhere else to turn. Evolutionarily, it is often postulated that gay members of many species, including humans, exist as a safety value to help take care of the children of heterosexuals who are not themselves able to do so (often, unfortunately, because they are dead due to extenuating circumstances - it happens!) Other heterosexuals have their own children, but the gay population has to go through much more effort to have their own, so it is natural they would take on children abandoned by heterosexual couples.
5) The nation was founded on the principle that we are all endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, among which include the pursuit of happiness. Children are taught from a young age that the best route to happiness is to grow up, and get married, and have a family, and in general this is how to be a good person and good in your community. Denying people this path which they are told their whole lives is the best thing they can do with themselves engenders depression and anxiety. Keeping gay people from depression and anxiety ultimately benefits society because they will be more productive and less apt, again, to engage in drug abuse and other self-destructive behavior.
One thing that wasn't accounted for in Nate's analysis, and I think it's probably the decisive item, is the fear factor. The poll questions were asked based on the substance of Question 1 and the same-sex marriage law itself. The campaign was run by Schubert-Flint on "Save the Chidren!" because that works. They were quite open about the fact that without that, they had no campaign.
Actually, far from a backlash, I think it's instructive to compare 2004 and 2008-9: the fear factor played a major role in every campaign, but rather than the 60-70% majorities opposing same-sex marriage at the polls five years ago, the margins have dropped dramatically. To me, that doesn't spell "backlash," even in regard to New York. That's about local politics, not about same-sex marriage. (And I have a hunch some "Democratic" senators are going to lose their seats.) And by now, D.C. should have passed a same-sex marriage bill.
We're doing what we always do in this country, creating a patchwork of different standards that in this case are going to have to be resolved by the federal courts -- there are serious equal protection issues here, as there were in Colorado's Amendment 2.
At any rate, I don't know how you can quantify the fear factor, but it does have an effect.
I guess Hollywood can "preach" to young people to be pro-gay marriage, but if churches preach to old people---well thats evil. You people need to quit trying to ban religious people from the public square. Being "anti-God" is your religion.
BTW, AARP is an insurance brokerage posing as a senior lobby.
"You people need to quit trying to ban religious people from the public square. Being "anti-God" is your religion."
Neither I, nor I suspect the overwhelming majority of gays and lesbians, has any problem with churches preaching to whomever they wish, whatever they wish. I do, however, have serious objections to any church demanding that its doctrine be enshrined in civil law, as the Mormons did in California and the Catholic hierarchy has done in Maine and now D.C. (And in that last regard, when Jesus said "render unto Caesar," I don't think he meant threats.)
Why should their beliefs take precedence over mine?
Why is it so hard for these self-styled "Christians" to understand that freedom of conscience means freedom of conscience for everyone and not just them?
As for being "anti-God," I'm just adhering to that tried and true social conservative mantra, "No special rights."
The problem with religion comes from the fact that the one group most likely to attack GLBT people got being GLBT is the fundamentalist christian right.
Now, they're not the sum and whole of christianity, nor religion in general. But they sure do talk like they are. When I hear state Senator Diaz say "every religion in the world is against Equal Marriage", I know for a fact that he is lying. The only branch of Judaism that doesn't perform equal marriage rites is the Orthodox. Buddhists perform marriage ceremonies, as do Episcopalians, Evangelical Lutherans, the UCC, Unitarians... but to Reuben Diaz, these folks simply don't count. How Reuben Diaz can be so arrogant as to assume that he has the authority to speak for all religious people of every kind, I don't know.
The problem is, the people you hear about the most are the bigots. Not sure why exactly, but the very people who, like Diaz, claim to speak for the whole world's faithful are the only faces I ever see on the tube talking on this subject. I never see a Buddhist monk or a Jewish Rabbi or an Episcopal Priest holding a press conference in support of the GLBT community. Maybe that's because the TV stations prefer to show angry mobs, since that gets people's attention more-if it bleeds, it leads.
But anyway, this creates an impression in the minds of GLBT people who see this and think, "wow, if I go anywhere near these people, they,re going to tear me apart. They really hate me.". So yeah, some notable GLBT people, such as DJ Groethe, are vocally opposed to religions of every kind.
And people like him have a point. When other religions allow people like Reuben Diaz to speak for them-without interrupting him, and saying loudly, "No sir, you do not speak for us!", well, it sure looks like you're giving him an at least tacit endorsement. So is Groethe really all that unjustified in suggesting that GLBT people are better off just avoiding religion altogether?
It's not so much anti-God as it is anti-crazy fucker. I doN,t think any one of you here would enjoy the experience of attending a religious service only to have the leader of the congregation announce loudly that God hates you and that he wants you to die.
The majority of congregations are not like that, and they have a responsibility to let the world know they aren't like that. You must stand up and tell Reuben Diaz that you disagree. If you don't, then doN,t blame us if people see him and think, "Hmm. According to this Diaz fella, if I go near a religion, they'll attack me like an angry mob". Want to see us in your pews? then get up and say something.
Persuter: I'm not familiar with old US hight court judgements, but I really can't see that anyone are kept "segregated". But even if you think so: How about removing the word marriage from legal definitions entirely?
It's something I suggest often, but gay marriage activists are rarely willing to consider.
While knowing what's going on in people's heads is a shot in the dark, I don't think marriage verses civil unions/domestic partnerships is just semantics.
I think when some people go vote on same-sex marriage, they're not voting on marriage at all. They're voting on gay sex. Marriage suggests a sexual relationship while civil unions suggest a non-sexual cohabitation.
While some can make a distinction between the rights and the moral question of gay sex, not all do or can. Or maybe some can only some of the time, like when they're being polled and don't want to admit that they're thinking about sex. But when they go vote, they're totally picturing two dudes having sex and cannot vote to approve it.
As for removing the word marriage from from legal definitions entirely as many people keep suggesting, it's unrealistic.
It's not that gays are unwilling to compromise on this. It's that we know the majority of straight people aren't going to give up their special status for equality's sake.
I agree that the state should not be making moral judgments on anyone's relationship and I like the idea of civil unions for all on principle.
The reality is marriage is a social status in our society. People will agree to open up that social status to gays eventually. But to go at it backwards and ask straight people to essentially reduce their own status isn't something I can see happening.
A religion is nothing more than a belief system, just like liberalism or atheism or environmentalism. So Christians have as much right to be heard as Hollywood liberals. Catholics are anti-death penalty. Should they be banned for speaking out on this because they are believers? Attributing policy stances to "Christion religion" is just another way to try to stifle it.
Btw, I don't remeber gays ever being discussed in church when I've gone (not that I go alot though).
I find the feminist angle someone suggested interesting. I've theorized that gay marriage is a product of American feminization. If I was to lobby for marriage to 2women, or for lowering consent ages, or for legalizing prostitution---I'd be labeled a sicko. But since most women like the concept of "monogomy thru marriage"---gay marriage is a "right" they are more likely to support.
@brian
If I was to lobby for marriage to 2women,
People would say you are wasting your time, it's already permitted!
There are some practices commonly associated with polygomy in the old-school LDS sects that will land you in trouble. But if you manage to find more than one adult woman willing to put up with your dumb ass, it clearly game on.
Wait, you've already had this pointed out you, haven't you? So how do you manage to purge this stuff from your head? I mean damn, that's seriously messed up. :/
or for lowering consent ages, or for legalizing prostitution---I'd be labeled a sicko.
Well perhaps by yourself. However, given that the US has over all a fairly high age of consent (try the UKs, or Canada's for that matter compared to most states) and it already varies from state to state and sexual act to sexual act, that subject obviously has a good deal of room for adult conversations about exact who is mentally/emotionally able to make an informed adult decision.
On legalized prostitution, I take it you don't get out much?
A comment on the meaning of "marriage." If you're going to call it nothing more than semantics, you have to keep in mind that semantics has weight -- it carries meaning beyond simple dictionary definitions.
"Marriage" is a life-stage marker, like birth, coming of age, and death. It's also a component of group identity -- being married allows the community to fit you in to a known role and to accept your membership in the community in that role. That's the tradition of marriage, and it's much older than 5,000 years. GrrlRomeo hit it right when she said that marriage is a social status -- not only in our society, but in every society that I can think of. That is why the word is important. And that's why handing the word over to the churches would be a very wrong move -- it's not the church's approval that's necessary for marriage, but the community's approval and acceptance. In this country, they are not the same, if they ever were anywhere.
As for the idea that same-sex marriage calls up images of two dudes having sex, I doubt that's anyone's first reaction. If it is, that's because the campaigns against it have made that the issue -- they have two themes they can use, children and ick factor. Let's face it, conservative Christians appear to be the most sex-obsessed demographic in the country these days -- most of their spokepersons seem to spend a lot more time thinking about gay sex than I do, and that's the only kind of sex I've ever had.
Sorry bud, your social status is not a human right. I'm single. I just accept that society "looks down" on me for it. I don't demand acceptance though.
Esthetique is presumably long-gone by now, but it may still be worth addressing some of his inaccuracies. Let's give it a shot!
1) Marriage is essentially an effort to prevent cuckholding.
No, "marriage" is designed to legitimate procreation. Every society has had non-religious weddings that promoted unions between men and women (and sometimes between men and men), but marriage as such was created to give the Catholic Church the authority to declare some children (and the procreation that leads to children) legitimate.
2) "Bigotry" doesn't mean what you think it does; "Prejudice" doesn't mean what you think it does; "Cuckhold" doesn't mean what you think it does.
Words mean what people as a whole think they mean, regardless of their linguistic roots and historical origins. The same holds true for pronunciation and spelling. Proscriptive usage is a fool's game. Otherwise, you'd be left arguing that there is no such thing as a pea, just pease. So, if someone calls you a bigot because you declare that widespread mixed marriage would cause social collapse, and that meets the descriptive use of the word bigot, then...
3) "Widespread mixed marriage would have precipitated complete social collapse"!
I haven't noticed the complete collapse of society in Hawaii yet.
4) Marriage contracts are between "a couple" and "the state"... as is somehow proved by having a driver's licence.
Contracts betweem the parties to the contract, and enforced by the state. That's as true for marriages as it is for purchases, even if the actual enforcement of marriage vows is pretty much non-existent. There is obviously also a "social contract" element, but that's not the same thing.
4) Without marriage, we'd have widespread polyandry, which is the normal state of affairs for humans.
There's no good evidence of the second part of that assertion, and the first part is also incorrect b/c throughout most of human history societies have allowed men to wed several women. The purpose of sanctioning unions cannot have been to prevent a practice that was allowed by such unions.
5) Same-sex marriage is a social good, but heterosexual marriage would be an affirmative right with no utilitarian benefit.
It's hard to limit the number of reasons why this is wrong. The Supreme Court declared marriage a right, not a social good. The reason why it is a right has everything to do with "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" which are obviously individual benefits. Nonetheless, as has been pointed out by others, there are social benefits that derive from marriage, and would derive from same-sex marriage. Those benefits include public health, parenting, and social order. Declaring that certain people (gays and lesbians) can be denied this right, for religious and/or procreational reasons, but protecting that same right for those who are atheists or get civil service marriages, for those who can't reproduce for whatever reason, and for socially undesirables such as death-row inmates, is obviously punative and discriminatory.
And more:
6) Black males are more promiscuous that white males... across cultures... probably for genetic reasons.
These are false "facts" that couldn't possibly be proven in the way you seem to imagine, and don't support the conclusion you draw. There's no good evidence that promiscuity has historically been higher in Africa than elsewhere, and in fact rates of promiscuity have fluctuated widely within cultures (cf illegitimacy rates in urban Europe during the industrial revolution). Measuring that in the U.S. would be next to impossible, since the social category "African American" doesn't have any real biological basis. This is one of the main problems with the infamous "race chapter" in "The Bell Curve." Go read "Puddin'head Wilson". In any case, according to the analysis you've followed for most of this thread, rates of extra-marital infidelity would be most affected by social systems (or perhaps opportunity), not hard-wiring.
7) Africans and African-Americans show what happens when you don't force men to marry... they stop working.
Agrarian regions of Africa have a lot of female labor for the same reason that farms in Japan and villages in the pre-Columbian Great Lakes region had a lot of female labor -- the men are working elsewhere, not sitting on their asses. The reason men in some urban areas of North America don't work is because there aren't enough jobs available. About a decade ago, much mention was made of the fact that inner-city McDonald's have a lot of "now hiring" signs. You don't see that come up much, now, because it was pointed out that the amount of time between posting such a sign and filling the position was typically very short -- often shorter than for "now hiring" signs at suburban McDonald's restaurants -- because black men want to hold jobs for the same reasons everyone else does, and such jobs may lend more social status in Harlem than they do in Scarsdale.
Essentially the same thing is true for job retention. If there are good jobs available in an area, people will hold onto them, even if they are African-Americans and aren't being forced to support women and children! Likewise, if there are mainly bad jobs available, people will leave them to search for something better, even if they are Caucasians in rural areas trying to support a spouse and/or dependents.
8) The only arguments made against you are pure and blatant ad hominems.
I'd suggest that "ad hominem" doesn't mean what you think it means -- it refers to declaring your argument bad because of your bad character -- but in popular usage it often does refer to an attack on one's character. Still it's odd that a proscriptivist such as yourself should confuse "ad hominem" for "character assassination." In any case, there've been plenty of arguments against the substance of your remarks. However, as yoink mentioned upthread, you yourself have chosen to ignore those who take issue with the substance of your statements. Your failure to engage such disagreement is either cowardly or dishonest (I'm not describing you, just your style, so this is neither ad hominem nor character assassination), and your willingness to declare a few atypical responses as representative is a strange sort of mischaracterization (no, not bigotry or even stereotyping).
I could go on, but this is more than long enough already.
brian said: "Sorry bud, your social status is not a human right. I'm single. I just accept that society "looks down" on me for it. I don't demand acceptance though."
You're conflating two different frames of reference here. In terms of the social mechanism of marriage, it's a status, as is being single. One is accepted as holding that status -- being single simply means that you're not yet considered a full adult with family responsibilities. If you think that's something to look down on, that's your problem.
The legal context, which is not the same thing as the social context, is that marriage is, in fact, a fundamental human right. See Loving vs. Virginia.
The knotty part is that legal recognition and social recognition very often go hand in hand, especially in a culture as diverse as ours -- our legal framework is
often the only thing we have in common. That's why it's so important for gay couples, whose relationships in every other respect fulfill the definition of "married" (including, quite often, recognition by their immediate community) to have that legal validation -- that's the way members of the larger community, who may not know a couple personally, understand the couple's status.
A comment to kpk on your first item in response to Esthetique: Not really, although you're close. Marriage has historically been a means to insure the orderly transmission of property from one generation to the next. In patriarchal societies this has meant that marriage tried to insure that a man's heirs were, in fact, his children. As someone put it, "You know who your mother is. Your father, maybe not so much." Patriarchies don't like that.
As for the Catholic Church and legitimacy -- the Church didn't even make marriage a sacrament until the early 13th century (which is one reason I find the Christianist claims of ownership of the term ludicrous), and even then, it was the upper classes -- those who had property to worry about -- who got married. Peasants and serfs simply moved in together and said "we're married" and the rest of the village said "OK" -- the roots of the common-law marriage.
@ kpk - excellent summary.
@ Hunter - You said In patriarchal societies this has meant that marriage tried to insure that a man's heirs were, in fact, his children. As someone put it, "You know who your mother is. Your father, maybe not so much." Patriarchies don't like that.
One solution to the problem was for a culture to be patriarchal (governing positions were held by men) but matrilineal (inheritance was passed through females). Thus, a man's nephew - his sister's son - would inherit his goods, because you know you were related to the kids of your mom's daughter. I believe this is how the ancient Celts worked.
Just a useless bit of off-topic trivia, because this system clearly has no relevance to the question of marriage - or perhaps we could say, marriage has no relevance to a matrilinial system. It's an easy solution to Esthetique's cuckoldry problem, as well as the problem of controlling access to sexuality - do away with marriage altogether, and pass inheritance to your sister's kids. under a system such as that, you don't have to worry about who is sleeping with whom, and both hetero unions and same-sex unions have equal social utility for clan formation, economic and emotion security, etc.
But of course, that's never going to happen, and any attempt to create (or re-create) a system like that truly would be an attempt at "social engineering". Not that I think that's bad.
To get back to the actual thread - I don't think there's a "backlash". I think positive change comes in fits and starts. I think local conditions and the wording of the question and the nature of the incoming ad campaign all have an effect, especially when public opinion on a given issue is both a) a close call and b) in the process of shifting.
On this and other issues, there's no doubt in my mind that equal rights are going to be achieved, and in the not-distant future most people will wonder why there was ever even any question about it.
...do away with marriage...
Just to get back to this because somewhere up the thread someone tried to imply that it was...well whatever their name is for our new Gay Overlords ;), that weren't open to totally ditching involvement in marriage by the state. The problem being of course that this isn't entirely feasible due to children. The matter of who becomes guardian of children will still come before the courts and "blood" isn't always an available or feasible option in the interests of the children.
To ditch use of the concept of a partnership between two people with a strong set of rules for rearing child and financial rules would be to ditch a whole lot of work, of improvements into people's lives, and thing that would eventualy be recreated via the judicial branch anyway in a patchwork way...and very likely with effectively gay marriage recognized.
So it isn't a feasible option because of the wishes of the majority of GLBT. It isn't a feasible option because so very few people would really want to go there, with all that that route implies.
You're entirely correct, Dwight.
Until the passage of DOMA, there was no federal definition of "marriage". It was left up to the individual states to define, because states (not the feds) issue marriage licenses. Various federal laws (such as the tax code) merely piggyback on and accepted the definition which was in force within any individual state.
We could certainly go back to that situation, merely by repealing DOMA.
But getting the States out of the business of defining marriage? Or scrubbing the word "marriage" from all the tens of thousands of laws law - federal, state, municipal, county, etc., etc. - it ain't gonna happen.
And ask any hetero couple if they're willing to give up the idea of being "legally married", and substitute the idea of "civil union" instead - that ain't gonna happen either. Well, you'll find a minority who are okay with it, certainly. But you will never generate the interest needed to enact the massive legal and cultural changes necessary to bring it about - not in the short term anyway (say, less than a hundred years or so).
All by itself, this shows why same-sex marriage is a cultural necessity - it shows how important the idea of "being married" really is in our culture. The argument that we're not actually denying anything to same-sex couples is ridiculous on its face.
Just an observation on the 'inevitability' perspective: The more people that are 'out' the more likely that gay marriage and full equality are inevitable. When homosexuality goes from being a bizarre pride parade image to a fact about your hometown high school football team captain and class president, you look at it a different way. So, in my mind, you connect the recent hate crimes legislation along side general acceptance in the media to more successful 'out' characters, and you will see the trend towards reasonable support increasing. No offense to old people in general, but the fact of life is that all we have to do is wait you out and wave goodbye to the bad lemons among you.
Just noticed I really messed up the first sentence of my last paragraph. It should read:
So the lack of feasibility has little or nothing to do with the particular wishes of the majority of GLBT.
I think that part of the problem may be that the word "marriage" conjures up -- in addition to traditional religious images -- some images which are sexual in nature. Hearing the word marriage, one sees in the mind's eye the couple kissing at the altar, and one knows that the honeymoon follows.
This may create a visceral reluctance to vote for any pro-gay-marriage ballot proposal on the part of voters who are squeamish about persons of the same sex engaging in sexual activity. Those same voters might oppose job discrimination against GLBT people, but they can't get past the sex.
I suspect that if the ballot questions simply asked about the underlying rights that comprise the institution of civil marriage, they would command much greater support.
For instance, a ballot question that read "should persons in committed, same sex relationships whose partners die without a will inherit their partner's property?" would likely command a majority vote in many states. So would a question that read "should persons in committed same sex relationships whose partners are incapacitated be entitled to make medical decisions for their partners?"
Of course a ballot question that set out each and every right of married couples would be unwieldy. So we are left with the word marriage with all its baggage include the sexual imagery.
For those who favor equal rights for LGBT persons, the "civil union" solution may thus be the best to hope for, until the oldest (and most sexually conservative) cohort of current voters dies off.
"Affirmative endorsement"?! People keep saying that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples is an affirmative endorsement of homosexuality. And, maybe it is. But, the converse is also true; that is, the restriction of marriage to hetero couples an affirmative endorsement of religious doctrine. And, as far as I can remember, that is specifically forbidden in the Constitution!
"They ordered him to drop the Buy Metin2 Yang gun, and he did not comply. Three officers fired a total of 14 shots," Browne said.
Vasconcellos, Metin2 Yang who was also carrying Metin2 Gold a boxcutter, did not fire his gun. He was pronounced dead at Jamaica Hospital.
The men with Metin2 Money Vasconcellos, who did not Cheap Metin2 Yang flee police, have Buy Metin2 Yang been questioned by officers. It's unclear why the men were in the park after hours.
The future for Knight Online Noah the Welsh broadcast media doesn’t Knight Gold have to be bleak. Newspapers are a different proposition. Knight Online Gold The future is bleak for print journalism everywhere. The problems facing the Welsh print Knight Noah media are being faced by media owners all over the world. The move to New Media is inevitable. There is Buy Knight Gold still a role for local newspapers
Мультфильмы онлайн
Post a Comment