Asymmetrical Information

I've long though one of the most potent arguments for marriage equality was property rights, that is gay couples are prevented from entering an institution that ensures property rights for spouses and children. I therefore thought rightwing opposition to gay people having the same kind of property/tax equality as traditional couples to be, well, hypocritical (I'm know, I'm supposed to "convince" people who've already made up their minds that nothing can convince them, foolish me).

One problem is that the number of people who want to prevent same sex marriage (including legislatively) is much larger than those who want to participate in same sex marriage, and there's no indication that the majority who don't care one way or the other or who support the idea but who aren't themselves gay will give gay couples any meaningful support.
And concrete, real support from some segment of the majority population has, I think, always been needed in improving the status of minorities.

The quickest way to get meaningful legislation moving would be a straight marriage boycott, straight couples refusing to get married until the same right is extended to same sex couples. Of course the chance of that happening can be figured in negative numbers.

Sign me up Megan.

Mindles:

I'll meet you half way here. If, in four years, the statement,

"[s]ince the potential effect on this issue is one of the most regrettable aspects of my Republican vote,"

is even remotely true, I'll send a check to the Republican Party.

Mindles - I think we are going to disagree on this point. I put that in the future tense because, respecting your opinion, I've not yet finished taking a second look at my own position. Here's my own first take on your 5 points:

I am much more willing to support your fifth point than your first four. I don't much care whether government sanctions homosexual unions. I do care whether government subsidizes such unions because I care whether government subsidizes traditional marriage.

Society benefits from stable marriages. Our society has long chosen to encourage such relationships by granting the tax benefits and other benefits noted in your first two points. (Libertarians have long objected to this policy, just as they object to public schools.) I fear that the response to the "discrimination" that gays face NOT that such subsidies will be offered to gays, they will be eliminated for all marriages. I also fear that the elimination of such benefits will further weaken traditional marriage. We saw what a very small change in public policy did to marriage among the inner-city poor -- we saw a dramatic rise in out-of-wedlock births until welfare reform in the mid-90's started to reverse that trend. How can we be sure that eliminating the public subsidy of marriage will not have a similar undesirable effect?

While the influence on traditional marriage is my primary concern, I am also concerned with the costs adding gay marriages to our public and private benefits programs would entail. Take social security as only one example. The actuarial assumptions upon which future social security payments are forecast do NOT provide for survivor benefits paid to a gay spouse -- just as they don't provide for benefits to be paid to the girl friend of a single man. (This is another area where singles subsidize marrieds.) I have no idea whether benefits paid to the survivor of gay marriages would end up being a material amount, but it is clear that they would be an ADDITIONAL cost. Since most of us agree that social security is on the brink of bankruptcy, I see little sense in ignoring these costs. Suppose there is the political will to "fix" social security in a way that will provide benefits to only those who are currently entitled to benefits under the program (this would exclude the partners of gays and singles). Would you give up on that fix if you could not add gays (and singles) to social security too?

As I said, that's my first take. I suspect we'll end up disagreeing just as I disagree with libertarians who say we should not finance education.

I don't really have anything to add to your post. I'm just posting to say I'm behind you 100%.

I take precisely the opposite view of David Walser. As uncomfortable as I am with homophobia, I'm hopeful that the prospect of gay marriage will lead to the reduction of government subsidy of all marriages.

I would support everything on the list except for number two. Even in the name of anti-discrimination, I could never bring myself to support a greater expenditure on social security.

While I deplore the passing of amendments banning same-sex marriages in many states [even in my notoriously liberal homestate in the Pacific NW], it's better that than to make this a federal issue. I think those will be easier to change in time, especially if we take the approach you've suggested. The optimal solution is to eliminate state marriage all together, but that's not so likely to happen.

Mindles, I agree with you, but I think you've got things exactly backwards. The private sector has done a lot better than the government has in recognizing committed relationships and providing for them. It's the Fortune 500 companies who want to stop paying tax on domestic-partnership benefits that they don't have to pay for spousal benefits, and it's the Fortune 500 companies that the Republican-controlled U.S. government will listen to, not gay men like me.

One thing that astonishes me is that gay marriage is an issue in the Presidential campaign. Given that there are (effectively) two candidates and each candidate is a package deal of stances on issues, gay marriage is not at the top of my list of critical issues facing the country right now. It never crossed my mind to consider that when evaluating the Presidential candidates and only would have had they been tied on all of the more important issues.

As far as government support for gay marriage, I'd rather see an end to state "marriages" and an implementation of "domestic partnerships" that is basically the same as legal marriage but could include same gender or other non-traditional couples who partner to create a family unit. I would be reluctant to allow larger partnerships as that could start to creep into business law and allow for more abuse.

Bolie IV

Add another. Equalize drawbacks to divorce between same and opposite sex couples.

More borderline people who are under the (mis)impression that it is an entitlement grab could re-evaluate their stance if they see that same-sex couples aren't also expecting to dodge the negatives that same-sex couples already have.

Instead of "attacking the individual components of marriage separately" (a revealing choice in phrasing, by the way) why don't you, as a libertarian, push instead for legalized domestic partnership agreements that include all of the protections you're talking about without the government "subsidizing"? Make those agreements available to everyone (not just same-sex couples) including multi-party contracts to cover polygamists and polyamorists as well. If you're going to go all the way for fairness and libertarianism, you probably need a new institution. I think domestic partnerships and civil unions are your best alternative.

I admit I don't read Sullivan anymore, primarily because he's become a screeching loon, but I'm totally confused by the tenor of this post. "Challenge" joint tax returns and spousal benefits under Social Security? Citizenship?There's nothing to "challenge" -- these are pure DOMA! The only way to "challenge" them is via the courts, to have DOMA somehow declared unconstitutional. But people now are saying that this tactic (i.e., suing for too much too fast) is how we gays supposedly got ourselves into trouble in the first place.

So, which is it?

I find it telling that your bullet points do not include any reference to religious recognition.

The marriages I have attended, as well as the churches I have attended, couch marraige as a God ordained bond between a man and a woman... there is no mention of marriage license, or state approval, and all other benefits seem to flow naturally from the God ordained bond, and its' realization of a man and a woman committing to each other.

Gay Marriage is veiwed by many religious observants as a flanking attack by secularists, and a further sliding down a slippery slope of ignoring religious doctrine in favor of what feels good.

This is not to say that being observant of religion requires intolerance to gays, anymore than it requires intolerance to divorcees, or adulterers, or any of a number of other items listed as sins. But then I am sure A. Sullivan and any number of other gays will regard my comments as hate speech and be offended for characterizing thier lifestyle choice as sin.

Anyway, I dont want to get into every aspect of the debate, I only wanted to point out that if you arent ready able and willing to address the religious ordination of marriage, your efforts will only be divisive.

Mindles, I may read Asymmetrical religiously, however, Megan and you come up with some real... What happens when a gay married to another gay, gets divorced from each other instead of "living happily ever after"...will the gay divorcee then be allowed to marry a straight person, there after?

Oh, and another bullet:

Official sanction of hetero-pride day and parades.

Joel Mackey wrote:

>I find it telling that your bullet points do not include any reference to religious recognition.

>The marriages I have attended, as well as the
> churches I have attended, couch marraige as
> a God ordained bond between a man and a
> woman... there is no mention of marriage license,
> or state approval, and all other benefits seem
> to flow naturally from the God ordained bond,
> and its' realization of a man and a woman
> committing to each other.

So?

Neither the federal DOMA, or any similar state statute can prevent or require any church to recognize or not recognize any marriage, whether between any two persons, or between a person and a rock, or between two rocks.

The 1st Amendment garontees that much.

>Gay Marriage is veiwed by many religious
> observants as a flanking attack by secularists,
> and a further sliding down a slippery slope of
> ignoring religious doctrine in favor of what
> feels good.

The Consititution of the United States of America already ignores religious doctrine. It guarantees freedom of religion regardless of any particular religious doctrine.

"Official sanction of hetero-pride day and parades."

What's stopping you from holding one? If you wanted to hold a hetero-pride parade, you have a First Amendment right to do so. I suspect the only problem is finding people bored enough to participate.

Joel:

I think that there is actually a healthy amount of respect for your position vis-a-vis religious institutions among many people.

I hope I have a healthy respect for gay rights, but I am troubled by "gay marriage" as "marriage" precisely because (a) the word "marriage" has deep religious meaning for many, and (b) I am uncomfortable with the weird sense in which allowing gay "marriage" feels like I'm foisting off my beliefs on someone else's religion. On the other hand, I'm not comfortable with a two-tiered system, either. I'd prefer (as others have said) domestic partnerships for everyone, let the word "marriage" relate to religious (in the broadest sense) binding, and then let Gay Americans fight within the relevant religious organizations for the right to "marry." (My own religious grouping is fairly liberal, so we'd probably be OK with it).

It doesn't solve all the various problems, but it seems like the most respectful and fair of which I've heard. And I think most observant Americans would be OK with this, too. (I suspect that America tends to give people credit for most rights before it gives them a starring role in a TV show; for example, Good Times came a decade after the Civil Rights Act).

I looked at this roadmap and the thing that popped into my mind was "Unclear on the concept". If that list accurately reflects what you think marriage is and why it exists, perhaps you could explain why marriage as a social institution predates all these things by thousands of years?

Conversely, since these benefits are *not* central to the concept of marriage, it is appropriate to consider if they should be extended to same sex couples and under what circumstances. Would that satisfy the same-sex-marriage proponents?

While no government statute can, at this point and time, regulate religion. It is still becoming very obvious that evangelicals, and even more 'mainstream' religious sects are ostracized for thier beliefs moreso than gays, particularly in hollywood based media.

As pro-gay agenda people infiltrate the public schools with thier propaganda, the religious grous homeschool or go to religious based private schools, further stratifying the nation.

The 1st amendment has allowed Gay agenda items to be taught in school while creationism or any other religious related ideas are abhorred...except the growing trend of teaching the Koran and Islam.

I also find it somewhat hypocritical for people to cry coup when someone introduces a constitutional amendment, but to sniff as if nothing had happened when some judicial ruling radically changes the spirit of the constitution and nullifies a majority vote on a proposition. I think it will be particularly ironic in the next 20 years, as more conservative judges are appointed to the federal benches.

God forbid the 9th circuit court actually interpret the law instead of creating it from whole cloth.

The 1st amendment has allowed Gay agenda items to be taught in school while creationism or any other religious related ideas are abhorred...except the growing trend of teaching the Koran and Islam.




Have you ever heard of the Texas State Board of Education? Schools elsewhere in the U.S. are lucky if they're allowed to have a GSA that students have to seek out on their own, much less a "gay agenda" item that is actually taught. Schools that have sex education (which rarely includes anything about gays, teachers don't enjoy pissing off parents and everyone knows it's a hot-button issue) nearly always let parents opt-out their children when they don't want them to hear about it.

I read the King James Bible in my English Literature classes. You can't teach American or British literature without reference to the Bible; it's simply not possible. It doesn't happen. And I went to a school with a very large Jewish minority which policed for excessive Christian influence far more than the ACLU could have. (It did put a crimp in what the chorus could sing.)

I doubt you're active in researching school curricula, but are just repeating stuff you know to be true about our awful, depraved American schools. Anyone who thinks it is easy, fun, or approved-of to be gay in high school today ANYWHERE in the country must also believe that the obesity crisis is caused by fat kids being too popular and respected by their peers.

I think gay marriage will disappear now the elections over. The dems arent really for it, and for the reps it was strictly something used to get the evangelicals out for this election. Imo, the Churches should be allowed to marry or not marry whoever they please, and the State should license and provide the same benefits to gay people they do for straight people.

The real impasse is the word "marriage," of course. There are undoubtedly people who would oppose any sort of accommodation for gay couples, no matter how mild, but I really don't think there are all that many of them. (Yes, I realize that some of the initiatives passed last week attacked civil unions as well as gay marriage. I blame poor reading comprehension. I think the position Bush somewhat casually announced a few days before the election is actually pretty common.)

The trouble is that gay-marriage advocates won't be satisfied with anything but the word "marriage," while another, larger chunk of the country furiously opposes the idea of expanding the concept of "marriage" so as to include gay unions.

Isn't it obvious? Stop calling civil marriages "marriages." Let a church wedding count as a civil union for purposes of law, but let only the church involved certify it as a "marriage." Make civil unions equally binding, and in the same way, on same-sex and opposite-sex couples. (The whole "domestic partnership" idea, where gay couples can get the same watered-down union as do straight couples not terribly anxious to commit themselves, is an insult, one that I think a lot of gay couples bore because they thought it was better than nothing. They shouldn't have.)

OK, call it "civil marriage," as distinguished from "church marriage." Everyone will know the difference; and the biggest backlash would likely come from people who weren't married in church, but resent being lumped in with gay couples. As one who had a County Registrar wedding, and furthermore knows several gay couples who have outlasted multiple marriages by some of my straight friends, I don't mind the "lumping" at all.

Good God, I'm agreeing with Begbee! The Apocalypse is obviously upon us.

Britain33 said: "If you wanted to hold a hetero-pride parade, you have a First Amendment right to do so. I suspect the only problem is finding people bored enough to participate."

http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=14882

Okay, my comment was entirely humorous. Not sure if that went over your head but... there is a bit of truth behind it. The link above is to a story where a student in Minnesota was threatened with being expelled for wearing a shirt with the words Straight Pride on one side, and bathroom sign icons of a man and a woman holding hands on the back. He was threatened with being expelled because such a shirt was deemed as a "hate statement" by the principal.

Now a judge has ruled on the issue and ruled that the student can wear his silly shirt. But it took a judge!

The elimination of the estate tax would go a long way towards redressing the inequity experienced by same-sex couples. It's a particularly iniquitous tax in my view, anyway, so even if I were not in favour of taxation being used as a normative process vis a vis gay marriage I'd be in favour of abolishing the death tax.

If the administration gets its way on some tax issues. The salience of those problems should drop. The estate tax will be repealed on a permanent basis. A tax system with a flat rate income tax and a VAT would be far better economically, far simpler and would avoid many of these issues.

Similarly the Social Security issue, will go away as that bankrupt system is liqidated and replaced by individual accounts.

OTOH, I would be very much opposed to changes in custody/adoption laws until very well controlled, large scale, long term scientific studies demonstrate that non-heterosexual families are as good for children as traditional families. This is an area where the standard is the best interest of the child and the proponents of change must bear the burden of proof.

Robert Schwartz wrote:

>OTOH, I would be very much opposed to changes
> in custody/adoption laws until very well controlled,
> large scale, long term scientific studies demonstrate
> that non-heterosexual families are as good for
> children as traditional families. This is an area where
> the standard is the best interest of the child and
> the proponents of change must bear the burden of proof.

The "best interest of the child" is a standard applied by *courts* in custody disputes currently.

Laws forbidding a gay/lesbian parent custody in a (straight) divorce means that courts have to award custody to a straight but alcoholic spouse battering parent if the other parent is gay or lesbian, or make the child a ward of the state.

Laws forbidding gay/lesbian adoption have similar results. If a single parent has a gay/lesbian partner who is denied adoption of the child, then if the birth parent dies, the child becomes a ward of the state, or must be adopted by someone else, possibly strangers.

Are those the results you want?

Sigh. I mean, really, get off your high horses and stop caring so much.

Gay marriage? Look, in the eyes of God, a marriage that isn't performed by the clergy in a church is basically null and void anyway, right? So just stop bothering the rest of society and make sure no churches marry gays. And please, don't ask the government to enforce a ban on churches who refuse to listen to you. While I wholeheartedly agree that activist judges and other elites should not decide things like this in a democracy, I don't get the fervor against legalizing gay marriage.

Gay adoption? Seriously, how on earth can you think that having two homosexual parents is worse than having a single parent? Single parents, at least those who didn't win any sweepstakes recently, are cursed with either having to neglect their children 8-10 hours a day, or go on welfare.

If having a gay parent is so incredibly detrimental to a child's psyche, do two things (most definitely in order, and the first is a prerequisite for the second):

1. Prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is so
2. For crying out loud, slap restraining orders on all biological parents found to be gay!

What is the motivation with this 'Think of the children!' stuff? You're worried that children of gay people might turn out gay? And that's bad...why? Because being gay is a sin? Well, so is being Pentecostal if you're a Catholic; so is being a Methodist if you're Shi'ia Muslim - lord knows atheists will very likely have atheist children, and that's a sure-fire way to eternal damnation.

Yes, your religions say homosexuality is a sin. I understand you don't want to promote sinful living. But your religions also call a lot of other things sins, and yet I don't see calls to ban sales of meat during Lent, or federal sentences for taking the Lord's name in vain.

I understand a lot of people against gay marriage mean well. But please, realize that you're caring inconsistently. I'd like to end this with a line from my favorite religious poet:

God has given you but one heart
you are not a home for the hearts of your brothers
and God does not care for your benevolence
anymore than he cares for the lack of it in others

You forgot the dissolution of the relationship and the responsibility for alimony and child support.

Eric,

I was well familiar with the "straight pride" t-shirt story. I don't know why you would apply an example from schools, which are practically police states at the whim of the principal who would try to shut down any controversy (pro- or anti-gay), to something totally different like a parade. The 1st Amendment rules are totally different.
Besides, if you think schools don't support straight pride events, what would you call the prom?

If gay marriage is such a burning issue for gays why have there been no new legal challenges? It seems to me that two gays could apply for marriage in Washington D.C. (fortunately not a state) and immediately propel the issue to the federal courts since the D.C. court system is essentially federal. A challenge here would directly target the DOMA.

The issue to me seems mostly symbolic on both sides as marriage is as much a set of responsibilities as benefits.

There are cases proceeding in New Jersey (a couple of years away from a ruling) and Connecticut. I don't know why not D.C., but the legal group behind this has chosen its states according to a set of criteria that would predict success. There must be some factor in D.C. that would have ruled it out as a good place to start.

If that sounds sinister or dishonest to anyone, I'd like to ask why; we can all agree it would be foolish to start off this battle in Utah as long as the N.J. Supreme Court is considered more progressive and the state lacks a referendum process. It's the same reason why anti-abortion movements have always focused on conservative states for their test cases, like Missouri and Nebraska, instead of New York and New Jersey.

Why do the proponents of gay "marriage" refuse to recognize the function of real marriage in the wider community? With so much interest in genealogy and such opprobrium directed against the "nuclear family", it would seem that someone would have remembered that the function of real marriage is to carry on the gene pool (mustn't say "race"!) and help strengthen each child's recognition of his place within the structure that has existed since time immemorial. Gay "marriages" just don't fit into this structure of blood relationships. How can two men regard a child as "theirs" when it never will be, genetically? This is also an issue with adoption, but how many TV movies have been made about adopted children seeking their "real" parents? As the ages roll by, the concept of gay "marriage" will be wondered at by future generations as a bizarre and muddle-headed notion. The idea that society is on some ineluctable course towards particular structural changes is also incomprehensible. How many Marxists and other fundamentalist fanatics have felt themselves on the leading edge of some historical inevitability? It ain't necessarily going to happen. In these days when more sophisticated analyses of evolutionary biology expose the lack of any real direction to evolution, it would seem that the cultural left's stress on inevitability ( and that moronic word "Progressivism" - progress in what direction?) would be indignantly rejected.

I was thinking about why those "radical homosexual activists" have fought this battle on the turf of marriage and not civil unions this morning. More specifically, I was thinking about the references on this thread that blame r.h.a.'s for their intransigence and arrogance when civil unions would be a fairer fight to choose.

Why marriage? It's a question of tactics. And that's not as counter-intuitive as it sounds.

Civil unions are a new institution that have been invented by state legislatures. 45+ state legislatures don't have them. Five years ago, no state had them. If gay groups wanted civil unions, we'd have to take it up with the legislatures. Well, guess what, until recently no legislature would give gay groups the time of day on the most basic rights that most Americans agree today gay couples should have. That includes the Massachusetts House of Representatives. As recently as three years ago, the House of Representatives here made it impossible for the city of Cambridge to offer domestic partner benefits to employees. It was counter to state law. The House was run by a conservative Democrat who refused to consider any gay rights bill, no matter how trivial. For everyone who says "they should take this up with the people's elected representatives," well we did, and the outcome was utterly hopeless.

"Civil unions," now seen as the legislative solution, resulted directly from the Vermont S.C.'s decision that allowed the legislature to construct a parallel structure to marriage. They never existed before and conservatives fought tooth and nail to ensure nothing like it came up.

So, activists could ask hostile state legislatures to imagine a new institution and then take proactive steps to create it--ha--and then fight every step of the way to ensure property rights, visitation rights, adoption etc. were all included.

Or they could look at an existing state institution that included all of those rights, look at states that did not include a sex-based definition of marriage in their constitutions but DID include an ERA, and go to court for a slam-dunk case where the state could not prove a compelling interest.

Of COURSE the latter case makes far more sense, even though it triggered a backlash. Lest anyone forget, civil unions triggered a backlash in Vermont in 2000 that turned over the legislature. (Mass. hasn't experienced anything like it. If anything, the pro-SSM contingent will be larger next year.) It's only now that civil unions are considered a compromise instead of anathema.

We're moving into a new paradigm now where civil unions are the compromise position instead of the unthinkable almost-marriage. With luck, some of these states will walk the walk on compromise instead of continuing to ban hospital visitations, property rights, and second-parent adoption. It is up to the Republicans to decide if they'll recognize common-sense contract rights in blue and purple states or if they'll continue to insist that gay couples must exist outside the law. I wish Mindles and other pro-equality Republicans the best of luck in bringing your party around to your ideals on this. I know that this radical homosexual activist would be content with equal rights without picking a fight over the m-word.

Robert,

The states have tried to make your argument in court, only to get slapped down by the compelling evidence that states routinely allow infertile, menopausal, and willingly childless couples to marry at will and stay married even when they don't have children.
My brother and sister are adopted and they are my brother and sister. If you think adoption is illegitimate or not a basis for a family, all I can say is thank God that all governments and religious institutions in America disagree with you.

Robert - if marriage is all about procreation and perpetuating the species, how come we as a society sanction the marriage of heterosexuals who are unable or unwilling to reproduce?

Does government truly confer hospital visitation rights to spouses? I have never found a legal reference to it.

There is already a private contract known as the Health Care Surrogate contract which would surely provide the moral impetus for visitation "rights" as well.

This, of course, illustrates two main problems. First, the problem with "rights" of gay couples do not differ substantially from the "rights" of committed, non-married heterosexual relationships. If we work for gay couples, we should also work for the straight couples who do not view marriage as a viable alternative.

Second, the symbolic nature of marriage has engendered a variety of social norms and constructs, many of which are not codified into law. Do we pass new laws to "correct" these social norms? How, pray tell, is that libertarian?

Hospitals have the right to set their own policies which, to my knowledge, often restrict visits to immediate family. States can require them not to discriminate against same-sex partners if you encounter a nurse who decides that you aren't immediate family, no matter what your relationship.

The point of recognizing same-sex relationships is that one person in a gatekeeper position in a hospital can decide on their own that a person in an eight-year SS relationship (like me) doesn't have the right to see his partner because we aren't family by her definition. This is offensive to enough sensibilities (unfortunately, not all) that it is becoming a reasonable avenue for state action.

The problem with the "get a contract" approach is that it presumes you'll have a sheaf of papers on you at all times in case of all emergencies, and that the people you run into in gatekeeper positions will recognize and respect those papers.

In any case, the referenda passed in Ohio and laws passed by Republicans in states like Virginia threaten to invalidate those contracts when they refer to two individuals of the same sex. Because that is a right covered automatically by marriage, so it is a way of conferring benefits associated with marriage onto a same-sex couple. Yes, most of the new "protection of marriage laws" really are that petty and draconian.

Victor:

"First, the problem with "rights" of gay couples do not differ substantially from the "rights" of committed, non-married heterosexual relationships. If we work for gay couples, we should also work for the straight couples who do not view marriage as a viable alternative."

I think you're mistating this pretty baldly. The problem isn't that gay couples could marry, but chose not to do so because it conflicts with some part of their culture, or personal mores or whatever. They don't have Option 1, while straight couples do. If there's a comparable situation where straight couples aren't making the choice but having it forced on them, please correct me.

What I find funny about this whole debate is that churches are free to marry whoever they want in a religious ceremony. Its not marriage thats under attack, its really the idea of who can join in a civil union thats under attack. The reps constantly say its the religious sanctity of marriage they are protecting, yet their viable arguments against gay marriage are all political, its insurance scams, its divorce, or its polygamy. Im not positive, but the churches can marry whoever they want to marry, the law only comes into play when a couple applies for a marriage license.

The reps are really against civil unions, but are once again hiding their bigotry behind the guise of "middle American values" and religion.

The idea put up by many in this thread and others is that if civil unions are state-sanctioned, and religious instututions are free to marry whomever they see fit, then that solves the problem for everyboday.

I don't think so.

I am not convinced that churches which choose not to marry gays (and those churches' members along with them) will simply be left alone. It looks to me like they will be berated as bigotted, leading to calls for revocation of tax-exempt status, and calls to end government programs which benefit related institutions (e.g. Catholic hospitals). I would like to be convinced otherwise before accepting the "everybody wins" proposition.

I would like to be convinced otherwise

There are churches today that will not conduct interfaith marriages. Have they been sued? Do you think they will be?

I have yet to hear where our marriage laws discriminate against homosexuals. The homosexual male has exactly the same rights that hetero I have.
A homosexual denied the right to marry the one he/she wants to marry is in the same position as the multitudes who want to marry JLo or, in my generation, Doris Day and Kim Novak.
I would love to write checks on the Bill Gates account, but the nasty old laws frustrate me.
Hey, gays, BooHoo.

I think your list is OK, except for #3. I am unpersuaded that same-sex couples (or single people for that matter) should be allowed to adopt children; however, I would be content to let Vermont or Massachusetts experiment with this for another 25 years and let us know how it's working out. What to do in the McGreevy situation is a little harder (where a spouse leaves a family after discovering his or her true sexuality). I guess I would not disqualify the gay parent but they would have some additional burden of proof that their custody would be in the best interest of the child.

Brittain33 - Government often interferes in the functioning of religious organizations. For example, there are church sponsored institutions, such as Catholic hospitals, that are required by state law to do things that violate the church's teachings (such as perform abortions or provide birth control). Another example comes from higher education, in the late 70s, colleges whose students received federal aid were required to follow certain anti-discrimination rules -- even if those rules violated the school's sponsor's religious teachings. Those rules have been interpreted to "require" co-ed housing and to prevent rules against inter-racial dating of students. (To prevent the application of these rules, some church sponsored schools prohibit their students from accepting federal aid.)

You might be okay with these instances of government interfering with the internal operations of religious institutions. You might even think such interference is necessary for an open and tolerant society. While I would disagree with such views, they are defensible. What is not fair is to dismiss concerns that adoption of gay marriage would entail even more government meddling in the affairs of churches. After all, in Canada, Great Brittan, and Scandinavia, we have ministers of religion being investigated for "hate speech" for saying, from the pulpit(!), that homosexual activity is contrary to biblical teachings.

Jane, You rock!

I just discovered your blog and I love it! Please, keep up the wonderful commentary.

As for this issue: I am with you. Please see my post (and related comments) about Teaching an Agenda.

I have updated it with a link to your post.

Once again, I am glad I found your blog.

(BTW - my trackbacks are broken otherwise you would see one for this article.)

My apologies, Mindles. I did not realize that there were two authors for this site.

So . . . . "You rock. Mindles!" =)

Love your work, both of you.

What is not fair is to dismiss concerns that adoption of gay marriage would entail even more government meddling in the affairs of churches.

Like I said, has any church been sued for failing to perform interfaith marriages? I would think that would be exactly analogous to gay marriages. You have a public right and a public rite that individual churches choose not to recognize. If Massachusetts recognizes my right to marry (Jewish-Catholic), do I have standing to sue a church for not performing a wedding?

The analogy to hospitals fails because hospitals are considered a public accommodation in a way churches are not and have never been. And never will be in any way I can imagine.

The spectre of priests forced to conduct gay weddings under court order would be laughable if it weren't so offensive to the people accused of wanting to sue innocent clergymen. Does that sound plausible to you? I mean, seriously. Look at what it's like to fight the Church over something as nominally uncontroversial as treatment of sexual predators in the priesthood--and that's a fight the parishoners actually agree with.

Regarding whatever is going on in Canada or Scandinavia, it's important to remember that I base my response entirely on the experience in the U.S. justice system, with special reference to 1st Amendment protections. The relationship between church and state has always been different in the U.S. than it has been in the other countries you mentioned, and the Bill of Rights is one good reason why. The other reason--the political will of an electorate that is much more religious than that of any other developed country--is another factor that should help Denise rest more easily.

I don't see how anyone could do anything BUT dismiss this worry as an attempt for people opposed to gay rights to cast themselves as the victim of an evil plot. If I want my marriage recognized by the state, it's because I want to sue priests two years from now. It's a baroque supposition that diverts attention from the real issues at stake. Nice effort.

Has any church been sued--successfully or otherwise--for refusing to conduct an interracial wedding?

Denise?

There's no way that denying a religious tax exemption on the basis of being non-discriminatory would survive a First Amendment challenge in today's (or tomorrow's, with Bush as President) Supreme Court.

Brittain33 - Are you saying that the ONLY instance of governmental intrusion into the operation of a church that others might find objectionable is a minister being sued for failure to marry two people? If so, I think you are unfairly limiting the scope of your question. Ten years ago, most people found the suggestion that the courts would require gay marriage to be risable. Having gone as far as they have, many of us do not see the limitation on the scope of the courts' power as clearly as you do. To our understanding, the courts have stepped well past any legitimate gray area and are will into an Alice-in-Wonderland-world where words mean anything the courts want them to mean. So, don't point at the 1st Amendment and expect me to find much comfort there. I thought the 1st Amendment would prevent the most recent version of campaign finance reform from being enforced.

Do I expect that gays will sue to require the Catholic church to perform gay marriages? No. Do I expect that they will try to strip the church of its tax exemption? Yes. Do I expect they will try to require church's to "hire" gay ministers? Yes -- on penalty of loss of their tax exemption.

"There's no way that denying a religious tax exemption on the basis of being non-discriminatory would survive a First Amendment challenge in today's (or tomorrow's, with Bush as President) Supreme Court."

Jeff, why do you think this is true? Didn't a prior Supreme Court approve the removal of the tax exemption from a religious school on ant-discrinination grounds? (Yes.) There is nothing in the constitution that requires a tax exemption for charities. The existing tax exemption is a matter of legislative grace. I don't see any reason why this Supreme Court should be expected to impose what the constitution does not require.

Do I expect that they will try to strip the church of its tax exemption? Yes. Do I expect they will try to require church's to "hire" gay ministers? Yes -- on penalty of loss of their tax exemption.

Then convince my why you think they will succeed. With reference to lawsuits against churches--not universities, or hospitals, or other institutions/public accommodations with a religious component. I'd like to hear about churches being sued.

Churches are often segregated by race. Has any church ever been forced to "hire" ministers of a different race? Do you think someone could successfully sue an A.M.E. church to hire a white minister?

We've had the Civil Rights Act for forty years--let's hear it.

David,

Presumably the Supreme Court found that discrimination on the basis of race could not be justified as part of the school's primary mission.
I would like to see someone make that argument--that refusing to marry two people of the same sex is not central to Catholic theology!
Before we get there, we'd need a federal law forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Note, we do not have one of those, and will not any time soon. If you do a little research, you'd see that any state anti-discrimination statute (there are maybe a dozen) carves out liberal exemptions for religious organizations.
You aren't taking this argument seriously. You're raising "what if this happened and I get even more victimized" to turn the conversation around from the legitimate issues being raised by people directly affected by the law. You aren't listening to evidence against your hypotheticals. If you are this unfamiliar with the status of churches in the American justice system, you should do some more research.

Mindles...what I was trying to address, and you can make this Point No. 6, if you like, is that straight people have had to tolerate from gays, a whole barrage of everything from "I do because I am...not I am because I do" to even claims of gay genetics as reasons for their sexual orientation, so when and if, gay partners are allowed to get officially married...in reciting their vows...an unwritten covenant is made with society itself, that they commit themselves in the future to their sexual orientation as much, as they commit themselves to each other, which is a reasonable consideration to expect in return, in exchange for society's concession to officially recognize the gay union...a relationship, I stress, that the gays have evangelized is not simply a liaison between two screwballs reinforcing each other's sexual syndromes, or an anomaly by way of an sexual experiment that disregards the moral compass. In other words, homosexual relationships are not casual flings but bona fide causes with permanent components to them, as much as X chromosomes were to ERA and skin pigmentation was to civil rights. Therefore worthy of all the goodies that are bestowed upon traditional marriages.

This will not end up to be true if a gay couple divorces, and one estranged member then whimsically marries a heterosexual. The charade will only make the passage of same-sex marriages laws to have been a joke. Based on non-durable legal premises. Although some might feel that we're not likely to see too much of these cross-backover marriages, there's nothing to guarantee, that instead, more won't end up being the case, outside of exacting an outright warranty from the same-sexers.

Mindles, many people in the aftermath of the election, having voted for Bush in spite of much of his agenda have attempted to claim that it can be worked on. It has been claimed that those who want to really strongly oppress gays by denying them any rights, even those granted by contract are a minority. After reading through these posts do you still agree with that? If so, they are certainly a vocal minority. Another argument against that belief is, of course, that 8 of the 11 state amendments show that millions of Americans do believe in that level of oppression.

OTOH, I think the libertarians who are willing to see that state of affairs continue in order to supposedly exert some kind of leverage for a fantasy of the government not being involved in marriage or civil unions. They are obviously not living in the same country that I am and maybe not the same planet if they think that there is any possibility of that happening in the next century or two.

Joel, creationism is not taught in school the way you'd want because it is a religious belief, not science. It therefore has no place in a biology classroom.

There is a vast difference between what an institution sponsored or owned by a religious institution may or may not do and what is allowed in the church itself. A religious school that is teaching subjects besides religion is not a purely religious institution and if it is receiving not only a tax exempt status but state and federal monies from scholarships then they can't gripe a whole lot when they're called on those benefits from the government because they're raging racists and we're trying to move beyond that as a country. As far as the hospitals go, well, when you get into the health care business and do it in such a way as to make it impossible for some in some communities to go anywhere else for their health care it makes for an interesting ethical question, no? You did realize that the number and location of Catholic run hospitals has resulted in that situation, didn't you?

Its kinda funny that theres not a debate along the lines of is marriage really "sanctified" when 60% plus end in divorce? Perhaps we would all be better off if we looked at marriage as the business it really is, then we could just let everyone get screwed. Legally, that is.

I have just decided to reach out to republicans in this time of healing by favoring the teaching of "creationism" in public schools. But not just the Judeau Christian theory of creationism, that wouldnt be fair, and since theres no more proof of one theory of creation to make it more likely then any other to be true, we need a fair representation. Fair and balanced. Theres the eastern religions to consider, we cant leave out the Norse gods, gotta have some Wicca, and we cant leave the African gods out either. Sometimes it feels really good to just put aside our differences and agree.

My unsolicited two cents on the topic:

My objection to "gay marriage" is not on religious grounds or "moral" grounds, but simply as a response to what I perceive to be a persistent, debilitating assault on the norms and customs of our society by people (mostly on the left) who seem to feel that there is very little, if anything, that should be maintained in the way of decorum.

I'm 44. I feel like I'm a little too young to start being an old fogey, but I'm old enough to remember what the country was like when I was boy. When my middle-class parents would host other couples for an evening of bridge and the men would wear jackets and ties and the ladies would wear dresses. When tv shows could be perfectly entertaining without one vulgarity or sex joke -- the Andy Griffith show comes to mind. You know what? It was a nice way for things to be. You could watch tv or a movie or listen to music with your grandmother and never have to cringe.

I don't have to list the whole littany of stuff that goes on now for you to know where I'm going. (Just one example: Howard Stern having a contest where fathers undress their 20ish daughters as they fail to answer quiz questions correctly.) There is apparently literally no limit left, no concept of what is appropriate or proper for a civilized society.

And I see the "gay marriage" thing as one more step in the deterioration. A tiny minority of the public who apparently have a defective genetic makeup that gives them a sexual predisposition to be attracted to their own gender now wants to pretend that they are married just like husbands and wives are married. I do not at all begrudge anyone who wants to love someone, live with them, make some kind of contractual arrangement to give each other power of attorney or something so they can visit each other in the hospital, etc. But I'm sorry, two people of the same sex cannot be *married*. I see no need to change thousands of years of tradition so that a tiny minority can pretend to have something that they do not. Gay couples can be committed to each other, they can be "life partners", they can be in a "civil union", but I am not going to go along with the fiction that they are "married". Just like I wouldn't expect Jewish people to start letting girls have "Bar Mitzvahs" so that they don't feel less than boys. (I am aware that they can have "Bat Mitzvahs", but that is a different term.)

I am sorry for gays that they were genetically predisposed to be different in this way from sexually normal people, and are thus effectively cut off from being married to someone they love. I'm sorry that gay people have this deformity, this abnormality. But there are many circumstances in life where something beyond our control cuts us off from something that most other people can take for granted. That's life. I see it as more evidence of the victim culture that we are even considering changing what marriage means so that homosexuals can be included. (If you don't like the word "homosexuals", well...tough. It is what it is.)

I think, though, that there will be "gay marriage" eventually. There are just too many people who think there's no need for really any kind of social restriction on public behaviors at all. Too many people who accept Howard Stern's behavior, the ever-increasing vulgarity on tv and in movies, who dress like slobs everywhere they go and think nothing of casual vulgarity. My guess is that we will have to learn the hard way just why the social restrictions that used to be normal were necessary.

Homosexuality is just a field expedient, anyway.

Brittain33 - I am taking the argument seriously. My failure to agree with your points may not entirely be due to ignorance on my part. Here are two more examples of governmental intrusion into the affairs of religious institutions: First, there are few things more sacred in some churches than the sanctity of confession. Priests are taught that they must never, under any circumstance, violate the confidentiality of a penitent's confession. Yet, recent state laws, upheld by the courts -- despite any protections you might argue that the 1st Amendment ought to provide -- require ministers of religion to divulge anything they learn if it might involve child abuse. There, the court's have held that the interest of the state in protecting children outweigh the interest of the church in maintaining the confidentiality of the confessional. That may be good public policy, but it is an indication that churches are not immune from governmental interference -- even if the issues involved are "central" to the church's teachings.

Another example is how churches in California have been sued, successfully, for malpractice for giving bad advice. The churches thought the issues involved were moral and religious -- involving how to be a good husband, father, mother, and wife -- and the advice should be beyond the review of the courts. The courts disagreed. The courts said that, while involving religious and moral issues, the advice also dealt with the secular since it was the type of thing secular marriage counselors deal with. Thus, if ministers of religion were going to "compete" with therapists, it was only fair for the courts to hold both groups to the same standards.

My point is that the courts have seen fit to allow the legislatures and others to intrude into the functioning of religious institutions. To do so, the courts have found that the issue did not involve matters central to the church's function (such as the operation of a school or hospital), or that the needs of government outweighed those of the church. Given this background, I fail to see how it is UNREASONABLE to wonder whether or not the law might view discrimination against gays to be such an important issue as to warrant governmental intervention. (Most likely, that intervention would take the form of a removal of the tax exemptions churches now enjoy.)

Finally, I only entered this part of the debate because you seemed to dismiss Denise's concern without giving it the weight I believe it deserves. My concerns were expressed in one of the first posts to this comments section.

I wrote up a short piece about legal vs. illegal vs. non-legal (the missing concept) that used gay marriage as its illustrative issue. My conclusion is that the state should get out of the marriage business and marriages should be a religous or cultural ceremony in parallel with a contract. Read it here: http://virtualdave.ca/discussiongroup/viewtopic.php?t=153

"My conclusion is that the state should get out of the marriage business and marriages should be a religous or cultural ceremony in parallel with a contract."

I'll be impressed with this line of argument when those who make it refuse to get state-sanctioned marriages or divorce on principle (while still maintaining domestic partnership with their ex-spouses).

Anyone want to take me up on that?

MarkJ -

I'd say your objection is on "moral grounds."

I'd also say it's horribly bigoted. You may say that you have nothing against gays, that they should be allowed all the rights of straight people, but if "decorum" means keeping all gays closeted, if you call them "defective" and "deformed," if you compare gay marriage to shock-radio stunts - well, you sound like a bigot to me.

I'd be all for the government getting out of the marriage business, but since it's not going to happen...onwards to reality.
The sad thing is that gay couples (especially among lesbians) DO have children, and not necessarily by adoption. I think this issue is largely a matter of education, and while not dead, the younger generation has a better grasp on what their gay neighbors live like. Once they realize that it's actually hurting them mentally and financially, well, Americans like to be fair no?
Additionally, the system/culture that forces gays to stay closeted also creates the situations like McGreevey's. Additionally, people oversimply the issue as some people simply are bisexual.
Thankfully though, libertarians generally avoid simplification, and enjoy complicated arguments.

Is someone seriously comparing my wedding to the Howard Stern show?

There was nothing remotely vulgar about my wedding. The floral arrangements were beautiful (white calla lilies and hydrangeas interspersed with boxwood and votive candles), the music was supplied by a string trio, there was no dancing, and a semi-formal dress code was observed. This is in a state where "the chicken dance" is practically required by law.

We had southerners telling us how extraordinarily tasteful every aspect was.

The photographer, the musicians, and both mothers cried during the ceremony; our mothers after toasting us as their new sons-in-law. "Vulgarity" is a term best left for those whose thoughts turn to the most recent Howard Stern show when they think of the word "wedding."

Maybe its just me, but I find commercials that talk about four hour long erections alot more embrassing then a couple of gals holding hands in public...

Brittain33 - I did not know that you were married. Congratulations and may you both enjoy a lifetime of happiness.

ummm, not to be repetitive, but you might want to add another bullet point to your little list.

. Remove threat of individuals wishing to behead or stone gays.

This would seem to be the primary goal before moving on to the other items....

last post!

Comments are Closed.