Gay marriage: as New York goes, so goes…
…the nation?
New York has legalized gay marriage in the best way possible: at the state level, by legislation, and with exemptions for “religious organizations to refuse to perform services or lend space for same-sex weddings.”
This is far better than legislation by court rulings, and far better than a federal law. If New York changes its mind, it can always be repealed, but I doubt this will happen. I have long felt that this question will be moot in another generation or two in most states, because younger people are far more likely to support the legalization of gay marriage than older people are.
I cannot say whether this law a slippery slope, as some opponents fear. I sometimes think our entire culture and society is on a slippery slope in its jettisoning of customs that have long been its foundation (some of my views on the legalization of gay marriage can be found here), but personally I cannot work up a head of steam against gay marriage and am more or less a libertarian on this issue.
I do know that I believe that the religious exemptions in the New York law are important, and that they may indeed be threatened by challenges in the future. I also believe that gay marriage proponents such as Justin Driver, the author of this NY Times piece, who dearly love to make a comparison with interracial marriage, are using a certain amount faulty logic (one of these days I’ll write a post on that, but today is not the day; I’ve got some personal obligations that necessitate speed right now).
I don’t care what people do in their private lives.
I have a real problem with the organized and dedicated effort to force everybody to regard homosexuality as normal and healthy. Mere tolerance isn’t enough for these types; they insist on acceptance and affirmation.
And, I should add, punishment for the “haters” who don’t toe the line.
Regarding whether or not NY has legalized gay marriage “in the best way possible…by legislation” here’s what William Duncan said about that (in NRO’s The Corner):
“…One of the facts about tonight’s debate over same-sex marriage that will be neglected in the adulatory coverage is the really extraordinary process that brought this innovation to the Empire State. New York law, for instance, requires bills to be published 72 hours before a vote. The public, however, did not see the full language of the bill voted on tonight for more than a few hours (and only if they were exceedingly diligent in looking for it). Normal rules of debate were waived, the session was extended, etc. These kinds of exceptions are allowed for, but only in instances of emergency. Governor Cuomo had no qualms about claiming, and many legislators were complicit in accepting, the argument that redefining marriage in New York was so pressing a priority that the public’s ability to weigh the proposals (not to mention the senators’ ability to do so) should have been short-circuited. When Sen. Ruben Diaz tried to ask the Republican senator who had announced the new exemption language questions about that language, he refused even to yield for a question. (Perhaps he didn’t want to have to explain that wedding photographers, bed-and-breakfast owners, and the like with religious beliefs about marriage will be liable to discrimination complaints.) “By any means necessary” seems to be the preferred operating procedure for the marriage-equality movement. What remains to be seen now is whether the people of New York will look kindly on the legislators who ignored them, listening instead to the Hollywood stars and other glitterati who became lobbyists for this fashionable cause….”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270490/same-sex-marriage-comes-new-york-now-william-c-duncan
And that is why antidiscrimination laws, starting with the 1964 Civil Rights Act, are so toxic: They criminalize the very concept of individual choice.
The state of NY has passed a law that goes against muslim sensitivity and the left is not outraged. I am sure this will be brought before a left wing radical federal judge who will strike it down.
This is a big victory for what Judge Bork referred to as “radical egalitarianism” in his book “Slouching Towards Gomorrah”. Bork argues that the rapid rise of the New Left in the 1960s – many of those radicals who now comprise huge majorities of faculity in academia and consequently help influence cultrual standards and social values – are so obsessed with ideas about equality that they are facilitating the decline of Western culture.
I, personally, don’t care what consenting adults do as long as their actions do not interfere with my liberty, or my safety, or with my right to enjoy my private property. But why does it follow from that proposition that one of the basic building blocks and foundations of Western culture, the idea that marriage is a sacred religious ceremeny between one man and one woman — should be redefined to accomodate the sexual perversions of a tiny minority of the population (and homosexuality must be an abnormal sexual perversion – by definition — because if homosexuality were the norm the species would die in one generation, right)?
See also the famous report, “Defining Deviancy Down”, authored by perhaps the last Democrat I respected and admired, Daniel Patrick Moyniahn.
CV,
The comment of Cuomo’s about gay marriage being a pressing priority is the heart of my problem with this whole issue. It is not a priority. Our national debt and terrible economy is a priority. Islamic terrorism is a priority. Our lousy educational systems are a priority. And the negative effects of patchwork families on kids is a national priority. I know there are sensible decent gays who feel these issues need to be addressed, but why have they allowed the radical activists to be the only voice determining which issues are most important for our country.
I have the feeling that the adults (gay and straight) are surrendering to a narcissistic bunch of idiots. I don’t trust them as far as I can throw them. I have had very good friends who were gay, but I’ve also heard a sashaying little twerp call women fag hags. I have no intention of letting his type call me homophobic because I have different priorities.
This is good news for divorce lawyers.
I know you cannot work up a head of steam on this, Neo. That’s what slippery slopes are all about. You are perhaps being ‘pragmatic’, but shrug of one’s one’s shoulders while cloaked in ‘libertarianism is still a shrug.
There is much more to the redefinition of marriage than what people do in their private lives. That is exactly what the GLBT movers want you to think. Marriage is a public, not private, institution, and there are all sorts of legislated links to marriage, which heretofore has been held as valued, but has been made a shadow of its former self. The slope began with no-fault divorce. I and countless others slid; perhaps you did too, and only in the fullness of retrospective reflection realized what we had self-centeredly done.
When something is cheap, it has little value.
rickl@11:41am: See this.
“The Roman Catholic bishops of New York released a statement saying they now expect efforts to enact laws that go after churches that insist on teaching the “timeless truths” about marriage and family.”
The mosques will be exempted when/if it happens.
the idea that marriage is a sacred religious ceremeny between one man and one woman
I got one word for ya: no fault divorce. We straights have done such an awesome job of upholding the sacred nature of marriage.
That said, I might go to law school, and become a divorce attorney. I see it as a growth industry in the future.
I hate to say it, but we should face facts: We Lost. On this issue, we lost, we should deal with it and not go on hurling ourselves at the same trench.
This would not be possible if marriage hadn’t been so denigrated and downgraded in our culture. (And I’m not even counting the government programs that routinely offer perks to unmarried parents.)
And it happened so fast. In the late ’90s, a Detroit-area center got rid of their director Julie Enzer because she couldn’t get behind domestic partnerships; she couldn’t understand why “coupledom” would be so important to the gay/lesbian community. It was a rather divisive letting-go because domestic partnership wasn’t important to a LOT of the gay/lesbian community. Fast forward and she’s now married to another woman and NO ONE considers a domestic partnership adequate because it’s not a “real” marriage.
I foresee a move to separate ceremonies as in many Hispanic countries: a civil ceremony and a religious ceremony, with only the former being “legitimate” in the eyes of the state.
Young people may be more supportive of gay marriage but as Ann Coulter says, they are the dumbest and least informed voters we have.
This vote confirms a pattern I just noticed, that Democrats will apply bullying tactics and ram through legislation without respecting procedural rules (ie Obamacare). The New York Republican Party is a collection of RINOs so it’s no surprise they folded so quickly to such pressure tactics.
We need to remind ourselves that it’s not homophobia to reject gay marriage. Finding something disgusting or immoral is not an act of fear. It’s no less fearful than our dislike for stepping on dogshit.
Forced legalization of an alternative lifestyle will not breed acceptance no matter how loud and aggressive the bully. I agree with Ace of Spades that there will be a blowback to this, especially as news travels of how the law was rammed through.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/318044.php
As some others have already said, despite promises to the contrary the libs will sue or harass the Church for refusing to perform the ‘marriages’. I suspect in the end the religious groups will eventually carve out some sort of federal exemption. Otherwise what’s the point of separation of church and state if the state can bully a church to do it’s will. Now that is a destination I fear.
Hong: See the German Lutheran Church during the Third Reich.
Aggie: I made reference to my own experience with no-fault divorce. If there are kids (always) and if there are not (often), divorce is (always or often) worse than a death; the grieving process does not apply, and the harmful effects persist.
Prior to the onslaught of AIDS, gays, for the most part, had no interest in marriage. Most were happy and proud of the fact that they could lead a promiscous sex life with, until AIDS came along, no serious consequences. When AIDS became an established fact, many gays suddenly became interested in the company paid health benefits that married couples had. I saw a bit of this in the airline industry where some of our male flight attendants were gay. Many tried to get their lovers on their company paid health benefits in the early years of AIDS. It took about ten years, but the company finally began recognizing unmarried domestic partners for both gays and hetero couples living in an unmarried relationship. So, that solved that problem for employees of one company.
About four or five years ago I remember hearing a gay activist on a radio talk show talking about the fact that gays wanted gay marriage legalized so that the gay community had access to something like 119 (That’s a number recalled from a faulty memory – I just recall it was iover 100 and seemed very high to me.) financial benefits that only married couples enjoy. It is true that marriage is not only a sacred joining of two people, but is also a legal contract that confers financial and legal benefits on the parties. It’s also entirely possible to have that contract in a domestic partnership. However, for some reason, that is not now considered acceptable to gays. Apparently they are intent on shoving their sexual preferences into the cultural milieu just to “speak truth to power” or some such weird idea about making their sexual choices “acceptable” to the entire culture.
The gays could learn something from the Amish. The Amish keep to themselves and don’t flaunt their beliefs in the face of a majority who hold a different set of values. As a result the Amish are pretty much left alone and allowed to go their way, as long as they don’t infringe on others safety, property, or freedom.
As a small l libertarian, I tend to favor gay domestic partnerships, but prefer that marriage be reserved to heterosexual couples. It provides the legal status gays want and maintains the age old definition of marriage. I also favor churches being able to refuse to marry gays if that is their wont. I also consider it as being an issue for states to settle – no Federal legislation should be enacted. Just saying.
It will be “fun” to see the new textbooks that will have to include gay couples.
I’m for gay marriage as long as both chicks are hot.
Carefully hidden from public view is the actual reality of the “gay community” – where promiscuity is still the norm, and “committed” relationships are forced open by the compulsion for more sex partners.
Everywhere this type of legislation has passed – only a tiny fraction of gays (who are already a tiny fraction of society) got hitched.
This is political grandstanding to undermine marriage – part of a larger campaign to undermine traditional morality.
Previously proscribed behaviour is (finally) legitimized by the casual acceptance of fatigued, as well as previously uninvested, uncommitted masses. As the window of opportunity opens for the transformation of behavioural acceptance in one arena, ie. the first muslim-communist POTUS occupying the White House (notwithstanding the reality that in traditional muslim and communist cultures, open homosexuality has always, and continues to be proscribed), the dynamic requiring homosexual marriage, not just legal union, not just possible, but required.
There is some related social dynamic which this shares with the consequences of events like the Cultural Revolution (China), Kristallnacht, the Armenian genocide, and the casual, ongoing acceptance of the violent muslim-communist campaign against open Christianity (and others), ongoing North Korean despotism (never a truly serious priority beyond minimal lip service for the bleeding heart liberals); all the while, the liberal-left MSM and culture casually and actively ascents to the prioritized singling out of Israel vs the so-called “Palestinians”, and the related revisionism of the authentic historical record. It makes good cover when your real goals might be more ambitious (and sinister) than simply humanitarian concern for so-called “Palestinians”, or a vulnerable “gay” community. I have authentic compassion for their situation, especially today in the same context as for visible Jews in Finland, Bahai’s in Iran, Christians in Egypt and Indonesia, or North Korea.
So, people focus on what they want to, it’s all about their unique priorities and agendas. But as previous comments have pointed out, this is a relatively minor cultural issue against the more compelling issues of ultimate cultural suicide (for the unbelievers, or the skeptical), and capitulation to genocide and totalitarian rule. Global warming, too, sounds like a good diversion. Don’t ya think?
The USA is continually shaking its fist at God. Another new low. Friends, the God of the Bible is real, and He is judging us, finding us wanting. Please repent, and turn your life to Christ our only hope. Amen.
Incidentally, why shouldn’t polygamy be on the chopping block next? After all, our current President has described America as: ‘one of largest Muslim countries’ in the world?
This is a case of the tail wagging the dog yet again. The percentage of homosexuals in the u.S. population is something less than 3%. This is an attempt by gays to be like everybody else, and they are not.
A much bigger problem for society is the declining marriage rate among blacks which has great effect upon child rearing and family wealth formation. The problems of poverty, educational failure, and violent crime among blacks are largely self inflicted.
J.J. formerly Jimmy J.
I think you are on to something here.
Some years ago there was a referendum in my city to allow grant partners of gay city employees the same insurance benefits that spouses of married city employees got. I voted against the referendum, because as a low-paid contract employee of the city without city-paid health insurance, I didn’t see that they should get what I didn’t have. If I was considered anti-gay for that , so be it.
I would agree with you that the push for gay marriage is an attempt to get the same goodies granted to married heterosexual couples.
Gay marriage is a contradiction in terms. It is one more consequence of my ‘generation narcissus’, the babyboomers.
The secular government has no business in personal relations between citizens whatsoever. The only exception is marriage and ONLY because of the fact that children come from it. Marriage is the most humane and civilised form of bringing about the next generation. It is by far the most important part of our civilisation.True marriage is about the RIGHT OF CHILDREN to be raised by their OWN FATHER and MOTHER in an enduring faithful relationship. It is ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN, NOT ADULTS. True marriage is about heroic selfsacrifice for your spouse and children.
That ideal was MURDERED by my generation long ago. The legalisation of ‘gay marriage’ is just the last act of this murder. The straight community couldn’t care less, true marriage was murdered by them long ago…
Gay marriage is as despicable as the whole boomergeneration was, it puts the interests of narcissictic adults above the interests of children.
But the rats of my generation don’t care, they don’t give a shit about anything else than their own interest. And the reason why they are the worst generation is, that not only they were narcissistic, but they MASQUERADED THEIR NARCISSISM AS IDEALISM AS NO GENERATION BEFORE THEM.
THAT is what gay marriage is all about: THE DESTRUCTION of the SANCTITY of heroic Marriage on the altar of the boomer-sacred subjective desires under the pretext of the idealistic ‘tolerance and inclusiveness.’
As Larry Auster said today: ‘I now understand how Lot felt in Sodom.’
This is getting tiresome: Not every boomer was a narcissist or a hippie or a druggie.
Perfected Democrat – There are some who envisioned getting polygamy and polyamory once same-sex marriage was accepted. Stanley Kurtz covered this back in 2003 (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp).
“Among the likeliest effects of gay marriage is to take us down a slippery slope to legalized polygamy and “polyamory” (group marriage). Marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three, or more individuals (however weakly and temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female.”
This was never just about two people to become legally joined, it’s about forcing everyone to accept same-sex relationships and lifestyle. I have little faith in conscience clauses and the LGBT crowd backing off of their attacking of any person or institution that does not celebrate their lifestyle.
Now that the defining characteristics of marriage are up for redefinition, the idea that the purpose of marriage being to form a family (i.e. to create and raise children) is most certainly up for discussion as well.
Libby, thanks for the comment, I can’t believe I was never aware (or just don’t remember hearing) of “polyamory” (a lucky person learns something new everyday). In any case, as a certain mover and shaker in the Democratic Party said: “It takes a village….”.
Apparently then, too, in our “new world order”, but not for the fact that we have been apprised that this is one of the “largest Muslim countries” in the world, I could eventually marry my dog. But the silver lining is apparently in our future, when we’ll be able to marry four…
The “Progressives” are just so dog-gone progressive it’s staggering….
Hey, who’s up for a bit of incest? In our wonderful Progressive New Age, anything is possible!
Something for everyone!
http://islam-watch.org/AyeshaAhmed/Incest-Halal-in-Islam.htm
It’s funny, today I was at a friend’s 1-year-old’s birthday party and this guy said to me, I stay home and my husband goes out to work. First time I heard a guy say “my husband”. They sure moved fast, it was only made legal yesterday wasn’t it? (I am in New York).
Anyway, though I did find what he said kind of jarring and weird at first, after an hour it felt perfectly natural. Even though I know it is not statistically “normal”. Both him and his other half were very nice people, I personally wouldn’t have the heart to deny them their marriage.
Neo, Thank you for your measured analysis of this issue. I know many gay and lesbian people who are overjoyed and some who are getting married or are married one way or another. What is funny to me, although it is actually tragic, is that they are often the only people I know who * are * getting married. Where I live, most heterosexual people I know don’t get married at all and laugh at the suggestion they would! Marriage, at least in certain corners of the world, and I live in San Francisco, is only for gay and lesbian people, as well as transsexual people who can legally marry as heterosexual or now, sometimes, as gay people. Yes, it is complicated. But, keeping it simple let me just restate my main point, straight people are not getting married as they were, and this is a larger issue than gay marriage. Gays seem almost anachronistic in their joy and celebratory attitude toward the prospect of “till death do us part”, while the straights I know would rather spend a cold day in hell than utter those “ball and chain” words.
I think getting more people to marry and have children married, is the more pressing project. And, those “more people” will necessarily be heterosexual since most people are. For whatever reason it is now “queer” to want to get married and that is the biggest tragedy of all.
Simon,
I too know gays who are in committed long-term relationships and are nice people. I have problems with their willingness to let the nuts set the agenda for them. One of the things that particularly bothered me was hearing that Spain no longer uses the words mother and father on birth certificates; it’s parent #1 and parent #2. I’m sorry, but the standard is mother and father, and I don’t want that standard to be eroded. We can certainly accomodate other situations, but I would like some recognition that most children are born to heterosexual pairs who bear responsibility for raising that child and that our laws reflect this. It was considered a great idea to remove social expectations that parents marry and raise their children together. Yet look where that has taken us. Those who are wealthy enough to provide nannies, private schools, and, where needed, psychologists for their children have become role models for those not so well off or for young people who want to be cool or who need a child to substitute for adult relationships. It seems that many gay activists want to push their agenda to children before they have a chance to understand even nonsexual relationships. That scares me. Why aren’t other gays denouncing this loudly.
The English language is flexible enough to accommodate new words to describe relationships that do not fit the normal patterns. We should be very careful about making the terms we now use even more meaningless.
It’s tragic that one Democrat fought harder and more tenacity than 31 RINOs. As for any future spousal references at any party, I’ll remind them that their political beliefs are not my concern.
Nice gays are like moderate muslims or rational Democrats. They are alleged to exist in large numbers, but I have yet to see that.
Don Carlos: well, I know plenty.
I have to laugh when I hear leaders of the gay community saying with straight faces (pun?) that they have no intention of pushing churches to marry gay couples, it reminds me of a teenager promising mom and dad he won’t get into the liquor cabinet while their gone over the weekend. Since gays are relativist they have no intention of keeping that promise, it’s a case of two steps forward one step back, take what you can get now. Historically there is precedent for how trusting gays worked out for the church. During the reign of Hadrian in Rome the main cult was of Cybele and Attis which was lead by a homosexual priesthood and the Chief priest by default was the Emperor. After the first Jewish Revolt in 66-73 A.D. and the destruction of the second temple, Hadrian built a temple to Jupiter on the site which enraged the Jews. Hadrian realized that Judaism was growing leaps and bounds due to the new sect called Christians and he worried their numbers may increase to the point of another revolt. In fact Simon Bar Kochba was beginning to stir things up again. In a stroke of political genius Hadrian issued an “Edict” which said Christians were not to be harmed unless substantiated charges were brought against them and that they would be allowed a trail as a Roman citizen, but he didn’t make the offer to the Jews. At the same time the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem proclaimed Simon Bar Kochba the Messiah. The relationship between the Jews and Christians was already tenuous and this cased a rupture that only recently has begun to heal. The Christians were about to find out that they had made a deal with the devil. In 130 A.D. Hadrian’s homosexual lover Antinous was most likely murdered either by Hadrian or by a small group of the priesthood of Cybele and Attis who saw him as a threat to their power over the Emperor. Hadrian’s grief was immense had Antinous proclaimed a god and a star was named after him. For a time he replaced Hermes in the pantheon of gods and temples were built to him all through the Empire and a new “Edict” went out that all Romans were to worship Antinous as a god. The Christians and Jews refused and after the Second Revolt was put down, Hadrian banned the Jews from Jerusalem, banned circumcision and other traditions and he began a rounding up of Christians and gave them a choice; burn incense at the altar of Antinous or die as an “Enemy of the State”. This continued after his death to various degrees until Constantine. So to all you citizens who have bought the idea that “What can it hurt, it’s only two loving people wanting to express their love”, remember how Hadrian’s expression of love turned out and think about this, when the jack booted thugs come to your church and turn it into a temple to Antinous, will you burn the incense?
“and am more or less a libertarian on this issue”
Me too, so I don’t like the left using the state to change a religious sacrament… even at the local level.
Then again, if we got the state / government out of it and lefty churches wanted to marry gay people it wouldn’t be any of my business…
MissJean Says:
“I foresee a move to separate ceremonies as in many Hispanic countries: a civil ceremony and a religious ceremony, with only the former being “legitimate” in the eyes of the state”
It goes both ways. If the state involves itself in issues like these I think many people will see the state as illegitimate as a natural response. To some degree that is my response to this and the healthcare bill. How can I separate myself more from the state.
J.J. formerly Jimmy J. Says:
“Prior to the onslaught of AIDS, gays, for the most part, had no interest in marriage.”
Gays in other countries still seem to not care about it all that much (and/or civil unions were fine with them). I think a lot of it here is just that it was used as a political issue. Its not just a wedge issue used by republicans… The democrats have used it well to tell gays that anyone against this is a hater.
How many times a gay marriage referendum has been put to a vote in an open election: 31
How many times the voters have rejected the legalization of gay marriage: 31
If New York is the ‘beacon’ that will shine and lead the rest of the country into enlightenment, why won’t they allow the voters themselves to show the rest of us what to do?
thomass> “Me too, so I don’t like the left using the state to change a religious sacrament… even at the local level.”
I can agree with that. But that isn’t what’s going on here. There are two things we call marriage. The religious pact between couple and their god, and the secular contract between a couple and the state. Some people don’t like it, but it’s the same word for both.
The issue at hand is a community deciding to add another group with whom they’ll enter into these secular contracts. If that’s their choice, fine with me. Similarly, if another community decides not to honor that contract, that’s fine with me, too.
You say this is “far better than federal laws.” Does this mean you think same sex married couple should have a lower status and be denied federal benefits?
1. Neo, I look forward to your piece discussing gay marriage in terms of interracial marriage (and, by extension, Jim Crow).
2. This comment is concerned with the politics of gay marriage, not with whether it, the bill in particular, is a good idea.
3. The Empire State has spoken. New York, with its booming economy, thriving & growing population, and model governance, has pointed the way to the future. Take heed, America!
4. Sarcasm aside, afaik the country’s growing minority population has traditional values in principle if not in always in practice. I suspect that the proportion of the white population that is reproducing itself numerically has traditional values similarly. (Data on fertility versus likelihood of voting versus attitude about gay marriage would be interesting.)
5. We might be witnessing, instead of an epochal victory in the culture wars, an attempt by the Left to harden its agenda into law & precedent before the demographics turn against them. Accordingly, the repudiation may be harsher than otherwise when/if the demographic shift occurs.
6. If its power falters demographically, the leftist faction of the ruling class may seek to control fertility via the State. Ridiculous, huh? Just like the notion of gay marriage was thirty years ago. (NB: The foregoing is pure speculation and one scenario among many.)
ninjafetus Says:
“I can agree with that. But that isn’t what’s going on here. There are two things we call marriage. The religious pact between couple and their god, and the secular contract between a couple and the state. Some people don’t like it, but it’s the same word for both.”
I just don’t buy the argument. The government started taxing marriage since it had to be recorded for inheritance / estate reasons. Since then more law has been passed involving it but just because it is taxed, et cetera, doesn’t give the government the right to redefine it. If they want to give equal rights to same sex unions, fine. Do it. Just call it a civil union. If they want to play games past that; then maybe we just should not take anything they have to say seriously (2+2=4, not 5).
I also don’t buy similar arguments about other legal terms. Example: OJ ‘murdered’ those people according to my dictionary. I don’t care if he was legally acquitted of the charge of murder… or not…
gs Says:
“1. Neo, I look forward to your piece discussing gay marriage in terms of interracial marriage (and, by extension, Jim Crow).”
another example of the government’s taxing of marriage being abused to redefine it.
While I wish only the best for two people who want to settle down and start a family (regardless of their sex), the concern for me following same-sex marriage legislation has always been religious freedom. Not just a church’s ability to provide or refuse to perform the marriage, but of the church institutions (such as adoption agencies and schools) that are an integral part of the community. Maggie Gallagher has been focusing on this for a while, and she outlined some of the unforeseen consequences of same sex marriage in an article spotlighting the Catholic Charities of Boston, one of the nation’s oldest adoption agencies, that had long specialized in finding good homes for hard to place kids.:
“CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF BOSTON made the announcement on March 10 [2006]: It was getting out of the adoption business. “We have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve. . . . The issue is adoption to same-sex couples.”
(http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp)
Libby,
Once again I see a difference in the starting a family idea. Any sex act between a man and a woman has the potential to create a child, which is the reason for the traditional state role in marriage. The infertile heterosexuals have been willing to accept the legal standards and the social norms that protect the children of fertile couples. Homosexuals can never become accidentally pregnant or even intentionally pregant by having sex. Yet gays seem to see no difference. It is this unwillingness to recognize the difference that disturbs me, as does the presumption that there is no difference between children raised by a mother and father and those raised by same sex couples. There is a casualness about the roles of mother and father that I don’t like. I feel that gays deny reality when they would be far better off to acknowledge that their relationship is different.
Twenty years from now, few Americans under 30 years of age will have any idea of how to enter into a long-term committed marriage-with-children, because most of them will have no memory of having seen any such thing.
I’ve always been disturbed by the “two mommies,” “two daddies” family concept. I know we’re supposed to be so happy that everyone is in a “loving family,” but seriously, folks, there have to be some ramifications of this silly idea.
Being raising by two men who are heterosexuals (like a father and an uncle) will certainly make a difference in a child’s life. Ditto two heterosexual women vs. two lesbians.
We really won’t know the effects until the current generation of children who get experimented on grow up and look for mates.
“So to all you citizens who have bought the idea that “What can it hurt, it’s only two loving people wanting to express their love”, remember how Hadrian’s expression of love turned out and think about this, when the jack booted thugs come to your church and turn it into a temple to Antinous, will you burn the incense?”
This is my gratest concern. There’s no place in the Constitution that sanctions gay “marriage”, yet religious freedom is codified first and foremost in the Bill of Rights.
Should they even mess with the First Amendment on that issue, even a little, just watch churches across the nation rise up in arms and shout a collective “Not just no, but HELL NO!” There are over 40 million Evangelical Christians in this nation. I don’t know the number of Roman Catholics, but it is bigger than Protestants in general. And don’t discount Latino or African-American churches, either. It was, ironically, those last groups who voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008, who were crucial to the passing of Proposition 8 in CA.
(BTW, I live in TX – where a statewide referendum took place in 2005 to add an amendment to the state Constitution to define marriage as a union of a man and a woman. It passed overwhelmingly. As far as most Texans are concerned, this discussion is so over, no matter how many people whine about it here.)
OMT, there was just a case in MD about whether a married same-sex partner could be made to testify against his/her (sorry I don’t know the details) spouse. I had never thought about this before and I have no idea where it might lead.
Promethea said:
“We really won’t know the effects until the current generation of children who get experimented on grow up and look for mates.”
Absolutely. Whoever says now that they know what those children will do in the future is fortune-telling.
And I will add this – we also do not know how these children will feel once they realize that their same sex parents decided that the fulfillment of their desires was more important than providing a mother or father for their children’s upbringing.
It has always struck me as naive in the extreme to think that this generation of children being raised without a father or mother by design will be perfectly understanding of their parents’ needs and totally willing to accept the fact that they were denied the experience of a parent of both sexes.
I still feel a flicker of resentment when I think about how my father wouldn’t let me drive his car over forty years ago!
rickl says,
“I don’t care what people do in their private lives. I have a real problem with the organized and dedicated effort to force everybody to regard homosexuality as normal and healthy. Mere tolerance isn’t enough for these types; they insist on acceptance and affirmation.”
Yes. Its fine for homosexuals (or any insular group) to ask for tolerance as long as they are not harming others. What they can not demand is acceptance or affirmation. Nor should the state have any say in what constitutes marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. Let the various religious sects determine who may or may not marry. Government has no authority to tread here. Civil contracts are an entirely different matter altogether.
It is not the business of the state (society at large) to decide how consenting adults chose to form a civil contract. 1 man & 1 woman, 2 men, 2 women, 6 men & 1 woman, 6 women & 1 man; its not the business of the state to determine how consenting adults choose to legally associate.
“I’m the one that’s gonna have to die
When it’s time for me to die
So let me live my life the way I want to.”
“New York has legalized gay marriage in the best way possible: at the state level, by legislation, and with exemptions for “religious organizations to refuse to perform services or lend space for same-sex weddings.”
This is far better than legislation by court rulings, and far better than a federal law.”
“I do know that I believe that the religious exemptions in the New York law are important, and that they may indeed be threatened by challenges in the future.”
You correctly note perhaps the most critical line-in-the-sand relating to this issue: future potential coercion of religious authorities to require they provide marriage services to same-sex couples.
“They” will say that’s just nonsense and alarmism, that “they” just want equal standing in civil law. But this is not just a “slippery slope” issue (as you describe it), but it is also a moving-the-goal-posts issue. Every time ground is gained on a “gay rights” issue that activests publicly swear is all they really want, it’s not more than three-to-five years before the next, previously unthinkable, goalpost is reached for.
As you also remark, “this question will be moot in another generation or two in most states, because younger people are far more likely to support the legalization of gay marriage than older people are.” This is key.
But what is also key is what in the short term will become a third-rail issue for those who cling bitterly to their religion and guns. They will not much cotton to being told, or having their churches told, that they must now practise as a sacrament what would previously have been considered a mortal sin.
Better writers than I, with better imaginations, can readily flesh-out the details of an alternate future where federal agents force the “integration” of churches as a civil rights issue, or, even worse, act out this century’s version of the Waco massacre. All of this could proceed, quite logically and predictably, from the legal and legislative developments of today, plus a few years for the voting public to forget the current administration’s failings long enough to elect another one like it.
I don’t much fear same-sex marriage personally. I’m a U.S. foreign service officer working for the State Department: it’s not like I’ve never met a same-sex couple.
What I do fear is federal over-reach into those freedoms actually and specifically enumerated, cited, and protected in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. That kind of arrogant stupidity causes civil wars.
I’ve quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms2.blogspot.com/2011/06/re-gay-marriage-as-new-york-goes-so.html