![ClinPop_V2[2].jpg](http://www.firedoglake.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/ClinPop_V2[2].jpg)
Graphics love to the amazing Darkblack.
[This is a topic that comes up over and over again in any discussion of religion and politics and...well, pretty much any topic that touches on either issue. Like most progressives, I am sick and tired of the "hate the gays" meme being trotted out every election cycle (which is pretty much every two years, like clockwork...). But how to cut into its effectiveness with Theocons is a tough question. I do think that it has lost much of its stir up the base lustre, but we won't know for sure until the election. Until then, using discussion to open up a closed mind to a ray of sunshine can work miracles sometimes, so this will have to be a start. -- CHS]
In trying to talk about same-sex marriage with those on the religious and political right, it’s easy to get stuck. I’ve got my way of reading the Bible, you’ve got yours, and they’ve got theirs. I think X about history, you think Y, and they think Z. Instead of focusing on the two men or two women who want to get married, the gay or lesbian couple dissappear and the conversation turns into the discussion of an "issue", or worse, a "problem."
Enter the Spanish Inquisition.
What? You didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition? That’s OK – Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
I love Monty Python. In my humble opinion, good, rolling on the floor, laughing my ass off humor is an indispensable part of life. Few people I have never met in person have brought more joy and laughter to my life than Michael Palin, John Cleese, Eric Idle, and Co. Humor is a way in which we connect with others and get through the pain and discomfort in the world. In laughing together, we recognize our shared humanity, the brokenness in the world, and our willingness to face it together. Which brings me to marriage, especially same-sex marriage.
The TheoCon view of marriage is built around power and gender roles. Their chief problem with same-sex marriage is that they can’t figure out who wears the pants in the family. Someone’s got to be in charge – and (by their theological lights) that’s the job of the man of the house. This is why TheoCons (especially the male variety) are rightly threatened by same-sex marriage. If Larry and Barry can marry, then marriage isn’t about preserving gender roles, with manly men providing for the family and meek women being the submissive nurturers at home, barefoot and pregnant. "Horrors!" thinks the TheoCon man. "What if my wife finds out about that? How will I keep her in line?" It gets even worse, if he thinks about himself: "What if they’re right? What then is my role in a marriage?"
The greatest gift of the GLBT community to the straight community in this debate around same-sex marriage is the focus on partnership. The whole Genesis 2 story of creation, around which so many on the right build their odd view of marriage, is not at all about gender and gender roles. It’s really about the difference between companions and partners. A dog is a companion. A cat is a companion. A giraffe is a companion. According to the story, God made all the animals, brought them all to the man to deal with his loneliness, but none of them sufficied. But another human being . . . that’s a partner! Interestingly, the history of English translations of this story mirrors the TheoCon/Progressive debates here. Older translations like the King James Version of Genesis 2 says the woman is to be a "helper" (or some similar word) for the man; the New Revised Standard Version more properly translates the Hebrew of this passage as "partner."
Among our chief tools for talking with TheoCons about same-sex marriage is humor. If we can’t hold the conversation and laugh along the way, we’ve got nothing. We’ll end up arguing and fighting, leaving both sides bloodied and beaten. But if we can laugh . . . then we’ve got something. Humor exposes self-satistfaction and sanctimony, and also points up logical fallicies, strained analogies, and other obstacles to understanding. In this discussion, that gives us progressives a huge advantage.
If you want to talk with a TheoCon about same-sex marriage, do yourself and your TheoCon friend a favor: first sit down ("Bring out the comfy chair!"), and watch Robin Williams, Nathan Lane, Gene Hackman, and Dianne Wiest in Mike Nichols’ 1996 version of The Bird Cage. All the issues of marriage are there, in both couples, holding up a mirror to all our relationships. After the movie’s done, then you’re ready to talk.
Let’s face it: sex is not just fun, but funny. Back in 1993, as my relatively moderate Lutheran churchbody was debating a possible social statement on human sexuality, Lutheran ethicist Larry Rasmussen of Union Seminary in New York City spoke at a conference dedicated to the draft statement. Though the subject was serious, Rasmussen made his substantive points with a good dose of humor along the way, like this:
Sexuality, like all God’s best gifts, is both strange enough and silly enough that not to howl about it is to live wide of God’s own considerable sense of humor. The same untapped corner of God’s imagination Gary Larson uses for "Far Side" cartoons is surely the corner God was playing in when sexuality was crafted as the most interesting of all ways to meet the neighbors and to get from one generation to the next.
Garrison Keillor’s concocted commencement address put me in mind of all this. . . .[Keillor said] "Laughter is what proves your humanity, and the ability to give a terrific party is a sign of true class. When Moses came down from the mountain with the clay tablets, he said, "Folks, I was able to talk him down to ten. Unfortunately, we had to leave adultery in there, but you’ll notice that solemnity was taken out." And that night the Israelites killed the fatted calf and drank wine and told old Bible jokes in celebration.
Let’s hear it for leaving solemnity out of the list of sins. (Punaise, you’re off the hook.)
The whole "gays can’t reproduce, so they can’t get married" argument cries out for satire and humor, as does the "children need a mother and a father, so same-sex marriage can’t be allowed" argument. If these arguments are true, then a few "modest proposals" for legislation "safeguarding marriage" based on this logic may be called for:
- Women and men who are infertile shall be barred from recieving a marriage license.
- A marriage without children shall be deemed to have come to an end when the woman reaches menopause, or when either partner becomes infertile after being married (i.e., develops a medical condition or undergoes a procedure that precludes having children, such as a complete hysterectomy, treatment for testicular cancer, etc.). Exceptions shall be made for couples who adopt children within 60 days of one member of the couple being diagnosed as infertile.
- Because having both a father and a mother are so important for children, if one member of a couple dies, leaving behind minor children, the surviving spouse shall have 60 days in which to remarry. Should the spouse not remarry, then the children shall be removed from the surviving parent and adopted into a family that can provide both a father and a mother for them.
- Should a husband or wife be disabled, placed on life support, or otherwise absent from the home for an extended period of time, the children shall be placed in foster care for the duration of the absence.
I don’t know what Jonathan Swift would have thought of same-sex marriage, but I think he’d have a lot of fun with the twisted logic that gets employed to oppose it.
Religiously speaking, marriage is a secular arrangement. I’m not talking about the fact that licenses are granted by the state and not the church, but about the general theology of marriage and the church. First of all, in most Christian and Jewish circles (and perhaps in other religions with which I am much less familiar), the two people getting married actually "marry" each other through the promises they make to one another. The priest/pastor/rabbi is there not to marry the couple, but to witness their promises, to invite the support of the community, and to ask for God’s blessings upon it. Promises by the couple make the marriage, not the prayers spoken along with the promises. The corollary is this: Christians may (and do) get married, but there is no such thing as "Christian marriage." Second, no religious official can be forced to perform a wedding they are opposed to. As a pastor, I require a couple to meet with me three times prior to the wedding. If that’s too much of a burden for the couple, they are free to go elsewhere to be married, but I won’t do the wedding, and no one can force me to do otherwise. Not my bishop, and not the government. I can’t prevent them from being married elsewhere, but no one can demand that I be part of it. Third, religious groups are free to keep their own definitions of what makes a "proper" marriage, without forcing those definitions on the rest of society. The easiest example to point to is the Roman Catholic church. By Roman Catholic doctrine, the church does not allow people who have been married and divorced to be married a second time while the first spouse is still alive. (An annulment is a statement by the church that the first marriage was somehow canonically "defective" and thus never really happened. It’s not a divorce.) The Catholic church does not say that those who remarry are not really married, but that these remarriages are not something they think God approves of, and they do not wish to have the church associated with them.
Not all religious folks walk the Dobson/Pope Benedict/TheoCon line when it comes to same-sex marriage, even within their own faith traditions. Some groups are much more open to GLBTs, not only welcoming them as members but ordaining them as ministers, like the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Association. But even in other less open Christian denominations, there are groups working for change, like More Light Churches (Presbyterian), Lutherans Concerned/North America (Lutheran), Integrity (Episcopal), Dignity USA (Roman Catholic), and Reconciling Ministries Network (Methodist). An ecumenical, interfaith group called Soulforce takes the prinicples of non-violent resistance embodied by Ghandi and Martin Luther King and applies them to the struggle for freedom from religious and political oppression based on sexual orientation.
Once upon a time, a marriage between a Swedish Lutheran and a Norwegian Lutheran was a great source of scandal. Once upon a time, the marriage between a Catholic and a Methodist would have caused an uproar in the community. Once upon a time, the marriage of an African-American to a European-American would be viewed as a threat to children and society. One of these days, I believe that someone’s going to say "Once upon a time, the marriage of two people of the same gender was seen as scandalous" and the hearers of that story will scratch their heads and say "Wow – how could anyone have been offended by that?" I just pray that that day comes soon.
When I worry about marriage, it’s not same-sex marriage that scares me. No, I get scared by the commercialization of marriage, like the 3 inch thick copies of Bride magazine with their checklists and budgets and timelines and ads for everything needed for a storybook wedding. I am frightened by Vegas wedding chapels and celebrity drive-by weddings. I am appalled at folks who are going into their umteenth marriage without having figured out what went wrong with the many marriages that preceeded it. I am bewildered by folks who have just left school with huge educational debts who want to add $15,000 or more of wedding debt on top of it. "Who Wants to Marry A Millionnaire?" was a danger to marriage; Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, partners for over 50 years, are a tribute to it.
Thank God for Monty Python, Gary Larson, The Bird Cage, and leaving solemnity out of the ten commandments. When it comes to talking with TheoCons about same-sex marriage, honest humor is the best tool for prying open closed minds, about marriage, relationships, and life in general.
So, have you heard any great jokes lately?
Related posts:





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

We love ya !
Great post …Thanks!
Hello?
Hey Larry!
Folks will get here soon enough. Of course, there’s more than a little to read up there before the comments come trickling in . . .
What, we are supposed to read it?
Beautiful post, Peterr! Deserves the widest circulation possible, and may well become a classic, I predict.
Larry @ 4
As I understand things, that’s what sets firepups off from Freepers and such.
Wisconsin will be the first state to reject a same-sex marriage amendment. The polling is a dead heat now, the vote is in November.
Thanks so much for doing this post, Peterr. I have so many dear friends that are dealing with hatred and worse from family and former friends after coming out. To think that two people who love each other and are in a lifetime committed relationship would not be allowed to be in each others’ hospital ICU room for comfort, or take their children to the doctor with equal rights, or anything else without going through lots of legal wrangling is so sad. It’s time we recognized that love is love. That you fall in love with someone’s soul, no matter the wrapper in which it comes. SIGH
Peterr,
I have been ranting about this for years its what I call the wedding mirage…..
and your 6….well I am too old to be a pup,
however this dog still hunts
Brilliant!! Thank you!!
When my wife and I gote engaged, oh so long ago, we sat down with her parents, strict Catholics, to talk about things.
Along the way, her mother started talking about the troubles that faced mixed marriages, and how she’d seen that mixed marriages almost never survive, and so on.
WTH? At first, I thought she was rambling. After all, I’m as caucasian (German heritage) as my wife is.
When my future MIL started saying things along the line of “…but I can see that your marriage will be OK, not like those other mixed marriages…” I found myself looking at my hands, next to my fiancee’s.. What does Shirley see there? I was getting mighty confused.
But then the conversation veered directly into religion, and the proverbial light bulb popped on over my head.
Of course! I was raised Lutheran, and they were Catholic! Mixed, indeed!
Funny to me to think of how important these fabricated distinctions can be.
The Reverend Mr. Rove looks positively Cherubic. Darkblack amazes again!
I spent the day in Boston yesterday. Part if it with Roots Project folks at Kennedy’s office but the bigger part at the State House where we were standing out in front doing our singing shouting and laughing while the “other side” was doing the same, sans laughing. Wrote about it on my web page.
But what I forgot to write was that the folks on the other side of the street a) had a really hard time cracking a smile. They were SO somber and angry and b) most of those across the street were bussed in from somewhere, looked like maybe a phillipino community. Two years ago the same thing happened, Then, they mostly had their eyes closed and prayed a lot, few of them seemed to speak English. I’m not at all about immigrant bashing, open up the borders, I say, but it is curious that the “huge popular support” for supposedly letting the people vote is not demonstrated visibly in the demonstrations.
While we had quite a few clergy in our ranks with our hot collars on, didn’t see a sign of a priest or minister across the street anywhere. Curious.
Ahh, Peterr — I can only repeat what I’ve told you before.
You are a treasure.
Your presence blesses us.
Noonan @ 7
Out here in CA, an editorial in Monday’s SF Chronicle said that
The bill that was vetoed was the first in the nation to pass a state legislature. Phil Angelides, the democratic nominee running against Ahnold for governor, has pledged to sign the bill if it passes again after he is elected.
Women and men who are infertile shall be barred from recieving a marriage license.
Proposed method of proof: the woman must be pregnant when the license is applied for. (DNA test to prove paternity is optional.)
If they’re going to insist that the only reason for marriage is procreation, then they should also be in favor of premarital sex, because how else will they know the couple can have kids?
Ain’t logic fun, when you take it to absurdity?
Great Post Peterr. Glad you’re here.
I look at this ridiculousness, the anti-contraception stance, and the anti-choice argument as stemming from a simple construct.
Population=Domination
Moderate changes in birthrate can have profound effects on population over 100 years. When you’re building an army (or a majority) that’s very important.
The leaders of early christianity knew this, the leaders of today’s eveangelical movement know this, but it is too honest and won’t sell.
So, the way to “package” it is to make it “god’s law”. We all know this is hooey, but when has that ever stopped them before?
Oh, that and they’re afraid of getting a bit loaded and finding some guys c*ck in their mouth (did I say that outloud??!!)
Anyway, keep it up.
The fundies and their greek chorus are not concerned about marriage. Marriage is the cover story.
Their agenda is to continue the doctrine that it is not OK to be gay. Period. If they give an inch on same sex marriage, then little johnnie will get the message that it is OK to be gay. The horror. Instead, they must continue to shame and stigmatize gay citizens because that is their way of controlling how little johnnie views his own sexual orientation.
It’s not about marriage. It’s about shame. Something religious leaders have been good at for many centuries.
AWESOME post!!! I’m sharing this all around.
Peterr – a great and rational post, which blasts all to hell the arguments that theocons make about the “threats” to “traditional” marriage.
I’m afraid, though, that theocons see nothing humorous about same-sex relationships, and trying to make them laugh about it is a risky endeavor, as most of them appear to be on the verge of total meltdown on the subject.
Yes, it’s different, and yes, it can be difficult for straight people to grasp, especially those who see nothing at all normal about any of it, much less two people of the same sex wishing to make a life-long commitment to each other.
As a woman in a traditional marriage – my husband is is man – I do not understnd the concept of “threat” that is supposed to be posed by gay marriage. Last I checked, no one is in danger of being forced to marry anyone. No one is going to knock on the door and introduce anyone to their new gay fiance.
I think if those whose mission in life is the ruination and prohibition of the relationships of gay people would spend half as much time on the quality of their own, actual relationships, marriages and families, perhaps the divorce rate among traditional couples would begin to decline, and life, in general would be much more civil and respectful.
Politics you can get people to laugh about, but anyone confronting a rabid theocon with humor on the subject of gay marriage had better go in wearing full body armor and a helmet, just in case.
Its hard to crack a smile when they rule that your family is not fit, and refuse to give you the rights and respect you deserve.
It would be nice to have a post about gay marriage and family from, you know, someone who is gay? But thanks for the support.
lotus @ 14
Thanks, and like all good blessings, it’s mutual. This is a great place to hang out.
Thanks for this, Peterr… I’d love to hear you preach sometime. I’d also encourage you to publish this and other thoughts on that ancient and honorable medium–you know–what’s it called?–made out of trees and stuff–biodegradable? Oh yes.. a book..that’s it. Write a book, and if you already have… Let us know. o.k.?
Peterr,
Perhaps I have missed mention of it before…but do you have your own blog and if so— would you point me to it?
Thanks.
Larry
Peterr, when you said you were “working on something” the other day, you weren’t kidding, were you? Very nice post.
Barbaro update (just glimpsed on muted CNN):
Vet: Barbaro’s laminitis “as bad as it can get.”
Nooooo! Not the comfy chair!
Good news, sister who had thyroid cancer last year at 44 has clean scan. Woo! Woo! Woo!
Peterr — I tried so hard to find a picture of Gene Hackman and Nathan Lane dancing together in that scene after dinner in The Birdcage, when Lane is in his “Barbara Bush” drag outfit. I love that scene, where his wig starts to slip off…hehehehe…but I couldn’t find a screen grab anywhere online. (And truly, the whole movie is very fun, so if anyone has managed to miss it, it is worth a video rental and then some…the Hackman character in drag at the end alone is hilarious. “No one wants to dance with me…”)
Darkblack really came through for me on a substitute graphic, though. :)
WOOT! egregious and sister!!! Beautiful!
OT: lotus – sorry the salon link didn’t work for you last night. try getting in through http://www.salon.com. it’s the front page headliner piece.
egregious at 29 — FANTASTIC news! Yay for your sister, for you and your whole family! :)
Thanks, pun — will try it directly.
great news egregious. woohoo!
yay for egregious and sis….
30/40 years ago, gay bars were located in the seediest industrial areas down by the docks – the police would cruise the parking lots collecting up license plate numbers…. things for gay people were about as oppressive as it can get in a “free” society…
I am constantly amazed at how far we have come…
and yet, why has it taken so long?
Larry @ 25,
Nope, no blog of my own, nor even any plans for one (at least not yet). Life’s a bit too up in the air to take on something like that for me right now. Add to that the fact that I’ve only got dialup access, and tying up the phones for great lengths of time on a regular basis makes that a complete no-no. All I’ve got are the comments I drop in here and elsewhere, as well as the occasional post like this.
Doing these posts gives me greater respect for the work that Christy, Jane, and the other posters around here do. Knowing how closely folks around here read them makes this occasional contributor take the privilege of posting very seriously.
If/when I ever do set up a blog, you’ll see it in the signature ID at “Peterr says“).
Nice post. I’ve been arguing for years that the state has no authority to sanction anything other than a civil union in the first place, so the whole argument about gay marriage is idiotic semantics. I certainly can’t get as many laughs with my analysis as Eric Idle and John Cleese can, so I just move on and tell fart jokes at the children’s table.
peace,
jim “one shed” preston
Peterr– what a wonderful post and thank you for sharing it with us.
People who partner up and share their lives and care and love one another live longer and happier lives. It’s a fact. I want a world with happy and fulfilled people who care for one another. Why do so many spend so much time hating, fearing, and trying to control others’ lives? Well, I think it gives them a reason not to deal with the real problems we humans face– climate crisis, bad government, world famine and hunger and disease and war. No religion that I know of advocates turning our backs on those issues. In fact, the bulk of the teachings of every belief system speak to caring for one another and the planet and ourselves.
Thanks again, Peterr. Love Monty Python and the Birdcage as well.
Great news, egregious!
OT– these JAGS testifying are pretty darn fine men at the Armed Services Cmte hearing.
Birdcage and before it La Cage au Folles was brilliant in showing off society’s hypocrisy. It’s too bad that the message didn’t get internalized. Because it was so funny, the “straight” characters were shown for dolts. Yes, humor is a beginning, but personal stories are what will change minds and hearts.
This is from an e-mail I got several years ago from a couple for whom I performed a civil union in VT
It’s these conversations that will turn the tide.
Great news egregious!
Been through that scare myself long ago. Glad your sister has a clean scan.
A beautiful, spreading ring of happy sharing, that, RevDeb. Thank you for including us in it.
actually OldCoastie, things ’snapped’ wide open in the 70s. we all got sidetracked in the 80s by AIDS. by the 90s, the wingers were attacking back bigtime with the manufactured “gay marriage” issue. That was not an initiative from the GLBT community. nevertheless, the battle has been joined and things are turning around …
PS: my first ‘radical’ activity was in one of the first ever Gay Pride Parades in 1970 … I’ve never stopped marching …
OldCoastie @ 37, RevDeb @ 41
The generational thing combined with the personal stories will drive this debate in the coming years. Consider this: more and more of today’s generation of high school students – the newest voters on the block – grew up with Pride parades in their town and gay/straight alliances in their high schools.
There’s a thought for a local roots project effort: getting these first-time eligible voters to register and get to the polls.
Peter…thanks for your 38
Gotta go …work is so disruptive at times.*g*
….ya’ll be good
Larry
OT– What solar system is Jeff Sessions FROM, anyhow? Waaay far from here . . .
Peterr: Great post! Another great movie is To Wong Foo Thanks For Everything, Julie Newmar – Patrick Swayze, Wesley Snipes, and John Leguizamo as transvestites. Fabulous!
I have friends and family who are gay/lesbian. 20-some years ago, one cousin took me with him when he went to tell our grandmother, for support. He was terrified, sure she’d either keel over and die, or else disown him. So, he tells her he’s gay. She nods and asks if he’d like butter for his mashed potatoes. Thinking she didn’t understand, he says, “Gramma, I’m a homosexual.” Gramma never bats an eye. She just replies, “Yeah, and you’ve got your mother’s eyes, too. So what?”
I pray for a day when every GLBT person is told, “So what?”
Lina: Absolutely!! It’s not about marriage, it’s about whether or not it’s okay to be gay. If it’s okay, then other things might be okay, and if those things are okay (gasp!) they might be wrong.
I do have a lot of hope for these kids…
Great post. And speaking of graphics, I think a single graphic of SpongeBob and Patrick in wedding gowns at the altar, with Tinky Winky, Bugs Bunny in drag, etc witnessing, would be a great device for humor and sly/gentle ridicule both.
(hey, *ilson referred to me as fdldyke! *giggle*)
And finally read Redd’s “shoes” post from yesterday – man, every word so powerful, beautiful, righteous — !!
Absolutely brilliant & fun to read.
Love “they can’t figure out who wears the pants in the family.”
Sex is silly? God forbid or so they think.
I’d feel a lot more sorry for theocons if they weren’t so dangerous. They want everyone else to be as miserable as they are.
Let’s hear it for leaving solemnity out of the list of sins. (Punaise, you’re off the hook.)
aww, shucks, Peterr – just the other day I was going on and on about gravitas. Of course, that was in the context of a verbal food fight in Latin.
great post. :~)
you know i always want to tell the theocons this: if you don’t want the gays going out and doing gay things, isn’t it better to have them at home married?
DUCK! punaise fixin’ to toss gravy!
Peterr, you are right. It’s about power, and always has been: the church over the state, the state over the church, the church over the individual, the state over the individual, one individual over another. The thing is, what makes this social construction of reality attractive to some people and not to others?
punaise –
Don’t let the gravitas get you down.
note to self: lighten up….
Great article, but your cats must be different than mine.
sofistic, were you around (night before last?) when we were oooing & wowin’ about John Dean’s new book? It lays out research over the last many decades that suggests conservatives are inordinately attracted to/needy for authority. Check those threads from Tuesday PM for much more.
Peterr,
Although I like the post, I’m a little skeptical. I haven’t had too much experience, but the proto-Theocons that I have met didn’t really have a sense of humor I could connect with. (One guy I knew was given tix to Les Mis, and was so horrified by its scandalous portrayal of the bar scene, he and his wife left.)
But that’s not really the point. I think there’s a big difference between true Theocons and lots of regular Americans who are a little more conservative than we find here, and are uncomfortable with gay marriage.
True Theocons are going to drink the Kool-Aid, listen to Dobson and Tony Perkins, and really see some kind of slippery slope from gay marriage to Total Moral Collapse. I don’t think we’ll convince them for a long time.
Lots of Catholics, though, are going to follow the Church on this issue, and they don’t really count as Theocons in my book … I don’t think the Church is trying to write itsel f into legal power in the way Dominionists are (though they may make useful allies in some fights, like over abortion).
They’re part of a larger group, methinks … conservative or traditional Americans who just aren’t comfortable with gay marriage. I think that over time, many members of this group will grow more accepting, and come round. Three reasons:
1.) Time is on our side. The younger generations are much more accepting of the idea than older ones.
2.) Eventually, people will have to admit to themselves that there is no rational, logical argument for discriminating against gays this way. All the reasons cited are usually disproven already within heterosexual marriage (i.e., childless couples, older couples marrying, infertile couples, high rates of divorce, etc.), and there’s no real grounds to this “threat” idea.
3.) Personalization. FDL has talked about this before. As more people realize that this problem affects real people–your neighbors, coworkers, family members–they’ll have a harder time rationalizing the discrimination. I think for every media campaign in support of gay marriage, they need to have real-life people who encounter real-life problems explain how this hurts their families. It’s easier to be against “teh gays” than it is to be against Melinda and Margaret and their kids.
I think “The Birdcage” and humor could be effective with the latter group, but not with true Theocons, who are immune to logic.
Sorry for the long post!
Lotus, yes I was around for that discussion, and I did see the interview with Dean on Olberman, but I still want to drill deeper than the authoritarian personality and get something even deeper than that, perhaps in how someone has insecurities at a young age that require comfort by having an authoritarian view of life. Don’t know how to frame the question, but I think it goes much deeper than authoritarianism.
sofistic @ 55
I think the attraction is twofold. First, most folks would rather have power than not have power. You could be talking about financial power, social power, physical strength, or any other way we think about power. Second, a lot of folks are attracted to social setups that provide a sense of order.
At times, I’m mystified by women in what I’ll call hyper-traditional marriages. The closest I can come to understanding the attraction these relationships hold for them is this: “OK, so I’m oppressed, but there’s an order to my world. Better the evil I know than the evil and chaos I don’t.”
Translate it to politics and away from marriage, and you’re talking about why folks who claim to hate intrusive government are willing to support the most monarchical executive this nation’s had since . . . well, mad King George III. They are willing to trade security for power, and will end up with neither.
Why do some folks go for this deal and others don’t? PT Barnum said it best: there’s one born every minute. We keep tryin’ to educate them though . . .
Maybe OT, but Terry Gross interviews Soros today on Fresh Air.
Neocons should be forced to listen to Lewis Black’s bits on gay marriage (as well as on everything else).
Speaking of which, his latest release (at Carnegie Hall; not his best) includes a four-minute bit on exactly how gays threaten America. Since Santorum won’t explain it, Lewis does. It boils down to a one-sentence punch line, but I can’t give it.
Longtime Python fan. Black does it for me today. Black moods, Black humor.
Not surprising that Python allowed for such widespread understanding via humor: Graham Chapman came out in the 1970s, and I believe his ‘longtime companion’, David Sherlock, is listed at least once in the Flying Circus credits as “Mrs. Graham Chapman.”
Haven’t found a link yet to back up that, but here’s Wikipedia:
Among Chapman’s best friends were Keith Moon of The Who, singer Harry Nilsson, and Beatle Ringo Starr. Chapman was an alcoholic in the 1970s, and he also kept his homosexuality a secret until the middle of that decade (although his fellow Pythons were already aware of his sexual orientation) when he famously came out on a chat show hosted by British jazz musician George Melly, thus becoming one of the first celebrities to do so. Several days later, he came out to a group of friends at a party held at his home in Belsize Park where he officially introduced them to his partner, David Sherlock. Afterwards, he became a vocal spokesman on gay rights.
I wish it were this simple, that it would be a matter of humor or the passing of time. Time will surely help as it trudges along, but look how much still must be done in any form of discrimination in this country; we still have suppression of voters by race, still have women denied equality in medical care and in professional lives, still have persons persecuted for their religion or culture.
There is something primal about “the other” that we are not addressing; humor can make the conscious, rational human realize that “the other” faces them in the mirror, but the subconscious and unconscious remain little fazed. Time does wear away at the conscious below decks, but it does not always do so before the bias buried there has passed on its memetic viral load to another generation or two.
We had a chance to change the unconscious and subconscious in this country immediately after 9/11; our minds and hearts were cracked wide open, available to suggestion, but unfortunately we had the wrong sorts of people manipulating us, increasing our buried fears of “the other” in our society instead of assuaging those fears. It is imperative that we have a national conversation about this process, about the kinds of people who lead and how they must lead if in the wake of another catastrophe we are open to deep change.
Katrina is an example of a catastrophe that did begin to change our buried fears; many on the right had their eyes opened after the long torpor following 9/11, realizing that the promise of safety was illusion. In the wake of another Katrina sure to come, will we be able to muster the power to change for the benefit of our society? Or will we drift along as we did in slow-moving shock post-Katrina?
I regret not doing this myself when the door opened to a family member’s mind last year: I should have asked them after they spouted about “the gay agenda” whether their same-sex neighbors they cared about so much were a bigger threat than the government’s failure to respond in the wake of Katrina or Medicare D.
way OT – Israel and Lebanon are really lobbing bombs and rockets at each other now
OT —
Barbaro fighting for his life
Derby winner develops potentially fatal disease
Updated: Thursday July 13, 2006 11:43AM
KENNETT SQUARE, Pa. (AP) — Kentucky Derby winner Barbaro was fighting for his life Thursday after developing a severe case of laminitis, a potentially fatal disease brought on by uneven weight distribution in the limbs.
Dean Richardson, the chief surgeon who has been treating Barbaro since the colt suffered catastrophic injuries in the Preakness on May 20, called the Derby winner’s chances of survival “poor.”
“I’d be lying if I said anything other than poor,” Richardson said Thursday at a news conference at the University of Pennsylvania’s New Bolton Center. “As long as the horse is not suffering, we’re going to continue to try (to save him).
. . .
Respectful Dissent @ 60
Great comments! Let me take one thing you said and run with it a bit more.
The Catholic church in the US has trouble holding firm to the party line from Rome, precisely because of the third reason you cite. Too many good mass-attending Catholics know too many gay organists, choir directors, and other relatively visible leaders in the church who are good and faithful Catholics themselves. These otherwise conservative folks are not able to accept the Vatican’s equating children raised in a gay or lesbian household with children who are raped and abused. Personalization will trump demonization like this, and most RC priests I know are unwilling to go down the road the Vatican has laid out on this issue. I’m not saying they’re going to preside at gay unions in violation of the church’s official position, but they’re not going to lead the fight against them either.
OT too, if interested there is a chat going on with Michael Young live from Beirut.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00688.html
A comedian named Paul Nardizzi has a very funny bit on gay marriage.
“A lot of talk about gay marriage. I have to say, I have four sons and I am concerned about it. If gay weddings are legalized there is a chance that I will have to pay for a wedding.”
-GSD
S A V E
M A R R I A G E
B A N
D I V O R C E
*ilson said:
“That was not an initiative from the GLBT community. nevertheless, the battle has been joined and things are turning around”
Israel and Lebanon are really lobbing bombs and rockets at each other now
Lebanon is not lobbing anything at anybody — it is getting lobbed by a modern Navy and Air Force and Artillery of Israel. Yes, a few Hezbollah militants are shooting homemade rockets into Israel but the State of Israel is attacking targets all over the territory of Lebanon … kinda like Goliath dropping boulders on lil David …
Once upon a time, a marriage between a Swedish Lutheran and a Norwegian Lutheran was a great source of scandal. Once upon a time, the marriage between a Catholic and a Methodist would have caused an uproar in the community. Once upon a time, the marriage of an African-American to a European-American would be viewed as a threat to children and society.
The funny thing about social norms is that they’re always in flux, and always have been. Yet, at any given moment, they’re perceived as eternal and inviolable.
A hundred years ago, people would talk if an unmarried man and woman had a meal together. Today, unmarried men and women go away to weeklong business conferences and nobody blinks an eye. As recently as thirty years ago, “living in sin” with a POSSLQ could get you fired. Now it’s pretty ho-hum. Today, an unmarried man gets caught with Viagra and even though he’s a raving conservative, nobody cares.
The times ARE a-changing. It may not be apparent in the day-to-day, but taking a longer view – we are winning bigtime, and the goopers are losing, on every single issue we care about. The tide of history is on our side. We won’t win every battle, and over the last half dozen years, yes, we’ve suffered more than a few setbacks. But the trend is our friend. Stepping back for a moment and looking at the longer view is a wonderfully energizing exercise.
I’ve felt for some time that part of what’s been going on with the right wing in this country is … panic. Look at the tools and messages that are used to whip them into a frenzy. Deep down, they know they’re losing. They know in their gut that this is their last stand, their last chance. This is their Alamo. Do or die. That’s why the Karl Roves of this world don’t care if they tear the country apart. Deep down they know that’s the only way they have any chance to hang on to anything. Otherwise, they’ll lose it all.
And they are losing it all. It may not be apparent in the short term, but it’s true and don’t you forget it. They’re trying to hold back the tide, and that just don’t work.
Yes, we have to fight every battle, and fight hard. But we are winning this war. Don’t doubt it for a second.
Lebanon may only be using bottle rockets, but it doesn’t seem like Israel needs much of an excuse…
I thought that Snagglepuss came out pubicly before the Monty Python dude. Maybe I am mistaken.
-GSD
“So, have you heard any great jokes lately?”
“The Bush administration renewed its call for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. So I guess they feel the only time that guys should be on top of each other naked is in an Iraqi prison.” —Jay Leno
“The anti-gay marriage amendment: The president endorsed it. The Senate discussed it. I’m pretty sure Jerry Falwell masturbated to it.” –Jon Stewart
“Big vote in the Senate yesterday. They voted down the gay marriage ban. … It was a very close vote. 43 voted ‘yea.’ 44 voted ‘nay.’ And 3 voted ‘fabulous.’” –David Letterman
“As you know, President Bush is calling for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, or as President Bush calls it, ‘Leave That Fellas Behind.’” –Jay Leno
“A Senate committee on Thursday approved a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage, apparently forgetting that our forefathers wore wigs and satin Capri pants.” –Tina Fey
Great post, Peterr.
Fine post, Peterr
RevDeb — don’t know whether you saw this a.m. Metro, Boston version,. . .
http://boston.metro.us/
. . . but the front page had an “interesting” picture related to the demonstrations in front of the Ma. Capitol building. Unfortunately, they’ve replace it, as you see in the link.
IIRC, the original picture showed a young woman protester, who was apparently opposed to same-sex marriage. She was wearing a campaign-style button that had several words, such as Honor Marriage, Man Woman, with little guy/girl icons, etc. Nothing unusual about that.
But what was intersting was the fact that she was wearing a Catholic nun’s habit. Other people on the “T” who were looking at the same picture were all smiling and pointing out the incongruity. Peterr’s right about the humor, even when it’s unintended.
Rayne @ 66
It certainly isn’t simple, nor a question of just finding the right best joke. But humor – laughing with, not laughing at – is a way of giving “the other” a face, and can be a beginning to some of the tough conversations we need to be having.
We still have prejudice, hatred, and violence – you’re right. But we also have more and more laws and policies that try to protect and defend the oppressed than we’ve had in the past.
Peter, thank you for the salute to Del and Phyllis, pioneers in our community for longer than I’ve been alive.
My fiance and I have been engaged since the heady Winter of Love our mayor started years ago. We got engaged on Friday the Thirteenth of February, me down on one knee and everything! Then the court said we couldn’t marry. So, like heterosexual Oscar-winner Charlize Theron, we’re betrothed, and waiting for the state to legitimize our union. Limbo!
The humor of our waiting lawfully for the law to catch up is sometimes eclipsed when I publicly refer to the man I adore as “my fiance.” Folks hereabouts then ask whether we’ve set a date. I have to respond — as does Charlize — that we’ll marry when all Californians can.
Phil Angelides promises to sign my Assemblyman Mark Leno’s bill legalizing our nuptials.
Californians, please talk to a neighbor today about Phil. The Terminator must be Terminated from his job.
=========
Had Enough?
=========
PS See how handy this slogan is?
Peterr,
I get your points, but I think that you miss the bigger issue. Why is it okay for us to deny rights to one group of citizens? As you say, marriage is a secular thing.
Even the thread buys into the frame of “gay marriage”. It is a pernicious frame because by saying those two words together, you are instantly inflaming those that feel most threatened.
What we should be saying to our Theocon associates is: “Do you think it is okay to take away rights from someone, just because we don’t like their behavior? What if they did not like your religion and were the majority, is it okay for them to say that you were not going to be allowed to make any kind of business contract, because it is felt that Evangelicals will not deal fairly with those that do not share their beliefs, would that be okay?”
This gets at the heart of the issue. We are denying citizens of their rights because a majority thinks that what they do in their personal life is icky. We can not allow that to happen.
One of the best things that democracy does is protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If one citizens rights are abridged by the majority, then we all are at risk. Sure, right now the Religious Right is ascendant, but that never lasts. They could be the ones fighting for the same treatment as other citizens, some time down the road.
*ilson said:
“That was not an initiative from the GLBT community. nevertheless, the battle has been joined and things are turning around”
Exactly.
Back in the late 80s a group of gay friends and I sat around talking about marriage. Most of us were opposed to gay “marriage”, purely on the grounds that it was a weird, anachronistic method of transferring property. I was in favor of it being legal for those that wanted it however, just as a civil rights issue. Only one of our crew wanted to officially “marry” his partner someday. None of us seriously imagined that it would ever be legalized before we were all in our 80s (we were in our 20s then).
Wingnuttia has brought this issue to the fore as a base rallying tactic, and it has come back to bite them on the ass.
I’m no longer opposed to getting married myself personally, but I certainly can’t picture myself poring over the pages of “Bride” magazine lol.
As for humor, one of the better comments I have ever seen was here:
If you really want people of the same gender to stop having sex
let them marry.
Jim Preston I’ve said it before and I guess I’ll be saying it untilI’m blue in the face and beyond
MARRIAGE IS A CONTRACT WITH THE STATE! PERIOD! CHURCHES, RELIGIONS OF EVERY STRIP AND ELVIS IMPERSONATORS IN VEGAS CAN PERFORM MARRIAGES IF THEY’RE DULY LICENSED BY THE STATE TO DO SO. PERIOD!
JoHo (bringing up the rear, due to Warner’s first here, first speechify rule) blathering at the JAGs.
Peterr @ 69 (oohh, I wanna be sophmoric but I’ll resist):
Thanks for that insight about American Catholics unwilling to go to bat against this fight.
Do you remember the ABC reality series that didn’t air, about a conservative neighborhood getting to decide which family got to move into the empty house? The punchline was that in the end, they chose the gay couple with young children, and one of the neighbors was so profoundly changed in outlook that he reconciled with the gay son he had thrown out years before.
Don’t remember seeing it on TV? That’s because Dobson got it dropped, because he threatened to withold support for Narnia. I think he recognized that this program may have had a huge impact on the discourse.
Much as I hate reality TV, and the premise of that show, I have to admit that it’s a fascinating coda. I think these stories will resonate with Americans, who fundamentally value fairness. But as Rayne @ 66 points out, it won’t happen without people taking a stand! (which is why the establishment Democrats’ willingness to throw gays under the bus bothers me)
“Wingnuttia has brought this issue to the fore as a base rallying tactic, and it has come back to bite them on the ass.”
this is the kind of irony that I love
OT– hojo says that the American people should be proud that we are righing our mistakes and the rest of the world should give us credit.
invokes the Declaration of Independence… radical Islamic terrorists… the UCMJ has too many rights.
OT.
Listening to WBZ last night. Note to readers-WBZ AM 1030 talk radio with Boston radio jocks. A few independants a few Dems and Republicans, but none of the baiting, yelling, and pandering to the lowest common denominator–a nice antidote to Hannity, Savage and Limp-baugh..WBZ can be heard in about 40 some states at night.
I don’t work for WBZ, just giving a nod to a decent station.
Anyhow, apparently, in overwhelmingly Democratic Massachusetts that has had GOP Governors for 15 years–the one big authority that was a patronage post for the GOP Governors was the Mass Turnpike Authority. The MTA was in charge of the ‘Big Dig’ that is now falling apart after 15 billion dollars worth of work from Bechtel.
So, in overwhelmingly Democratic Mass. the one big clusterfuck boondoggle that is now killing citizens was overseen by the GOP.
Big surprise heh.
-GSD
HoJo’s voice just drives me nuts… glad he’s done now
sorta OfT:
An article in today’s WaPo on a transgender scientist’s personal sense of how women are treated differently than men in his field. He’s “worn the shoes” (to use CHS’s term) of both men and women. There’s a lot of review of Summers et al, but I think the article’s worth your attention.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01883.html
OT, and really sorry for the blogwhore.
I have been waiting for another of peterr’s most excellent post’s as I wanted to point him to a very small blog that I stumbled upon. I like the attitude and comments of the author and thought a little encouragement would help ‘em’ feel like they are not posting to deafening silence.
http://notinmybible.blogspot.com/
I love the line attached to the epilogue of ‘Song of Bernadette’.
This goes to the heart of interpreting matters of morality, whether religious or secular (there really is no difference, secular morality is as faith based as traditional ‘religious’ morality, the only thing that differs are the articles of faith)
When you are talking about morality, people believe certain actions or lifestyles are morally acceptable or unacceptable. Those beliefs are often based on how that person chooses to live their life, beliefs which are articulated in hindsight.
No argument, or evidence are going to sway a person, towards or away from acceptance of alternative lifestyle choices, since belief is a matter of how a person links together their interpretation of how they choose to live their lives, and what beliefs reinforce those choices.
Morality is about behavior, not religion. Religion, is an anglicized word for for binding, as in binding things together. Religio literally means ‘chain’ or links, as in what links this thing, or idea to that thing or idea. Religion plainly put is a ‘word’ describing the process by which people link their assorted beliefs together.
Morality is as inherent to humans as story telling, a form of social understanding whereby each generation forms a set of ‘trial and error beliefs’ about what ‘behavior’ is conducive to the ‘health of society’. Taboo’s are a precise example of this kind of moral formation.
There are common ‘universal’ taboos that form the basis of ‘natural law’, don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t cheat, don’t lie, etc., since each of these behaviors obervably cause problems for the society in which the a perpetrator lives, and those whose lives are affected by said ‘perpetrator’.
These taboos form however as a result of the physical realities of human life and biological necessity. The religious morality, or modern morality is a reflection of the lifestyles of the age. Whatever lifestyle leads more towards survival inevitably succeeds.
It’s not a question of superior reasoning, just simple stupid biology, and the sad history and semantics of human ’social’ accounting.
David: under separation of church and state, why is a “marriage ceremony” even required for a civil marriage union? As long as the couple signs the requisite contractual paperwork, why is a 3rd party necessary at all ? If they want to hire Peterr to make a big public whoop-dee-doo about it — fine ! but it shouldnt be necessary …
Completely OT, but I laughed at this compilation of cuteoverload-ness. Scroll down to the black-and-white kittens, then play the video….
http://www.cuteoverload.com/
scarecrow, 78
Didn’t see the Metro. I did keep looking at the nuns floating around the capitol yesterday and didn’t see one button on anyone. I really looked for one too. If they were there stumping against gay marriage, they did it on the qt. They didn’t hang around or appear with the antis across the street. That is what was so curious. Anyway, most of the “religious” (nuns) I’ve known have been lesbians and they don’t wear habits, haven’t for years and years.
Respectful Dissent @ 87
Let’s just chalk up comment #69 to “God’s own considerable sense of humor” as Rasmussen called it, and leave it at that . . .
Here’s a link to the NYT story about that reality series you referred to, entitled Television Cul-de-Sac Mystery: Why Was Reality Show Killed?
Quite the story. It’s a shame it never got aired.
Specter presser @ 12:45 (CNN)
Specter presser – might be interesting – remember, he got summoned to the WH yesterday (?)
David E., Just because you shout it often doesn’t necessarily make it so — usually, in my experuience, the opposite.
A reasonable alternative understanding is that “marriage” is actually a religious thing and what the State grants or does not grant (or ends at divorce) is specific policy based, primarily contractual rights (like co-signing on property and health care benefits). I could go on and on about this, but just one illustration. Just because the State grants a dissolution of the contractual aspects of “marriage” does not mean that every church recognizes that dissolution. Of course, the Catholic Church does not recognize State-sponsored divorce at all and requires Church sponspored annullment before any future marriage in the Chuurch sense can happen. So, another possibility is to leave all marriage to the religions and just get the State involved in the contractual aspects — lik ethey do in most European countries (and certainly in socialist/communist” states like Sweden or Cuba)
So, I think you are wrong — and see how I did that without capitals and bolding?
*ilson asks:
David: under separation of church and state, why is a “marriage ceremony” even required for a civil marriage union? As long as the couple signs the requisite contractual paperwork, why is a 3rd party necessary at all ? If they want to hire Peterr to make a big public whoop-dee-doo about it — fine ! but it shouldnt be necessary …
I’m not Ehrenstein (obviously) but I think the government has an interest only insofar as “marriage” is a civil contract.
At most, the government should issue permission to marry then whoever can take that to the local church or synagogue or mosque or county courthouse or whatever.
.
hmm, Specter has commercial interuptus…
TeddySanFran @ 92
I saw that story today, too, and given that my wife is a woman scientist, I found it very interesting, to say the least. The original Nature article is behind a firewall, and I’ve asked her to get a copy of it for me when she gets time.
*ilson at 95 — just so.
Looks like the new tanker of Kool-Aid has arrived in DC just in time for the “Great Re-delusion” of the Republicans.
Hastert is talking about increasing his majority.
http://www.hillnews.com/thehil…..winds.html
-GSD
I guess my real problem with gay marriage is: think of the children. The GAY children! I grew up when none of this was talked about, and I was lonely and without resources. GAY kids nowadays — in enlightened places like SF — have resources: SGAs in school, after-school programs in The Castro, etc. In the category of “getting there” we’re doing as right as we can by our GAY youth.
But what about the GAY children raised where the GAY hatred, expressed in church or at the ballot box, is at a full boil? Growing up, I knew something was different, and it eventually washed over me what it was, but I really worry about GAY kids raised where the hate is so strong, so pervasive, talked about and fulminated against every Sunday.
How must those GAY kids feel, knowing what’s inside them and hearing how their immediate world sees them? Facing no choice whatsoever, they must reconcile this cognitive and emotional dissonance in an entirely negative environment.
Not healthy for children and other living things….
Immanentize: you could have the Pope conduct your wedding in the USA but without that scrap of paper from the county clerk, your kids are bastards. In the USA, the wedding license is what makes the system work, not the incense, candles and organ music …
Darkblack, maybe your best! One of these days we must do a Best of Darkblack.
oh, oh, oh, yes: Best of darkblack, I vote YES.
*ilson, 108, I agree completely (except for the bastards part because there really is no such status recognized at law in the United States — at least since the 14th Amendment). The problem is that two things with very different purposes (Church = your soul; State = property) just happen to be called the same thing: Marriage. They are not the same anymore than field hockey and hockey are the same sport (or football and futbal).
DarkBlack is great – no doubt – but I can’t help but feel slighted.
.
imm @ 101
Just to be clear about one thing: an annulment is not merely a “Catholic divorce.” It’s a statement that the original marriage was (theologically speaking) “defective” and thus the two parties were never officially married in the first place. The reasons for granting an annulment vary, but examples are that the marriage was coerced or that it was never consummated. Most of the reasons for granting a secular divorce, like “irreconcilable differences” are not grounds for having the marriage annulled by the Catholic church.
Dr. Richardson on poor Barbaro:
More at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07…..ted=print.
new thread, everyone
Looks like Joe Wilson is none too pleased with a certain columnist . . .
new thread (Joe Wilson)
Egregious at 29C: Wonderful news! Thanks for sharing it.
Peterr, great post thanks for doing it. I have read many here saying “theo-cons have no sense of humor”. Beyond that I think theocons for the most part are mentally ill. I don’t think it’s really possible to talk to them about the Gay issue in any form. Logic,reason, commpassion, empathy all seem absent in them in regards to this single issue. They become irrational and incredibly defensive. I think their pathological dependence on their ‘religion’ highlights some childhood trauma or personality disorder. I think when talking to theocons about Gays the best thing to do is change the subject and agree to disagree. I believe looking for even common ground in this area is futile and counter-productive. I think there are areas in which we can find common ground, common good, but not here. I equate it with trying to talk to someone with schizophrenia who is off their meds. Strong opinion, I know, but my opinion.
Thanks again for tackling this difficult issue.
I studied Canon Law a number of years ago, and found on the topic of marriage this interesting bit.
Excerpted from http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM
emphasis mine, …since ‘acts of will’ carry special significance in the parlance of love and philosophical understanding.
Marriage is in essence the exchange of matrimonial consent, ie, the mutual exchange of promising to ‘be yours forever’. In the understanding of marriage as a covenant (read contract but more personal) this is ‘where the marriage happens’.
The wedding however is the community in which the couple lives witnessing to the marriage, ie the families and friends (in the modern context, the state), putting their seal of approval on the marriage.
The difference between a contract, and a covenant is semantically a question of how personal or impersonal the ‘promise’. Both contract and covenant share linguistic roots, but the a contract involves a more impersonal view of a promise to exchange goods or services, where a covenant is a personal promise that carries more spiritual and emotive connotations.
In terms of secular perspectives marriage is often discussed as a ‘contract’, in traditional terms a covenant. In terms of the ‘exchange of consent’ the notion of the promise as a covenant resonates more.
The secular state however for reasons of semantic simplicity, views and treats marriage as a contract, lacking the personal apparatus (by definition the state lacks the personhood, and personal ‘interface’).
I’m certain the JW thread will be great, Peterr, but hard to top this one for stirring. Thank you again.
Peterr @ 98 … I wonder if there could be a letter-writing campaign asking ABC to release the series on DVD at least.
(Or, bwah hah hah, maybe it’ll show up on YouTube or as a bit torrent!)
It could be a great way to broach the subject with folks, just like “The Birdcage.” We could even (bwah hah hah!) loan it to people without even broaching the topic, and just let TV work its magic.
You mean that Norwegian Lutherans can now marry Swedish Lutherans? When did that happen and is it legal in Minnsota?
OT re: specter,
I knew something was about to happen. The resurrection of the Haynes nomination must have been part of this negotiation. Specter has gotten the administration to accept that the FISA court will do some kind of (optional) oversight on the NSA program. The devil is in the details, of course, and there is little doubt in my mind that Addington and Rove have bamboozled Specter somehow. A couple of issues here are:
The FISA court oversight of the NSA program is the “Specter Solution”, which is different from L. Graham’s proposal. So, does Graham go along with the Haynes nomination? Specter? The Specter/FISA solution is constitutionally flawed, IMHO, in the first place, since it really doesn’t protect us from “search without warrant”. There is more to all this than meets the eye, still. I promise you that there is still some weird shit going on between the Intelligence and Judiciary comms. and the WHite House.
sorry for the long off-topic post.
Does anybody know why Ehrenstein was yelling at me? That was kinda weird.
I agree with curiousgeorge that the right wing are panicky. Why else would they scream & scream about the “liberal” media, no one lets the poor babies answer the libruls (like sweet Ann), liberals are hate-filled (now that’s hilarious) and blah, blah, blah even though they have dibs on almost the entire soapbox market. Their philosphy is, “Nobody loves me, everybody (else) hates me, I’m gonna make them eat worms.”
sophist @ 118
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! Indeed!
Then again, I shouldn’t be surprised to find a canon lawyer at FDL (or at least someone who dabbled in canon law). With a handle like yours, would it be a safe assumption to surmise that there’s a Jesuit influence somewhere?
Dear Peterr,
Thank you so much for another thoughtful and hopeful post.
Honestly, can I borrow you for awhile? I have tried to speak with my Theocon Lutheran in-laws and they are impossible to reach. No sense of humor, no sense of logic, or fairness. It’s hard to believe that you’re both Lutherans. But I guess it’s like comparing a chiuaua to a mastif.
On humor, have you ever seen any of the CBC ’s production, This Hour has 22 Minutes? I’d post a link but still can’t get that to work. If you have dial up it might be tough. I have dial up at home too, I watch at my office.
If you go to www dot cbc dot ca slash 22minutes – then go to video vault and scroll down to january 28, 2005 and select conservative ad #1 -there you will find humor and the absurdity of why gay marriage is a threat.
Thanks again Peterr !
Deep in EPUland, I just wanted to point out that the natural law view of marriage that it is primarily for procreation is not Christian but comes from Aristotle and was imported into Christian doctrine by the scholastic philosppher and theologian Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century.
Hope @ 117
I certainly know some TheoCons who fit your description, but I know others that don’t. These are the ones I think are reachable, though it damn sure won’t be easy.
Most of the ones I’ve labelled as reachable are folks who’ve been surprised when someone they otherwise approve of comes out to them. “How do I reconcile what I think of gays in general – nasty, bad folks – with what I think of this person in particular – a great friend/family member/neighbor/coworker/etc. That kind of dissonance will drive a religiously conservative person with a heart nuts, all right – and I’d like to help them come to terms with their friend.
And there’s nothing wrong with strong opinions. I’ve got a number of fairly strong opinions myself. ;)
Sausan at 125
See my post at 117
I’ve enjoyed it today, everyone! Thanks for the comments, and if you’ve got more to add, I’ll be back later to check them out.
And Susan @ 125, I’ve got some relatives like that myself . . . hang in there.
“Just because the State grants a dissolution of the contractual aspects of “marriage” does not mean that every church recognizes that dissolution. “
That thrilling piece of information, plus a $1.25, can get you a crosstown bus ride in Los Angeles.
What the Catholics, Jews, Baptists, Mormons, Muslims of followers of the Church of Flying Spaghetti Monster “rregognize” doesn’t mean shit because they’re not the ones granting the over 1000 rights of marriage,and they’re not the ones who perform divorces.
Only the state does that.
Marraige began as ameans of joining fortunes, principlallyas regards land,livestock and goods and serveices — the woman was thrown in as a perk.
The Church, being the bunch of pushy busibodies they are, moved in to perform a ceremony. But the ceremony it — or the Elvis imprsonators — perform DOESN’T MEAN SHIT!!!!
You’re married when you sign the contract with the state.
PERIOD!
I don’t know how long I’m going to have to bitch-slap you idiots about this.
My arm has gotten tired whipping you.
(500 Gay Jeopardy bonus points if you can guess where that last line is from.)
I am a female by birth (but I am “gender dysphoric” as they say) in a life-partnership with a woman, we have 2 young girls my partner birthed and I adopted.
Does this qualify me to speak with authority on this?
Wonderful post.
I know that terrible things happen to gay people everyday and that the fight must continue. But I agree 100% that we are experiencing the backlash that comes with trying to hold onto the last throws of this sort of discrimination.
There are too many of us who are out — it is difficult for most people to reconcile liking the gay neighbors or their gay co-worker with hating the gays.
I live in Atlanta, GA, a fairly gay-friendly city in the middle of the bible belt. Things are really pretty easy for me and my family, and I often forget that my family is actually living on the cutting edge of social change.
Sure there are under-tones of disapproval from some people, but generally we are “accepted” and even respected.
Judging by signs and bumper stickers, our neighbors are pretty conservative. It took a few summers to get the other families to accept us down at the neighborhood pool, but we just kept showing up with our great kids, and now everyone is friendly — we are getting to know people and now they know us.
As our kids grow up with these other kids at the pool, both the children and their parents will know a gay family that is really solid… nothing like the scary image they had of gay families before they knew us.
Does this take time? You bet. I just thank God that all those other gay people had the courage to come out in the 1970’s and 80’s, they paved the way for me and my family. We never have to go back, we continue to move forward.
“the arc of time is long but bends toward justice”
sophist — that very reading of canon law is what created the Catholic Church’s insistance on a priest sanctified ceremony. During the early middle ages (if I took the time I could find the exact dates), no church ceremony was required — as you said marrige was simply a proclamation of mutual will. This created some amazing property disputes as some fiesty young women pledged their intent and will to “unsuitable” young men; creating huge property/inheritance problems. The offspring of such marriages had to be recognized as legitimate heirs, etc. Also, men who expressed their will to bind often tried to get out of it when it became inconvenient (i.e. pregnancy appeared)
So, the Church came up with the solution — mutual will could only be “tested” if there was a public scramental ceremony. This was good for the land owners and good for the churches because, those ceremonies aren’t free!
All those years teaching at a Catholic University and this is what I remember? Also, somehwere in the basement I have the popish Catholic encyclopedia (at least a six foot shelf) in case I ever want to check this stuff or find out what Our Lady of Perpetual Torture was famous for.
Thanks
I take the morning off FDL to get some work done, and you publish such a good entry!!!
Not fair!
All you folks down there need to remember that this fight comes out of the AEI’s religious subsidiary, the Institute for Religion and Democracy, or IRD.
This fight is the Armageddon-like struggle for legitimacy. Is equality and freedom what America is truly about? If so, the consequences for the right are all bad.
So they need to stop the march toward equality by making it anti-God.
Essential reading can be found at the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, DC ’s web site, in a report called “Follow the Money”.
http://www.edow.org/follow/
Never think that this is really about gayness or about marriage. It’s about power and legitimacy and money.
Peterr at 127
I think the theocons you can reach fall into two catagories: not really theocons, people who put that dress on to have a platform (like the shrub) or people that have been so insulated from the ‘real world’ that they don’t know any better. I think you can reach those people. But the rest of them are just plain nuts, not just wingnuts, but I meant it when I said it, mentally ill.
Everyone -
#19 has it right. While Peterr’s arguments are sound, they miss the point. It’s really not about domination in marriage, which is a separate issue. It’s about homosexuality. The “theocon” reading of the Bible says it’s wrong. So any step to “normalize” it, to say as a society we accept it, is to say that the behavior is condoned, instead of condemned.
At a fundamental level, it’s no different than abortion. If one views the fetus as a human being, then abortion is murder. Murder is immoral. Opposing abortion is opposing murder. Most of society would agree that opposing murder is a good thing. I’m not arguing here either for this position, or that it’s the best strategy to eliminate abortions, but simply pointing out how straightforward the viewpoint is, and that certain arguments or approaches toward dialog won’t work.
So… homosexuality is immoral, it says so in the Bible. That viewpoint requires drawing a line in the sand to oppose whatever encourages (whether perceived or real) a homosexual lifestyle, whatever normalizes it.
Perhaps Peterr has had some success with his suggestions, but I don’t see how they can break through the underlying viewpoint. Personally, I think the best chance one has of breaking through is to move the dialog into the idea of the state interfering in marriage — separating the legal (civil unions for everyone) from the sacred (marriage sanctioned by religious institutions).
David E. Please “Bitch Slap” me again you motherfucking stupid shit abusive asshole.
Does that get the attention of the moderators?
And furthermore –
lina at 19 is right,I agree. And I agree with jwhook at 136.
I think the only way to have actual resolve around this issue is to frame it as the Human Rights issue that it is. There are still plenty of racists in this country in spite of the laws that protect from discrimination, and we have come to ’see’ racists as ’sick and twisted’ partly because the framework of protection is instutionalized in thse civil rights laws. So we must keep Gay Rights in the realm of Civil Rights and leave religion out of it.
But we can’t “leave religion out of it.” And that goes for things well beyond gay marriage. Currently religion is destroying the world. Religion is purveyor of wholesale death and destruction in ways The Crusades and The Spanish Inquisition could only dream of.
Hope Springs @ 139
You’re right, it has to be framed as a Human Rights issue.
I worked on the Maine Won’t Discriminate Campaign last fall. We spoke with tons of people and the opposing view was always “but they don’t deserve special rights”.
Over and over again we had to explain that they were not special rights but equal and the same rights that we all have but rights that were upheld and protected by the law. It turned out to be a persuasive argument.
But to frame it as an equal rights issue is to take on religion — which is all about inequality.
It is the sincere hope of everyone that rationality will prevail. But it cannot do so when religion (the embodiment of the irrational) is in charge.
David E
Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Religion IS a framework, and Gay Rights like Civil Rights must be removed from the framework of religion. I believe the best strategy is to reframe the issue, make it, rightly, a separation of church and state issue. Don’t be lulled or bullied into an argument on this topic as a ‘religious issue’. Let the ‘church’ have its own SEPARATE opinion, and let the STATE have its, never the twain shall meet.
David E at 142
Not EQUAL rights CIVIL rights. An important distinction.
I’m not going to get into a shouting match with David E., but I think that the separation of church and state is a strong argument in favor of my original position. My position, which I may not have expressed clearly, was that the state, being only a civil body, only has the power to sanction a civil union. To deny this civil right to a class of citizen because of their sexual orientation is, by definition, a prejudicial denial of civil rights. It’s wrong, it’s unconstitutional, and they shouldn’t do it. Now please don’t hit me, OK?
Susan at 141
I agree with you fully. The “special rights” nonsense is a theocon ‘talking point’not based in reality. Bottom line is, if you don’t believe in Gay marriage, then don’t marry a Gay. And mind your own business.
HSAT 143 and 144 — both points excellent, on the nose. The people in the US are sort of preconditioned to think in equal protection and due process rights which are actually amazingly limited, the ideas embodied by social, civil, and human rights are capable of transcending some of the formal limitations of “equal” rights.
ditto Jim Preston. That was likewise my point. So, what you said, Jim, except for the hitting part, ’cause I like to please people and David seems to like to be abusive.
HOPE WINS AT GAY JEOPARDY!!!
“I’m not going to get into a shouting match with David E., but I think that the separation of church and state is a strong argument in favor of my original position.”
No need for that, beacuse Marriage is the Very Embodiment of the Separation Between Chruch and State.
Think about it for a minute, won’t you?
Or let me put it another way with my favorite question for those fools who think the church owns marriage.
Can Athiests marry?
30 seconds.
me talking to me (not the screename, just me ACTUALLY talking to me…)
I do agree with Jim P at 145. The more religion is allowed to be the framework for what is a Human Rights, Civil(ity) Rights issue, the more ground lost and divide widened.
Keep reframing the argument. Over and over and over and over…
They do seem to respond to the technique of “say it enough times and it becomes the truth” philosophy.
David E
What did I win Johnny?
Childsplay m’dear, childsplay.
David…read my profile, that says it all.
You’ve won High Tea with Jack Larson
All this talk of child-rearing being the basis of marriage makes my head hurt. Could some straight, married woman please share with us how she feels about the “fact” that her husband married her because she had good teeth, a strong back and apparently good birthing hips (to her husband, she was the best heifer on the lot!!). After we hear from them, I’ll see if my head hurts any less.
This topic is so loaded and hetrosexuals don’t really deal with it much as they have no personal stake in it. Certainly there are exceptions to this, and as Progressives that happen to be hetrosexual we trend toward ‘what is right’ i.e., Civil Rights for All. But generally speaking unless one has a PERSONAL stake in it, it tends to fall off the radar screen.
The Women’s Movement in the 70’s is a good example. Started primarily by middle class white women, when the going got tough in certain arenas Lesbian rights were put on the back burner. Lesbians continued in the ‘movement’ nonetheless. Advocating for such things as free and available birth control, even though they had no personal stake in that particular issue. Lesbians became “second-class, second-class citizens”. All the while trying to cultivate patience that the women’s movement would eventually get to the issues that comcerned Lesbians. Thus, ultimately the birth of the Gay Rights Movement.
The conclusion I reach is that in the end the only people that will take Gay Rights into its proper, rightly place of civility and fairness is Gays. Progessive Straights can be the back-up singers but like the race issue movement, it has to be the people that are most affected who lead the charge to legal (not special) rights.
If anyone needs me, I’ll be over there —->
tuning up…
I think the conversation would move quicker if one used “Same Gender Marriage” instead of Same Sex Marriage”.
I think for many of the Religious Zealots and NeoCons.. there IS NO sex in marraige, so the whole idea is wrong to begin with….
Still no answer to the question I raised at #149 ?
A friend of mine is mayor of a medium-sized bedroom community. Gay marriage came up in one of his news conferences:
Q: Do you think gay marriage should be allowed?
A: Allowed? I think it should be *mandatory*. Look, all this time, gay people have been getting away with guilt-free, commitment-free sex. They should have to suffer like the rest of us.
The topic hasn’t come up again.
BRAVO.
Soooooo incredibly tired of FEAR making people not question what they believe.
EVEN if a majority do belive homosexuality is a sin – let’s hope they show their intelligence by also practicing “Let those without sin cast the first stone”.
Thanks for humoring us all!
David E. ,
It seems that we are talking past one another, so I’ll drop it. I have tried to make myself clear, but I don’t understand what point it is you are trying to make. Feel free to clarify, but I won’t be responding to any digressions about what an idiot I am. As a married man, with teenage kids, I can always get that stuff at home.
I also await an answer to #149
That just take all the air out of the religious arguement. Well done David. And your site is fabu. I didn’t even skip the intro.
Did you check my profile?
Few things show the willingness of the right to fracture all rules of logic and fair play in the name of self-interest than the debate on gay marriage. On the one hand, Alan Keyes and folks of his ilk condemn homosexuality as “selfish hedonism” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5897569/ and therefore a “threat to marriage”, and on the other, condemn persons who pledge themselves to each other, forgoing “selfish hedonism” in favor of fidelity a “threat to marriage”.
I hold the deeply cynical politicians who know that these two beliefs contradict each other in contempt, but thinking about the incredulously gullible people whose fears are preyed upon by those politicians (including clerical politicians) I can do little more than shake my head, shrug my shoulders and roll my eyes. To be so terribly terribly afraid of gay little us. What a pitiful way to live.
Merci, Hope! Like your site too.
Meanwhile Here’s why heterosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
Now THAT was funny, Jim Preston at 160
Jim I can’t speak for David but I think his point is simply more about religion and what he feels are its ’shortcomings’ to phrase it diplomatically. I don’t think you are “talking past one another”. I think you’re talking about the same thing from different perspectives. I agree with you both and see no actual conflict. That ‘religion’ is in this particular debate AT ALL is the actual problem.
KEEP REFRAMING THE ARGUMENT.
I expect a lot of the regular readers here are also regular readers of James Wolcott… but just in case you missed it, this is worth a guffaw or several. http://jameswolcott.com/archiv…..heir_h.php
Part of the point I’m trying to make Jim is emobdied in Maya Keyes — Alan’s lesbian daughter who hopes to marry the woman she loves some day.
To her father she’s nothing more than a “selfish hedonist.”
What, no love for Terry Jones or the late Graham Chapman?
(Yeah, I know Gilliam was an official Python as well, and he’s a genius in his own right. I admire him as a filmmaker, and his animations are brilliant. But if there’s a “…and the other guy” in Python, it’s Gilliam hands down.)
Now I know you’re kidding…As if MJ is straight, puleez, Miss Thing is so gay he’s up his own ass.
Alan Keyes embodies perfectly my argument about the theocons being mentally ill…
Well you I and everyone with an ounce of sense knowns that Hope. But in “Mainstreamland” he’s simply “eccentric.”
Hey Graham Chapman cruised me once at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. I felt so honored.
Arnike
Great links from you and Wolcott( and kudos to TBogg)…thanks.
I’m not gonna dish out of respect for privacy but I have indeed been cruised by some Hollywood girls-that-shall-remain-nameless.
(I was a Music Supervisor in a previous life)
Hmmm. Does the name David Geffen ring a bell?
Just got back from my son’s swinmming lessons. Before y’all break your arm patting yourself on the back, my answer to the amazingly small question posed in 149 is: Not in a church.
I am certain, because of the real shallowness of some of this discussion, that many here have not read through the whole of this:
http://www.mass.gov/courts/cou…..ridge.html
If this whole issue was as simple as “states marry, churches don’t” then same-sex unions would be universally accepted. Don’t assume anything about anyone’s position or serious involvement in this issue. It would be a huge mistake to gay-bait people around here.
Peterr –
late to the party. I’ve enjoyed your posts over the last few weeks. Thank you.
In response to #127 — Harvey Milk is often quoted: “If a bullet should enter my brain, let that bullet destroy every closet door.”
Too true. And it is our coming out that is so threatening.
Hegemonic Crisis
That’s what we are living through. The continuing southern man syndrome of having lost the place of privilege.
People can be wound up into a moral panic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic
or witch hunt if they feel that their way of life is being superceded by another — actual panics rely on the media for “deviance amplification.” Curiously, gay pride parades seem to invite panics as if to drive the nutters nuttier and thereby show them at their weakest.
… so if she weighs the same as a duck …
There’s nothing “amazingly small” about my question, #174. And of course “not in a church.” Isn’t that fucking obvious?
My latest FaBlog sums up that “Hegemonic Crisis” ofwhich you speak,176.
I am sure, David, that you believe that you have hit on the most fabulous idea that will just revolutrionize the debate if only people would see how smart you are. Sadly, No.
PS, I have finished this thread and will, instead, spend my time and talents actually doing constructive work on behalf of marginalized people of all stripes.
Yellow being your stripe of choice.
WTF David? You are a sad, sorry fellow indeed. I pity you.
Pity me? Don’t be ridiculous. You simply dislike me.
No, I don’t know you well enough to dislike you, but how you express yourself? It’s your mind I pity.
Oh can the Mr. T impression, already!
Personally I think if there’s any constitutional amendment defining marriage it ought to be this:
Just got back to this thread to read some of the links in the comments…
Boys, boys don’t fight you’re on the same team. we are allowed to disagree and i wish this animosity was directed where it should be, to the criminals who run this country and are ruining the world. If I knew how to embed a link in the comment (i’ll learn) I would have that sentence take you to the list of crimes that were posted by
deadlast at 12 on the “Now This is Interesting” thread Christy posted earlier today.
Anyway, please play nice. we need eachother more than ever.
Peterr, as I say in my diary at dKos:
use tinyurl. http://tinyurl.com/h3glw
the first thing we have to do is get our secular progressives talking to our religious progressives without insisting on ranting about religion. David E is a perfect example in this thread.
This is at least your third or fourth effort to get people to think about how to open a dialog with Theocons. Apparently our commenters don’t have a lot of confidence in the humor approach to this problem. I believe in humor myself as a general rule in lots of my work. Even so, I am not sure humor of the kind we get here at FDL will reach theocons. It relies on a playful approach to life, with puns, snappy wit, and a good memory, so you can follow the jokes over days.
I do not see much of this kind of humor when I look at my theocon friends. They generally seem more serious about things, and do not laugh easily.
I think a good approach is listening, in a effort to understand exactly what underlies the anger. I doubt that the real concern is religious, and once we figure it out, we have a chance of changing something for the better.
If gay marriage is allowed, then cohabiting gays won’t automatically be living in sin. Do you think the theocons want one less thing they can do the superior dance about? As far as I can see, that’s reason number one that they’re agin it, not anything to do with who wears the pants.
masaccio, when you label someone a theocon, are you really interested in dialog?
Count me as a progressive against gay marriage. I’m an atheist – why do I have the right to tell a church how marriage should be?
The more important question is, why is the government in the marriage business anyway? That’s the fight. Make a civil union the binding “inheritance”/”hospital rights”/”can talk to the phone company for you”/”files taxes together” partnership, and leave marriage to the religious (of whatever ilk). And if people want to throw a party and call themselves “married” – all power to them!
Then, work to allow any two (or more?) people who want to register themselves as a “civil union” do so, regardless of gender.
But shit, the theocons have a point. Marriage has long been a religious institution, and the Bible (which again, I don’t take seriously) is pretty clear on the point. The argument can’t be “the Bible has it wrong”. The argument is “sure, do marriage however your faith thinks it ought to – just don’t have it affect legal standing”.
There should be a term for this philosophy. Something like, oh, “separation of church and state”.
Kip W nails it.
“The more important question is, why is the government in the marriage business anyway? “
Because that’s part of its job, Ice. Always has been. Scroll back and read what I’ve posted.
Slowly.
Feel free to move your lips while doing so.
Same sex marriage opponents probably felt much better when they could just say gays were promiscuous and flitted from “encounter to encounter.” Now that we dare to encroach on the “sacred institution of marriage,” their feeling of moral superiority is “threatened.” Of course, these are the same people who are “threatened” by flag burning, internet gambling, etc.
I also got a kick out of non-gays being upset over the vile epithet of “breeders.” Stroll down Commercial Street sometime; and many of these non-gays point fingers…snicker…and gawk at our community. As a married lesbian of Massachusetts, I have also given birth to children…so I guess I’m also a “breeder.” That particular description bothers me a lot less than some other names I’ve been called by the “morally superior” non gays. Lighten up, people…humor is exactly what’s needed to defuse some of this irrational anger.
Divorce Rates Fall in Massachusetts!
Clearly Gay Marriage is to blame.
David,
We disagree. I believe in freedom of religion. I believe that the Bible clearly does not endorse same-sex marriage. I believe that for an outsider of a religion to tell a practitioner of that religion exactly how something within that religion should be is wrong.
I also believe in equal rights for everyone under the law.
So, I think the conflict occurs when the law tries to define a social institution that predates government itself.
I do not believe that marriage is part of the government’s job, and in what I’ve read of your writings (at your blog, primarily) I’ve not been convinced otherwise.
If you want to be married, then have a party and call yourself married. If you want to be married in the eyes of the government, then good luck. I don’t understand why you want that. I am not married, despite having lived with the same person in an exclusive relationship for over a decade and having a couple kids and sharing all our property etc. And yeah, it’s inconvenient all the goddamn time for bureaucratic reasons. And yes, I understand that I _could_ be married to my opposite-sex partner, and that’s a big difference from not being able to marry the one I love because of a government regulation.
But that does not invalidate my viewpoint. I did not say that same-sex couples should not have equal rights in the public arena. I believe very strongly that they should. It is how this ought to be achieved where we disagree.
I am sorry if you feel I am some dilettanting heterosexual. I came to this perspective slowly – I was previously a supporter of gay marriage. Through conversation with people of various orientations, I changed my mind. In particular, I realized I had no standing to tell a priest or a rabbi what marriage “should be” in their religion.
Does that mean I like the status quo? No! I think it’s wrong. And I was clear about my remedy – in fact, I’m really not sure what offends you about it? It’s in the defense of your (and anyone else’s) right to define marriage for themselves that makes me want to separate marriage from the law.
Most Judeo-Christian marriage _is_ bigoted. It’s defined in a bigoted manner. And it is objectionable to incorporate that in to the laws of our country. But redefining the religious meanings of this millenia-old institution? Why? If it is for equal rights, then confer the “marriage” implications on to civil unions, and make sure everyone has equal access to those.
What is your objection to my viewpoint? Do you think “marriage” _should_ be part of the government’s purview?
Now perhaps I should be clear: if the _only_ options are the current status quo, or government-sanctioned same-sex marriage, than I prefer the latter, because I feel equal protection trumps separation of church and state. But that’s a sorry compromise.
I do not wish to make an enemy of you, and I’m not trying to score points with the commentariat. If you reply with another pithy ad hominem, I won’t comment on the subject again.
Same sex marriage must be dangerous. I live in CT on the MA border. The night I thought about marrying my same-sex partner (not a CT civil onion but MARRIAGE) the goddarn Big Dig tunnel panels fell down. Oooops – sorry – did I cause that!