Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Protecting Marriage to Protect Children

Several FoLCs have presented examples of gentle, loving same-sex couples who have been good people (as far as we can tell about any other person), and I'd like to take this opportunity to link to an incident which took place on November 9th in Lansing, Michigan. All the links describe the same incident.

Michigan-based politically right website

Church-related website

You tube report by independent writer (Jason Goldtrap from Florida)

Catholic Online News Service

I do not intend to imply that the majority of gays and lesbians would be involved in such an action. Nor do I intend to imply that such actions would be secretly applauded by most gays and lesbians. But it is significant that I learned of this outside the usual national news outlets. Even Fox News has not reported this.

If it were only one fringe right-wing blog reporting this story, I'd be inclined to dismiss it. But unless someone can dig up more information than I've been able to find, I'm inclined to believe that it happened as reported. And if it did - and the story was buried - it opens the question of whether or not there is a passive conspiracy to suppress such stories of attacks by radical gays on straights. If this attack actually took place as described, should it not be labeled a hate crime?

(Proposition 8 in California amended the state's constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Here is a Fox News\' story on the protests.)

The incidents in the Proposition 8 passage which have been reported bother me too. Those are on the local and national news reports, and it's interesting to listen to the determination of some gays and lesbians to overturn the majority vote of the people of those states. There have been related protests in other states where the Proposition 8 language was not on the ballot.

The voters of the US have spoken: we've elected a black man to be the President of the United States. There aren't nationwide protests to reverse that vote, but there are nationwide protests against the passage of Proposition 8 in California and similar measures in other states. Why should we listen to the voters on the one issue but ignore them on the other?

I'm going to respond from my own perspective on this, and I hope you'll see it as courteous debate; I do not intend to be disrespectful to anyone's beliefs.

Anubis said:

Well, yes, it is, because what you ('you' referring to opponents of same-sex marriage who use this as your argument) are saying is that your beliefs should dictate how everyone should live their lives, whether or not they share your beliefs. In my opinion, that's not what a pluralistic, democratic society is about.

Elisabeth said:
Fair point. Maybe they're fighting for the right to be able to do it if they want? I hesitate to bring the abortion debate in here, but I use it only for one small comparison, and that is this: many pro-choicers actually say that they would not personally have an abortion, but they don't want to be denied the right if they ever felt that it was their only option.

"Social experiment"?

Vicki, I'm not going to comment on your exchange with LabRat. I wasn't part of that exchange, so I'm a little disappointed that you're assuming what my response will be in advance of your inviting it. I'm feeling a little slow right now - blame seasonal allergies and forthcoming surgery - so forgive me for saying that I'm actually a bit lost as to the precise point you're making to LabRat and she's making to you.

Regardless, I'm not part of that discussion and I asked a simple question: tell me why you're opposed, and I will listen without prejudice.

ETA: Terry, I've just seen your post, and I hope you know that reasonable supporters of same-sex marriage deplore violence and threats of violence in support of this cause, just as reasonable conservatives deplore violence against gays. I do deplore it - but it's exactly the kind of thing that happens in debates and struggles over these sorts of civil liberties issues. There were violent factions in support of women's equality. There were certainly violent factions in support of black civil rights. Doesn't mean that the majority supports them, but it's a fairly inevitable consequence.

I am rather taken aback that you equate the election of a black president with this issue. That being said, I am hearing from friends that some groups - and I have no idea how widespread it is, but there are certainly individuals in Texas and some have said in other states too - are arguing that states should secede rather than 'put up with' a black president. I have no words.


Wendy

An issue that gay rights supporters have with civil unions/domestic partnerships is that they are not legally equivalent to marriages. For example, a married gay couple or registered domestic partners are not treated equally under federal tax law. Look at California\'s publication from 2007 taxes to see all the hoops RDPs had to go through to comply with the differences in federal and state tax laws. Look at this publication to learn about California RDPs to understand how domestic partnerships are not equivalent to marriage. From the pamphlet:
One of those rights is in regard to immigration status. If a gay couple enter into a RDP and one of them is not an American citizen, the partnership can not be used to secure permanent resident status; in fact, the RDP can be used as evidence against the non-US citizen in an immigration hearing. A non-US citizen who marries someone of the opposite sex does not have the same immigration problems.
Partners who are considering binding themselves to a life-long commitment do not do so lightly. Just because the opportunity to marry in California was open for a few months does not mean that everyone should have rushed into the decision to get married. Many straight couples live together for years because that is the level of commitment that works for their relationship at the time. Gay couples are not so different.

At the heart of the issue is that a domestic partnership is not equal to a marriage. If people want to preserve marriage as a religious ceremony, then I would have no problem with all legal marriages in the US being referred to as "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships", so long as that status is equivalent in all respects regardless of whether the relationship is gay or straight. What matters to me is the legal rights and responsibilites that come with marriage, and the fact that current laws are seperate and not equal.

Although I support gay marriage, I don't feel strongly enough about it to plead passionately for it on these boards.

However, in response to Terry, I feel the need to talk about something else, which is the hatred and threats that gay people often meet from the rest of society.

First of all, Terry, I strongly disapprove of the kind of demonstrations that gay people in America have apparently carried out against churches just a few days ago. Personally I think it is plain wrong to disturb a service, and I disapprove of demonstrators who allow the actual message they want to bring to the forefront to be drowned out by their own nasty behaviour. (And I can't stand demonstrators who cover up their faces.)

Still, if you compare the kind of violence that gay people have carried out against churches with the violence that gay people have suffered at the hands of straight people - well, I don't doubt for a second that it's the gay people who have borne the brunt of the violence.

I'll post a link to an article from 1999. It's in Swedish, so you can't read it, but it's about the murder of a Swedish ice hockey player, a gay man, in 1995:

Ice hockey player murdered by Nazi

The ice hockey player, Peter Karlsson, made a pass at a young man outside a bar. Unfortunately for Karlsson, the young man was not only a Nazi who hated gays, but he was also armed with a knife. The Nazi stabbed Peter Karlsson 64 times. Can you imagine? Sixty-four times!!!

I pretended that I held a knife in my hand, and then I lifted my hand and brought it down as if I was stabbing someone. I did it again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again and again and again and again and....

How much do you have to hate a person to stab him sixty-four times?

This murderer, the Nazi, was nineteen years old. Mostly for that reason, he got a reduced sentence, eight years in prison. But the judge also ruled that it was necessary to consider the insult the young man had suffered, when the homosexual man had propositioned him. The judge felt that the young man had somehow had a reason to stab another human being sixty-four times, the reason being that his victim was gay and had made a pass at him.

I find this case totally, completely shocking. The only good thing I think you can say about it is that today no murderer in Sweden would get a reduced sentence because he felt insulted by a gay person who had propositioned him.

Ann

I can't presume to speak for the various homosexual couples out there, but I think it's safe to say that many of them also follow a religious faith. In western society, many heterosexual couples who wish to make a public statement of the love and the commitment that they share choose to be married. And for many of those, they might view it as what you said, Anubis, a holy sacrament between them and God.

For a homosexual couple, what's to stop them from feeling the same way? So for similar reasons that the word "marriage" is important to you, then it might also be for them.

And I was not aware until just before posting this of the various legal hoops that couples in legal unions have to jump through, so that could easily be an issue for many. I don't remember how soon after same-sex marriage was legalized in California that talk started about placing a proposition on the ballot to oppose it, but it wasn't long - so I can understand why many people might have waited to see what would happen. Assuming that Proposition 8 isn't overturned, what happens to the couples who did indeed marry here in California in the interim months? Their marriage would no longer be valid - even though they would have had the opportunity to share their joy in a marriage ceremony, that would be yanked out from under them, and all they'd have left is a bittersweet memory. I wouldn't want that to happen to me.

Kathy

Wendy wrote:
I did not and do not equate the two. I compared the two. It is not the same thing. The comparison I wished to draw is that the country as a whole is not protesting the election of a black man to the presidency, even though forty-eight years ago (1960) he could not possibly have run on either major party's ticket. Yet large, organized groups of gays and lesbians are protesting the passage of Prop 8, and many of them are not being polite about it.

I am not surprised that you would hear that there are people agitating for secession. It's the kind of "how crazy are they" filler which news stations and networks run to gain ratings. There is no serious grassroots campaign to leave the Union in Texas or any other state.

I don't care that our new president-elect is black. His general skin tone was determined when he was conceived. If our new president were gay, however, that would be different. Despite the debate over the issue, no one has located a "gay gene" or genetic code to force people to be gay. People who are gay choose to live a gay lifestyle. It is a personal choice.

Whether that choice is right or wrong is a separate but related issue. However, I have yet to see any objective scientific evidence that the gay lifestyle is predetermined within an individual. Therefore it can be debated as a choice, not as something which cannot be altered.

And I do not mean that "being gay" is any kind of illness from which one may be cured. It isn't caused by a virus, bacteria, fungus, or spore from Venus or Mars. It's a personal choice, and that's where the discussion should begin.

According to USA Today, more death threats have been made against Barack Obama than against any other President-elect.

USA Today also reported about burning crosses in people's gardens, about dolls hanged in effigy and about a poll where people could guess the date and the means of Barack Obama's murder.

Ann

Wendy,

Just to clarify - I was not at all assuming your response. I was surprised to read that this is what you thought I was doing.

I was rephrasing Labrat's response, to make it clear (a) how I interpreted her words and (b) how those words were, in my opinion, doing exactly what you had just said you had not seen anyone do yet.

[edited to add the word "not", which I had mistakenly left out of the first sentence.]

A society governs based on the principles of its citizens. In a society where the majority of people are religious, yes, the principles of the majority will conform to so-called "religious principles". In a society where the majority of people are not religious, the principles held by the people may well differ from "religious principles". So what?

Perhaps, for example, you believe that marriage is a basic human right, and that forbidding same-sex marriages is the same as forbidding interracial marriages. Based on those principles, you might vote in favor of same-sex marriage. I, on the other hand, believe that men and women have basic innate differences. Men and women are of equal value but they are not the same. Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, and all that. (By comparison, for example, I believe a person's skin color is as insignificant as his/her hair color.) I also believe that society has a right to define marriage. Based on those principles, I would vote against same-sex marriage.

We all vote based on our principles, regardless of where we obtained those principles. I am missing your point as to why voting based on religious principles is any less valid or less democratic than voting based on the principles held by a non-religious person.

But I wasn't talking about voting. I said why should a society govern - in other words, why should laws be enacted - based on the principles of one group in society? I'm making a philosophical point here based on the principles of democracy. Yes, the majority of Americans identify as having religious beliefs (and I won't get into the fact that there is no one set of beliefs shared by everyone who identifies as being religious), but one key safeguard in a democratic society is that the majority does not always rule - there have to be protections for minorities. This is why I make the point, and I firmly believe, that one set of values not shared by an entire community or society shouldn't necessarily be imposed on that community or society as a whole - especially if the majority group in society still has its own rights protected anyway.

Terry, thanks for clarifying your earlier post, which had me a bit confused. You know we simply won't agree on the nature v choice debate around homosexuality, which of course affects where we're both coming from here. None of the gay people I know believe that their orientation is a matter of choice. They simply are attracted to people of the same sex as themselves. So, no, I don't agree that the discussion should start at 'personal choice'. But, yes, I think we are on the same page on the fact that you will find crazies and extremists everywhere, and that these reactiond do not reflect the views and behaviours of the majority of reasonable people on either side.

You know, this does remind me of similar debates and struggles over inter-racial marriage; the arguments were in many ways similar there. These days, I don't think anyone on these boards would argue that a mixed-race couple shouldn't be allowed to marry - just as, in the country of my birth, not many people would object to marriage between a Protestant and a Catholic any more, yet while I was growing up and before I was born what was referred to as 'mixed marriages' were seen as abhorrent and in some cases led to murders. I truly believe that in 20 years' time same-sex marriage will be virtually a non-issue. But it's going to be a difficult adjustment period on all sides until that happens.


Wendy

In a park in my hometown of Malmö, there live a pair of moderately famous birds, a pair of gay mallards. Are these two feathery fellows actually a pair of lovebirds who engage in real homosexual activities? Or are they just birds of a feather who stick together so diligently that they forsake all others? Who knows? But their behaviour is... kind of queer. Were they born queer? Or did they use their birdbrains to actually choose a queer lifestyle? Who knows?

But birds are birds and people are people, so you can certainly argue that my flighty ramblings mean nothing at all.

Gay mallards in Malmö

Ann

Wendy,

I was responding to your post, which was in turn responding to Anubis's post. Anubis cannot enact legislation, she can only vote for legislators who will enact laws which she agrees with. That is why I placed the emphasis on our vote. Our vote determines the legislators, who then enact the laws.

Anyway, I agree with you that there need to be protections; it is not a straight majority rule in that the majority cannot vote to violate the rights of the minority. Where you and I disagree is in the definition of a "right". I disagree that we have a "right" to marry anyone we want - as demonstrated by the four exceptions enumerated in my original post. Within these guidelines, we can marry whomever we chose. But we do not have the right to marry a minor, a close relative, a person who is already legally married, or a person of the same sex.

Members of NAMBLA may argue that their "right" to marry minors is being violated. Members of the splinter sect of Mormonism may argue that their "right" to marry multiple partners is being violated. Gays may argue that their "right" to marry someone of the same sex is being violated. All three groups can claim that they are unfairly burdened by these restrictions, as other members of society have no desire to marry a child, have multiple partners, or marry members of the same sex. I can only respond that the laws are applicable to all.

Do you really believe that there are differences between the races comparable to the difference between the sexes? I already mentioned the book "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus." Can you explain to me what the innate difference between blacks and whites might be?

No, because I don't believe that there are innate differences! My point is that 60 years ago - or less, even - many people believed that it was fundamentally wrong for blacks and whites to intermarry. Now, many people believe that it's fundamentally wrong for people of the same sex to marry. Put simply, I think that in 20-30 years' time same-sex marriage will be as much a non-issue as interracial marriage.

However, I'm well aware that there are people on these boards - yourself included - who don't agree, and that's your right. I'm not going to be able to convince you, and nor are you going to be able to convince me. I've given my perspective on the matter, and here's where I'm agreeing to disagree from here on


Wendy

OK, glad to clear that up. There are NO innate differences between the races. And that is where the comparison between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage falls apart.

I honestly don't get your point, Vicki. There are no innate differences between the races (between a black person and a white person, and between a black person and a black berson) - so it's okay for them to marry and intermarry. There are no innate differences between persons of the same gender, so why is that a barrier to marriage?


Wendy

LOL. Not quite.

I am not comparing the sameness of Partner A to Partner B. I am comparing the sameness of Partner A's eligible choices - the sameness of all his/her prospective Partner B's, if you will.

I am claiming that, if a black man can marry a black woman, there is no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to marry a white woman, because there is no innate difference between a white woman and the black woman. His two choices of marriage partner are equal, or "interchangeable", if you will.

It does not follow, however, that if a man can marry a woman, he should be allowed to marry a man. It would be intellectually dishonest to say, "Marry a woman, marry a man, it's the same thing."

Vicki, I've never read Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, although I've certainly heard of the book for years. Your response to Wendy seems to imply that there are a number of differences between the sexes (and presumably those beyond the obvious physical characteristics), so I assume that some of this is delineated in the book. I can also think of certain character traits that are more common in men than women, and vice versa. Do you believe that because of these "differences", that's why so many consider same-sex marriages wrong?

Kathy

Sorry, Vicki, but it seems to me that if I read your theory correctly this is the same old argument that once upon a time was used to prevent interracial marriages.

Yes, there are differences between the sexes. But for myself I see no reason why the fact that these differences exist should prevent gays from marrying the person that they love, if they want to. They don't prevent women marrying men and if your theory holds true then they surely would do. If you propose that those differences in essence mean a barrier to marriage then you cannot pick and choose which genders they are a barrier to. It's either all or nothing, far as I can see.

You might as well say - as those old opponents did - that because a white woman is different to a black woman, interracial marriages are fundamentally wrong.

Would it? For me it comes down very much to the same thing. Two people, who are in love, wish to marry and spend their lives together. It is the simplest of desires and the simplest of acts. It shouldn't be this complicated.

This is often a brutish, depressing world. When I see images on the news of gay couples embracing, kissing, smiling and laughing as they and their family and friends celebrate their union my response is exactly the same as it would be if it was a man and a woman being married. It makes me smile and lifts my heart to see two people so in love and so happy, embarking on a shared life together.

It will forever be a mystery to me why so many wish to stamp out such small moments of joy. They are so few and far between it seems to me we should cherish them wherever we find them rather than trying to discriminate against others simply because they don't fit into the neat stereotype of what forms a 'normal' marriage.

LabRat

To you - and to other opponents of same-sex marriage. Not to supporters of same-sex marriage. This is why I said earlier that you're never going to convince me and I'm never going to convince you. There are no "facts" that can appear out of the blue that will make me believe that men should not marry men if they are in love and want to make a commitment to each other in exactly the same way as I made a commitment to my husband over 15 years ago. Likewise, there are no "facts" that I can produce to make you believe that they should. We're coming at this from a fundamentally different personal perspective, with fundamentally different values and beliefs when it comes to same-sex relationships, so I'm not sure what value exists in continuing to throw arguments at each other that will not convince either one of us.


Wendy

Wendy wrote:
Being attracted to someone is not the same as having a sexual relationship with that someone. If a man is attracted to his neighbor's wife, that's one thing, but if they begin a sexual relationship that's something else altogether. If I admire a friend's new guitar, that's one thing, but if I steal it and treat it as my own that's another thing altogether. This is what's known as "anecdotal evidence," not scientific research. It simply isn't valid.

I have also met gay people who have told me the same thing. I have pointed out to them what I just wrote, that being attracted to a person doesn't mean you should have sex with that person.

This is what I meant when I said that the gay lifestyle is a choice. I did not say that we choose the person or persons to whom we are attracted. It isn't the same thing, although after re-reading my post I can understand why you'd draw that conclusion. I simply wasn't clear on what I was trying to say.

If I met you in person, Wendy, I might be attracted to you. (I figure that's more likely that you being attracted to me. I've seen my own picture.) That would not give me the excuse to pursue you and attempt to begin a relationship with you. In other words, my feelings do not create a "right" for me to do what my feelings want me to do. Feelings are not guides, they're indicators of where we are and where we've been. They're not supposed to be directional markers.

Another point which I rarely hear mentioned is that if we redefine marriage as being between two consenting adults irrespective of their physical genders, we are making a fundamental change in an institution which has transcended cultures for millenia. Even cultures which established prostitution in the worship of idols defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Cultures where polygamy or polyandry were either allowed or even encouraged still, for the most part, defined marriage as being between man and woman. Plural wives weren't expected or encouraged to engage in sex between themselves any more than plural husbands were.

My point is that if we are going to change this institution, let's examine why we plan to change it. Is it because of social pressures? If that's the only reason, it's not a sufficient one. Is it for moral reasons? If so, we have to define that moral code and examine its authority. Is it because gays and lesbians are becoming more and more militant and we don't want to start an actual gender war? I sure hope not. That kind of violence would be difficult to stop once it started.

So if you want me to consider same-sex marriage, give me some reasons to do so. I'm not predisposed to agree with your position, but I am willing to listen to what you have to say.