• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Peak wingnut was a lie.

It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.

Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.

Only Democrats have agency, apparently.

Anyone who bans teaching American history has no right to shape America’s future.

Give the craziest people you know everything they want and hope they don’t ask for more? Great plan.

I’d try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

My years-long effort to drive family and friends away has really paid off this year.

The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.

Too often we confuse noise with substance. too often we confuse setbacks with defeat.

Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.

Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

After roe, women are no longer free.

Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.

Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard

Conservatism: there are some people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

The worst democrat is better than the best republican.

It’s the corruption, stupid.

It’s easy to sit in safety and prescribe what other people should be doing.

Good lord, these people are nuts.

The revolution will be supervised.

I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.

Optimism opens the door to great things.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Something To Think About

Something To Think About

by John Cole|  June 6, 200610:06 am| 241 Comments

This post is in: Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

For those of you who have a hard time figuring out why many on the right so vehemently oppose gay marriage, I found this comment to be very worthwhile:

Oh, c’mon. It’s perfectly obvious why the GOP views “homosexual marriage” as dangerous and undermining to the “traditional marriage” structure. It’s all about maintaining a certain set of social expectations. Sure, I’d say the majority of young people still grow up wanting and expecting to get married someday, in the traditional sense. But there is a minority of people who don’t. Some because they’re gay. Some because they’re too self-involved, or too picky, or whatever. Pick your reasons. But these GOP types really do think that society depends on MOST of these people going ahead and getting married anyway, whether it’s what they really want deep down or not.

I’m not saying this very well—which is a real bummer for a professional writer—but think about the “social expectations” that our grandparents grew up with. It was just understood that EVERYBODY would eventually “get married, settle down and have kids.” EVERYBODY. And if you didn’t—if you somehow made it to age 45 as a committed bachelor, or a spinster, then you were an object of mixed scorn and pity, with just a dollop of suspicion tossed in for spice.

THAT’S the world the religious right-wingers want back. I honestly don’t think that most of them want gays thrown in jail, necessarily—but they DO want them subjected to social pressure and ostracism. The kind of social pressure that used to result in gays living double lives, publicly “married,” keeping their true selves secret and hidden.

If gays are not just allowed to live openly among us, without fear of being thrown in jail, but also granted the same social benefits, so that society is “officially” welcoming them and accepting them—then where’s the social pressure going to come from? How are we going to maintain the overwhelming societal expectation that “getting married and having kids” is What One Must Do?

Anyway, they aren’t going to come right out and admit that they want to impose hypocritical, empty “marriages” on unwilling but socially obligated participants. But that’s what it means when they say that gay marriage “undermines” traditional marriage. It undermines the set of societal expectations that those people want to impose.

If you look at it through that prism, the hysteria from some quarters makes perfect sense. The world is changing, and some people need the set of ‘order’ and the system of ‘values’ that, despite the fact that they do not work for many people, are what they deem are ‘right’ for everyone. America if baseball, apple pie, hot dogs, and Chevrolet. We are supposed to live in a world where you go to school, go to college, get married, have kids, pay taxes, and die. And only recently, in the minds of some of these folks, have we decided that women get to go to college and go to work, and for some of the people on the cultural right, this is still a shock. If you look at it from that angle, you can get a better understanding where some of these people are coming from, and as I have stated before, their exasperation can explain a lot of their behavior. As I have said before during discussions of the cultural right’s views in the ID/Creationism debate:

This isn’t about science. This isn’t about education. At least it isn’t for the ID/Creationist proponents. This is just another Quixotic rear-guard action in the culture wars.

This really is not about gay rights or marriage ending- it is their world view ending as they know it. As an example, even though we know better now, and we know about childhood obesity and all the complications it can lead to, there are still people out there who believe everyone should belong to the ‘clean plate club.” Even though ‘traditional’ marriage is not right for anyone, and heterosexuality is not the ‘norm’ for everyone, certain people want to demand it for their world view, not for the actual good of the nation. They may honestly believe that the world will end if their way is not adhered to, but it won’t. But good luck telling them that.

Finally, I think this freak-out by Pat Buchanan last night while debating Bob Shrum on Hardball will crystallize hat I have been trying to say:

SHRUM: … Now come on, you’ve been talking for a while, let me say two things. Number one, a committed gay couple living in a relationship is not a sign of decadence.

Number two, Pat, when your ancestors and my ancestors and Chris’ ancestors got off the boat, the Yankees who ran the country said it was terrible, it was going to lead to the balkanization of America, it was going to change America in terrible ways. This has been going on for years and years and years. I mean, the same people from Georgia, for example, who are going wild on immigration right now and saying we have to keep Hispanics out were the same people who were saying we have to keep blacks down.

BUCHANAN: But you don’t understand your history. Now, let me talk about this. You don’t understand your history…

SHRUM: … I think I do.

BUCHANAN: Now let me talk a minute. You don’t understand your history. From 1890 to 1920 we had a huge immigration, 20 million people, or something. Then we had a 40-year time-out to assimilate, Americanize, teach them the language, the history, the culture.

So by the time Chris and I went to school or me even in the 1940s and 1950s, they were Americans. I didn’t know where they came from. We didn’t know where any of us came from. You don’t have that. You’re importing parts of nations.

SHRUM: Pat, I don’t know where you went to school, but when I went to school they knew I was Irish. We knew the kid across the aisle was Italian.

BUCHANAN: What did he speak? Did he speak Italian or did he speak Gaelic or Italian or what?

SHRUM: Well, actually, you would have fit in just fine with the people who, during World War I banned the teaching of the German language. What we had between 1924 and 1964 was 40 years of…

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: … If I recall this meeting 20 years from now, will we have the same argument? Will there be a fight over gay rights or will we have accepted, Pat, for better or worse, the right of gay people or at least the opportunity of gay people to get married? Will that be behind us?

BUCHANAN: Listen, I think culturally and socially this country is headed downhill. I think you’re probably right there, Chris, but I do believe ethnically, culturally, linguistically, if we don’t get control of the borders, America is gone and we’re going to be a completely Balkanized nation.

I tend to agree that in some regard, assimilation is a vital part of any viable immigration plan, but given the context of the entire debate, it is easy to see that what really upsets Buchanan and those like him is that the whole world is changing, and they can’t cope with it.

While you are at it, if you have read this much, you should also read this excellent piece about the Christian Right movement by Ezra Klein.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Not Getting It
Next Post: Deja Vu All Over Again »

Reader Interactions

241Comments

  1. 1.

    The Other Steve

    June 6, 2006 at 10:12 am

    I tend to agree that in some regard, assimilation is a vital part of any viable immigration plan, but given the context of the entire debate, it is easy to see that what really upsets Buchanan and those like him is that the whole world is changing, and they can’t cope with it.

    Then what we need to be doing, as right thinking people, is helping him to learn how to accept change.

  2. 2.

    Davebo

    June 6, 2006 at 10:16 am

    A staunch conservative who’s resistant to change? Who’d have thunk it?

  3. 3.

    ppGaz

    June 6, 2006 at 10:20 am

    Good post.

    Immediately before the Buchanan segment you quoted, Buchanan had made a soliloquy about how America was in moral decline, and that’s why the Defense of Marriage Amendment was essential. It was good old classic Buchanan the demagogue, saying with that patented frown and signature vocal pressure that we had to stop this moral slide before it’s too late.

    I imagine that the rednecks were lapping it up. I also imagine that an army of us who don’t believe that crap are looking forward to kicking these bonesmokers in the ass come November, because this poorly-disguised bigotry is going to backfire on these assholes.

  4. 4.

    Doctor Gonzo

    June 6, 2006 at 10:26 am

    Since I’m not a conservative, I can only wonder why these people are so afraid of change. I really don’t think the reason is that they are too stupid to learn how to deal with new things; it’s probably an issue of not wanting to. But why would anybody not want to learn new things and change? Stubbornness, ego, what?

  5. 5.

    Mr Furious

    June 6, 2006 at 10:26 am

    Coincidentally I started* watching “Brokeback Mountain” with my wife last night and two things jumped out at me…

    One. If these guys weren’t forced to suppress themselves, Michelle Williams wouldn’t have to have been devastated by what she saw from her front door, and Ledger’s character wouldn’t have had to release his pent-up rage in such volent fashion…

    Two. Heath Ledger tells Jake that it isn’t safe to be gay in Wyoming in the ’60s and recounts a horrific story of locals gruesomely killing a couple of gay ranchers. Fast forward thirty years and enter reality and it still isn’t safe to be gay and not grusomely murdered for it in Wyoming.

    Yeah those were/are the good old days…keep those fags in the closet.

    (* We have like forty minutes left to watch, so I don’t no how it ends yet…)

  6. 6.

    RSA

    June 6, 2006 at 10:27 am

    I really liked that comment as well. It brought the realization that for many people, “conservative” is a less descriptive label than “conformist.”

  7. 7.

    Jack Roy

    June 6, 2006 at 10:29 am

    …what really upsets Buchanan and those like him is that the whole world is changing, and they can’t cope with it.

    Whoa, John, you are definitely in serious danger of losing your conservative credentials—this is the central leftist critique of conservatism, and has been for something like 150 years. I believe it was the motivating sentiment behind John Stuart Mill’s line about most stupid people being conservative.

  8. 8.

    srv

    June 6, 2006 at 10:32 am

    But why would anybody not want to learn new things and change? Stubbornness, ego, what?

    Insecurity. They are people comfortable with their blanket of ignorance.

  9. 9.

    dagon

    June 6, 2006 at 10:42 am

    a hearty agreement with much of what you posted above john.

    –but this begs an even greater question, you are a proud member of this party/movement WHY?

    peace

  10. 10.

    DJAnyReason

    June 6, 2006 at 10:47 am

    I believe it was the motivating sentiment behind John Stuart Mill’s line about most stupid people being conservative.

    Not quite:

    I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.

    But close ;)

  11. 11.

    Jack Roy

    June 6, 2006 at 11:02 am

    DJ Any—

    Yeah, too lazy to Google; thanks for the assist. But if memory serves, that’s not the only formulation of that phrase by Mill, and I believe there’s another (using “most” rather than “generally”). I may be mistaken, though. I’ll do the research after lunch.

  12. 12.

    Doctor Gonzo

    June 6, 2006 at 11:09 am

    Insecurity. They are people comfortable with their blanket of ignorance.

    Maybe that’s true, but that still seems to be an odd reason. Especially for things like homosexuality that really don’t affect people in any way.

    I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that some percentage of homophobia is attributed to closet cases themselves. After all, if they see homosexual couples in public being more or less accepted, it’s a reminder of the identity that these closet cases are actively trying to supress, which can’t be too pleasant. That’s part of the reason why some people insist that it is a “choice”: since they are choosing not to engage in homosexual activity, they assume that everybody else deals with the same demons, while the vast majority of people don’t see homosexual behavior as representing “the choice they did not make”.

    But aside from the closet cases, how does it affect a person to see gay people in public? How does that make people feel insecure? What are they worried about?

  13. 13.

    demimondian

    June 6, 2006 at 11:14 am

    I largely agree with the original commentator, but I think it’s more complicated than she makes it out to be.

    Whenever I think about the passion of the gay rights movement, I’m reminded of a line from _Gone With the Wind_: Every white, no matter how poor and uneducated, had higher status than even the richest and best educated african slave. Nowadays, you don’t get free status relative to African-Americans, but so if you want free status, you need to find another crowd. You can’t really get it relative to immigrants, since there are too many of them, and, besides, their kids aren’t immigrants. So, what are you left with?

    Well, right now, it’s gays.

  14. 14.

    The Other Steve

    June 6, 2006 at 11:14 am

    Punchy – I have to agree that Coulter long since abandoned American values. I don’t know why the right continues to lap up her vile crap, but they do.

    But I think it’s better that we shine a light on it, and allow the world to know that she represents what Republicans stand for today. That is much better than trying to hide it.

  15. 15.

    Eural

    June 6, 2006 at 11:15 am

    In general the conservative trend is a world wide phenomenom that goes waaaaay back in history. I call it the “old fart” disease and you find it in the works of Confucius and Plato (to name just a few) – “back in my day/the good ole days…” etc. etc. Every culture has its version and if you boil the rhetoric down you get the same fears, warnings, etc.

    Same thing for the threat of “balkanization” – it is true that all failed civilizations collapsed due to a failure to assimilate invading/immigrating cultures. But what can you do? History is demographics and demographics support the iron law of inevitable change…and an inevitable (though futile) conservative backlash.

    By the way, we call the conservatives in the Middle East the Taliban. Again, boil down the specifics of their rhetoric and (some) of the extremism and you would will find a lot of similiarities between our fundies and theirs. Ours just believe in the rule of law and civil liberties due to US traditions (or at least they used to although Bush and Robertson are working to change all that…)

  16. 16.

    Krista

    June 6, 2006 at 11:15 am

    But why would anybody not want to learn new things and change? Stubbornness, ego, what?

    Fear.

    You have a group of people who are absolutely overwhelmed by the changes that have taken place in our society. Just since I was born (1975), we have had huge changes in gender equality, racial equality, and acceptance of homosexuality. Those who are overwhelmed by these changes, realize that they cannot control what changes occur within our society as a whole. That scares the piss out of them — that loss of control.

    So, they try desperately to re-assert that control. That’s what they’re doing now. And they are very aware that their view is the minority one, and it’s making them even louder and more desperate.

    The way that their thinking goes is “I love my country. I think that X is bad for my country. You say you don’t care about X or that you support X. Therefore, you don’t love my country, and you are to be antagonized and feared.”

    That’s my armchair analysis, anyhoo.

  17. 17.

    Punchy

    June 6, 2006 at 11:18 am

    But I think it’s better that we shine a light on it,

    Oh, they’ll be some light shone on this. I know she’s written some nasty shit before, but this is incredibly off-the-charts obscene (implying the widows of 9-11 are happy their husbands are dead) that she’ll be excoriated for this.

  18. 18.

    Eural

    June 6, 2006 at 11:22 am

    she’ll be excoriated for this.

    Just like the time she said she wished Timothy McVeigh had attacked the NYT building instead of Oklahoma City? Don’t bet on it…

  19. 19.

    Eural

    June 6, 2006 at 11:25 am

    BTY, I just tried to post a lengthy and brilliant response to the whole conservative thing but mis-typed my email log-in so I don’t know what happened to it, nor do I feel like retyping the whole thing. Just be suitably impressed by my flowing rhetoric and analysis and you’ll get the point. Maybe next time you’ll even get to read it!

  20. 20.

    Darrell

    June 6, 2006 at 11:36 am

    So, they try desperately to re-assert that control. That’s what they’re doing now. And they are very aware that their view is the minority one, and it’s making them even louder and more desperate.

    I love how you self-righteous lefists embrace your ignorant caricatures of the other side. Interesting assertions except for the facts. California, arguably 1 of the most liberal states in the country, passed a bill called Proposition 22, by an large majority (61%), the purpose of which was to define marriage as between a man and a woman and to prevent the state legislature from changing that law without a vote. Very strong, very clear language in that bill.. and it passed in a big way in a very liberal Democrat dominated state.

    So in order to attribute your wild-eyed ‘fear of gays’ theories to paint Republicans, how about first honestly admitting the truth – the truth that MANY Dems clearly oppose same sex marriage, including the last Dem presidential candidates who made a public statement against same sex marriage.

    Let us know when you libs are capable of honest discussion on this topic and we’ll get back to you.

  21. 21.

    fwiffo

    June 6, 2006 at 11:38 am

    I think what’s been identified here is the most fundamental difference between conservatism and liberalism (on the social axis, at least).

    The historical alignment of libertarian-leaning types (like Mr. Cole) with conservatives seems stranger and stranger every day.

  22. 22.

    mrmobi

    June 6, 2006 at 11:39 am

    Buchanan can be pretty silly, especially when he goes off on these “values” jags. But I do like his take with regard to never-ending war and nation-building. (He writes irregularly for AntiWar.com)

    I submit that the right is really afraid of sex, not cultural decline. We spend billions on abstinence-only sex education (here and abroad) despite compelling evidence that it doesn’t work, and, in fact causes higher rates of STDs among those who pledge abstinence and fall off the wagon, because they tend to not use condoms, never having been given information about them.

    The America that these righties want to preserve doesn’t exist anymore. I suspect lots of folks want to have family, home, children, etc. (the “complete disaster”, as Zorba put it), but there’s too much to do, re-educating ourselves every few years to keep up with the global economy. How is anyone supposed to do that and have this fictional traditional life with mom at home and dad at work, when American workers have been forced into a “race to the bottom” of stagnant wages and/or lower and lower-paying jobs?

    Case in point: this week the Senate will (probably) vote to repeal the estate tax. Cost: 1 trillion. The 18 or so families who purchased this legislation will have won, consolidating their wealth for future generations of their families, while making it more difficult for anyone born into poverty to escape it. And some future administration will have to raise taxes to re-coup those lost funds. If that future administration is Democrats, the whole cut-taxes/drown the government in a bathtub cycle starts again, wheeeee, ain’t it fun?

  23. 23.

    Pooh

    June 6, 2006 at 11:41 am

    To continue the meta-discussion, isn’t part of the appeal of Burkian ‘conservatism’ pragmatic, in that if things are largely working, why throw the baby out with the bathwater (Party of Death, bitches…) in the course of minor tweaks?

    Of course, the problem is is that the ‘pragmatism’ is based on a time when, unless you where an upper-middle class, male WASP, life was not so good…

  24. 24.

    Krista

    June 6, 2006 at 11:46 am

    Let us know when you libs are capable of honest discussion on this topic and we’ll get back to you.

    Re-read my post.
    Read it well.
    Please tell me where I used the words “Republicans”, or “Democrats”, or “left” or “right”, or any other word that would indicate that my comments were indicative of party politics.
    Please tell me how my comments were about anything other than unnamed, uncategorized people who are opposed to societal change.
    Please let me know when you find anything in my comments that could be considered partisan, and get back to me when you’re capable of an honest discussion on this topic, okey-dokey?

  25. 25.

    Darrell

    June 6, 2006 at 11:47 am

    Interesting comment on pragmatism Pooh… if it ain’t broke, why the rush to ‘fix’ it? That one is worth chewing over. But this one, defintely not

    Of course, the problem is is that the ‘pragmatism’ is based on a time when, unless you where an upper-middle class, male WASP, life was not so good

    Except non-white Asian americans earn more money than white Americans. I believe black immigrants from the Carribean earn more than whites as well. Non-Wasp Jewish americans do better for themselves thatn Wasps. Like I said before, you lefties love your caricatures.. until they collide with facts. carry on

  26. 26.

    ppGaz

    June 6, 2006 at 11:47 am

    Welp, here’s Darrell to queer the thread.

    Pun intended.

  27. 27.

    Pooh

    June 6, 2006 at 11:49 am

    Darrell, I’m referring of course to the 1950’s.

  28. 28.

    Darrell

    June 6, 2006 at 11:50 am

    Please tell me where I used the words “Republicans”, or “Democrats”, or “left” or “right”, or any other word that would indicate that my comments were indicative of party politics.

    Oh I’m sorry, the topic of the thread started with this

    For those of you who have a hard time figuring out why many on the right so vehemently oppose gay marriage

  29. 29.

    SeesThroughIt

    June 6, 2006 at 11:50 am

    Great response, Krista. You pretty much took the words right out of my mouth (or keyboard, as it were).

  30. 30.

    Krista

    June 6, 2006 at 11:50 am

    Oh, and just to save you a bit of time, don’t bother writing, asking me to confirm or deny whether there are Dems opposed to gay marriage. And don’t try to say that you were talking about the other “self-righteous leftists” on this site are embracing caricatures. You blockquoted from my post, peckerhead, and are therefore accusing me of being dishonest and partisan, when I’ve done no such thing. So either produce the proof from my post that validates your assertions, or admit that you were wrong.

  31. 31.

    Krista

    June 6, 2006 at 11:53 am

    Oh I’m sorry, the topic of the thread started with this

    For those of you who have a hard time figuring out why many on the right so vehemently oppose gay marriage

    Nuh-uh. Nice try, sweetpea. John wrote that, not me. So unless you think that I’m John or John’s me, you have yet to produce the reason why you blockquoted my post as an example of how the left supposedly caricatures the right.

    I don’t expect you to admit you were wrong, anyway, you know. You obviously don’t have the ‘nads.

  32. 32.

    Steve

    June 6, 2006 at 11:54 am

    Wait… there are conservative Democrats? No way! Wow, that really does change everything.

  33. 33.

    Pooh

    June 6, 2006 at 11:55 am

    Wow, there’s a cetain Tyson-McNeely element to what just happened…

  34. 34.

    Tim F.

    June 6, 2006 at 11:56 am

    Punchy, you’re really walking the line with comments like this. If you don’t care what I think, keep in mind that you are reacting precisely how Coulter wants you to react.

  35. 35.

    Darrell

    June 6, 2006 at 11:56 am

    Please tell me how my comments were about anything other than unnamed, uncategorized people who are opposed to societal change.

    Ok Krista, in the context of a thread which singles out “the right” as being the ones so vehemently opposed to gay marriage and every other post attributing that sentiment to “conservatives”, I’m sure in that context you were merely referring to ‘unnamed, uncategorized’ people. Makes perfect sense

  36. 36.

    Krista

    June 6, 2006 at 12:01 pm

    Ok Krista, in the context of a thread which singles out “the right” as being the ones so vehemently opposed to gay marriage and every other post attributing that sentiment to “conservatives”, I’m sure in that context you were merely referring to ‘unnamed, uncategorized’ people. Makes perfect sense

    Nope. Try again. That’s just how you chose to interpret my remarks, because you love to caricature anybody who disagrees with your worldview as being “leftist.”

    It’s who you are.

    Once again, provide the proof that my post was partisan. The post wasn’t that long ago, and is there for everybody to see. Surely a smart fellow like you, a fellow who only a day or so ago shrieked “I NEVER said that!”, would not be so imprudent as to deliberately and dishonestly misinterpret another’s words….would you?

  37. 37.

    Blue Neponset

    June 6, 2006 at 12:04 pm

    It seems to me the simplist explanation to all this “gay marriage is wicked bad” talk is that the people saying these things don’t like gay people. That is all the psychoanalysis of them that I need. In my mind, it is just bigoted people acting like bigots. Democrat, Republican, Yankees fan, it doesn’t matter, if you don’t support gay marriage it is probably because you don’t like the basic idea of two gay men getting married. Otherwise why would you oppose it? It doesn’t affect your life in any way, shape or form.

  38. 38.

    Darrell

    June 6, 2006 at 12:05 pm

    Once again, provide the proof that my post was partisan

    Since you’re being dishonestly coy, I’ll respond in kind that I never said YOUR particular post was partisan. Show me where I said it or STFU.

    See how much fun this is Krista.. you obsessive whackjob

  39. 39.

    chopper

    June 6, 2006 at 12:07 pm

    Darrell saysI love how you self-righteous lefists embrace your ignorant caricatures of the other side.

    now i know for sure that you’re a spoof. it just doesn’t get any spoofier than that.

  40. 40.

    Brian

    June 6, 2006 at 12:08 pm

    Fast forward thirty years and enter reality and it still isn’t safe to be gay and not grusomely murdered for it in Wyoming.

    Oh, give me a break. You can’t really believe this, can you? Is it the murder of Matt Shepard you’re referring to, holding it over Wyoming as Exhibit A in its rampant and murderous homophobic population?

    Can someone give me a persuasive reason to approve gay marriage? I am not against gay marriage as much as I’ve yet to see a good argument for it. If it’s not procreative, maybe the government shouldn’t be getting into the business of endorsing it. Marriage has certain protections in order to protect the offspring of those marriages. Yes, some married couples don’t have children, but that’s their choice, not the government’s. Marriage is a means of assigning responsibility for children.

    So, can someone give me a good reason FOR gay marriage? Don’t make an argument against marriage. That’s a separate issue.

  41. 41.

    Steve

    June 6, 2006 at 12:09 pm

    Let’s try actually reading for a change.

    For those of you who have a hard time figuring out why many on the right so vehemently oppose gay marriage

    What’s that word? “Vehemently”? Why, it’s too big and complicated to understand!

    John did not claim that you have to be a wingnut to oppose gay marriage. But he did refer to the fact that virtually everyone who VEHEMENTLY opposes gay marriage, the people who scream about how it’s the greatest threat facing American society today, the people advocating that we must drop everything and make it a constitutional amendment today, virtually all come from the extreme right wing.

  42. 42.

    Eural

    June 6, 2006 at 12:10 pm

    So…I state that the rightwing fundies are akin to the Taliban and Darrell gets into it with Krista over his interpretations of her not so specific references?

    Where’s the love Darrell?

    Here’s another to chew on – if all rightwing affiliated people are anti-gay how does that explain the towering influence of the Log Cabin Republicans?

  43. 43.

    Krista

    June 6, 2006 at 12:10 pm

    Your hands must hurt from grasping at straws.

    So, they try desperately to re-assert that control. That’s what they’re doing now. And they are very aware that their view is the minority one, and it’s making them even louder and more desperate.

    I love how you self-righteous lefists embrace your ignorant caricatures of the other side. Interesting assertions except for the facts.

    So, then…if my post WASN’T an example of “self-righteous leftists embracing ignorant caricatures of the other side”, then why did you blockquote it?

    C’mon Darrell…it’s not that hard. Just six little syllables: “I’m…sor…ry…I…was…wrong.” I’m sure you can do it.

    Or are you so dishonest that you actually believe that you’re infallible?

  44. 44.

    chopper

    June 6, 2006 at 12:10 pm

    I’ll respond in kind that I never said YOUR particular post was partisan.

    you used her post as an example of how “you self-righteous lefists embrace your ignorant caricatures of the other side”.

    seems pretty cut-and-dry.

  45. 45.

    chopper

    June 6, 2006 at 12:13 pm

    Can someone give me a persuasive reason to approve gay marriage? I am not against gay marriage as much as I’ve yet to see a good argument for it.

    so some people shouldn’t have the same basic rights as everyone else until someone proves that they deserve them? that isn’t the way this country is supposed to work.

    if you want to deny a group of people the same rights as the rest of us, you need to come up with a persuasive reason to do so, not wait until someone else convinces you that they should have them.

  46. 46.

    Blue Neponset

    June 6, 2006 at 12:13 pm

    Can someone give me a persuasive reason to approve gay marriage?

    Becasue gay people want to have the same marriage rights and priviledges that straight people now enjoy. It is that simple. If that isn’t persuasive enough for you then there is no argument that will be persuasive enough, IMO anyway.

  47. 47.

    Pooh

    June 6, 2006 at 12:15 pm

    I’ll respond in kind that I never said YOUR particular post was partisan. Show me where I said it or STFU.

    Yeah, it’s not like you quoted it at length or anything…

  48. 48.

    Krista

    June 6, 2006 at 12:15 pm

    BRB. Must run errands. While I’m gone, Darrell…try practicing typing out the phrase, “I was wrong, I’m sorry.” You might get a cramp, due to not typed that particular series of keys before, but I have faith that a strong fellow like you can assert mind over matter.

  49. 49.

    Darrell

    June 6, 2006 at 12:16 pm

    C’mon Darrell…it’s not that hard. Just six little syllables: “I’m…sor…ry…I…was…wrong.” I’m sure you can do it.

    How about you Krista, a person who regularly slams the conservatives, in the middle of a thread which specifically singled out conservatives and the right, dishonestly pretending that you were not referring to said groups. Just say it Krista.. it’s not that hard: “My name is Krista and I’m an obsessed whackjob”. See, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

  50. 50.

    Doctor Gonzo

    June 6, 2006 at 12:17 pm

    Marriage is a means of assigning responsibility for children.

    Hmmm. I’ve never heard marriage put that way. That’s a pretty stark legal interpretation, don’t you think? I’ve never thought of my marriage as being nothing more than assigning responsibility for our (non-existent) children.

    If you seriously believe that marriage is nothing more than a set of laws for assigning responsbility for children, then you are at odds with the vast majority of the country, including all of those religious people who think that marriage involves God in some way.

  51. 51.

    Pooh

    June 6, 2006 at 12:19 pm

    So, Big D, which was it? You weren’t referring to Krista, or that you were right in your reference to Krista? Try to keep up, but those are mutually exclusive propositions, and we’re silly that way, but you should probably pick one or the other because trying to alternate makes you look like, well, yourself actually.

  52. 52.

    zzyzx

    June 6, 2006 at 12:20 pm

    The reasons for same sex marriage are that it makes things easier for the couples in question to deal with everyday matters (e.g. joint ownership of property, visitation rights in a hospital) without hurting anyone else in any way. If something helps people and doesn’t harm anyone, I don’t understand why it shouldn’t be done.

    A large part of the reason why I’m going to end up marrying my current gf is that it’s becoming a real pain to live together and share things but have to fill out tons of paperwork to – say – switch over my car to her. We’re probably not going to have kids (I don’t think it will be possible due to some health issues) so I’m effectively in the same situation as someone in a same sex relationship. If I can get married, I don’t see why they can’t.

  53. 53.

    Krista

    June 6, 2006 at 12:21 pm

    How about you Krista, a person who regularly slams the conservatives, in the middle of a thread which specifically singled out conservatives and the right, dishonestly pretending that you were not referring to said groups.

    Once again, nice try. If I’m oh-so eager to slam conservatives, and do so regularly, then how come my post made no mention of them?

  54. 54.

    John S.

    June 6, 2006 at 12:21 pm

    How about you Krista, a person who regularly slams the conservatives

    How about Darrell, a person persona who regularly brands EVERYONE who doesn’t agree with him as a leftist, moonbat, kook, etc.?

    Just say it Darrell.. it’s not that hard: “My name is Darrell and I’m an obsessed whackjob”. See, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

  55. 55.

    Brian

    June 6, 2006 at 12:23 pm

    Becasue gay people want to have the same marriage rights and priviledges that straight people now enjoy.

    Fine. What if two straight women live together, or a brother and sister live together, or two single moms who live together with their kids, or a gay man and his straight female friend (Will & Grace)?

    Should these relationships get the same government approval? They’re not all that different, really. And can you see these groups coming out of the closet (so to speak) seeking the government bennies after gays get them?

    I remain unpersuaded by the idea that gays “deserve” a “right” to marry.

  56. 56.

    chopper

    June 6, 2006 at 12:25 pm

    well, spoofy is as spoofy does, i always say.

  57. 57.

    Krista

    June 6, 2006 at 12:25 pm

    Darrell, you are a fucking dishonest coward who should hang his head in shame.

  58. 58.

    demimondian

    June 6, 2006 at 12:25 pm

    I am not against gay marriage as much as I’ve yet to see a good argument for it.

    End of life issues — a spouse has rights to access to medical records and decisions as next of kin. Adoption of a spouse’s children. Child support (which is an issue for both gay and lesbian couples). Social security benefits for a stay-at-home spouse.

    No, Brian, there are a lot of benefits to “marriage” which don’t accrue to same-sex couples. And if you don’t think that they can have kids…I suggest you read any of Savage’s stories about the kid he and his partner adopted, or that you talk to the couple down the street from me when they’re out walking with their kids.

  59. 59.

    Darrell

    June 6, 2006 at 12:26 pm

    then how come my post made no mention of them?

    I never said it did. Show us where it did or STFU.. it’s that simple you dishonest fucking bitch.

  60. 60.

    zzyzx

    June 6, 2006 at 12:27 pm

    Fine. What if two straight women live together, or a brother and sister live together, or two single moms who live together with their kids, or a gay man and his straight female friend (Will & Grace)?

    The difference, of course, is that those relationships are by their very nature transient. Marriage is supposed to be permanent.

  61. 61.

    John S.

    June 6, 2006 at 12:28 pm

    trying to alternate makes you look like, well, yourself actually.

    It’s difficult for a maligned and petulant child with an overblown superiority complex who likes to throw red-faced tantrums when confronted with their own solecism to come off as anything but themselves.

  62. 62.

    Brian

    June 6, 2006 at 12:29 pm

    If I can get married, I don’t see why they can’t.

    I’m with you, but I believe that there will be unintended consequences, some of which I noted above, that we’ll have to deal with in our “rights” culture. At the same time, the entire concept of marriage, fidelity, and family will change to the point of being unrecognizable. There are consequences for society at large, not just social conservatives.

  63. 63.

    jaime

    June 6, 2006 at 12:29 pm

    Can someone give me a persuasive reason to approve gay marriage?

    How about it’s none of your fucking business if two men or two women want to marry.

    If it’s not procreative, maybe the government shouldn’t be getting into the business of endorsing it.

    Good. So you’ll endorse a Constitutional Amendment banning marriage between older people, or those incapable of having children? Or those who have undergone vasectomies or had their tubes tied? Or those who don’t want children?

  64. 64.

    demimondian

    June 6, 2006 at 12:29 pm

    I remain unpersuaded by the idea that gays “deserve” a “right” to marry.

    Why should straights, even those who choose not to have children, be specially privileged? Gay marriage isn’t a rights issue, it’s an equal protection issue. If a couple wants to take on the burdens and benefits of marriage, then I don’t care who they are. I don’t see why the law cares, either.

  65. 65.

    chopper

    June 6, 2006 at 12:29 pm

    Fine. What if two straight women live together, or a brother and sister live together, or two single moms who live together with their kids, or a gay man and his straight female friend (Will & Grace)?

    Should these relationships get the same government approval?

    WTF do those have to do with marriage?

    I remain unpersuaded by the idea that gays “deserve” a “right” to marry.

    see, you’re arguing from the same incorrect frame of mind that figures that the US Constitution bestows rights onto people. that is incorrect; the US Constitution assumes that rights belong to the people and then purports to say what rights the government has the limited ability to curtail.

    saying that people don’t have a certain right until it’s written down or that they somehow prove that they ‘deserve’ it is a backwards reading of the way rights are supposed to work in this country.

  66. 66.

    Doctor Gonzo

    June 6, 2006 at 12:30 pm

    Fine. What if two straight women live together, or a brother and sister live together, or two single moms who live together with their kids, or a gay man and his straight female friend (Will & Grace)?

    Two straight women: fine. Brother and sister: illegal for incest issues. Two single moms: fine. Gay man and straight female friend: fine. It’s not the state’s job to determine what constitutes a “valid” marriage outside of the legal requirements. No sex, no intimacy, no emotinal sharing…it’s not anybody’s business (and plenty of heterosexual marriages are pointless).

    If two straight women are raising kids together, and they want to make it easier for one to assume custody of the kids in the case the other dies, what is wrong with that? More importantly, wouldn’t it be much better for the kids for the other parent to assume custody, instead of being put in a foster home?

    There are hundreds of benefits that married people get that aren’t afforded to unmarried people. The way I see it, either the government should get rid of all of those special benefits, or open them up to all couples that want them.

  67. 67.

    jaime

    June 6, 2006 at 12:31 pm

    the entire concept of marriage, fidelity, and family will change to the point of being unrecognizable.

    We should take it back to biblical times when I had many pre-arranged teenaged wives who know that if she talked back that meant a public stoning. Ahh…tradition.

  68. 68.

    ppGaz

    June 6, 2006 at 12:31 pm

    Can someone give me a persuasive reason to approve gay marriage

    Sure. Gay people want marriage. They benefit, and deserve the benefit. There is no rational reason to discriminate against them. Society benefits for exactly the same reasons that it benefits from all marriages. No difference whatever.

    Marriage is marriage, and a family is a family. You are either for these things, or not. The sexual preference at the core of the thing is irrelevant.

    Failure to recognize this is ignorant, prejudiced, bigoted and gratuitous manipulation for one’s own purposes. Rather than ask for a rationale for it, you should be looking for one against it. There is none. Not even the lying prick homophobe Darrell, the lyingest piece of crap ever to walk these paths, can state one. And you, you’re just a spoofass troll. But you got a real and comprehensive answer to your question, and there’s not even any charge for it.

  69. 69.

    srv

    June 6, 2006 at 12:32 pm

    Should these relationships get the same government approval? They’re not all that different, really.

    No, the government should not be in the business of codifying religious institutions.

    But as long as it is, it ought to be blind.

  70. 70.

    John S.

    June 6, 2006 at 12:33 pm

    The exchange:

    How about you Krista, a person who regularly slams the conservatives, in the middle of a thread which specifically singled out conservatives and the right, dishonestly pretending that you were not referring to said groups.

    If I’m oh-so eager to slam conservatives, and do so regularly, then how come my post made no mention of them?

    I never said it did. Show us where it did or STFU.. it’s that simple you dishonest fucking bitch.

    Now go fuck yourself, you irascible prick.

  71. 71.

    chopper

    June 6, 2006 at 12:33 pm

    I’m with you, but I believe that there will be unintended consequences, some of which I noted above, that we’ll have to deal with in our “rights” culture. At the same time, the entire concept of marriage, fidelity, and family will change to the point of being unrecognizable.

    only to those that have such a dislike or distrust of gays that they don’t want to recognize it in the first place. it’s circular logic. “i don’t want ‘marriage’ to change cause then ‘marriage’ will have changed.”

  72. 72.

    SeesThroughIt

    June 6, 2006 at 12:34 pm

    Buchanan can be pretty silly, especially when he goes off on these “values” jags. But I do like his take with regard to never-ending war and nation-building. (He writes irregularly for AntiWar.com)

    You know, it’s funny…I find Buchanan’s social views to be completely repugnant and emblemic of why I could never embrace social conservatism. And yet on other matters, I really respect his intellect even if I think he’s completely wrong. I really can’t explain it, and it kind of weirds me out, but there it is.

  73. 73.

    Brian

    June 6, 2006 at 12:35 pm

    And if you don’t think that they can have kids…I suggest you read any of Savage’s stories about the kid he and his partner adopted, or that you talk to the couple down the street from me when they’re out walking with their kids.

    There can be rights that are given as the result of said adoption, but that is not the same as a child born from sexual encounters. If the child cannot be supported, yet is carried to term,s/he can be adopted, and the adopting parents, gay or straight, receive benefits in kind. Blanket benefits for gays is not as acceptable to me.

    The difference, of course, is that those relationships are by their very nature transient

    The benefits can be transient with the relationship. When a couple divorce (and gay couples will divorce, I suspect in numbers at least equal to straights) the bennies are lost.

  74. 74.

    Darrell

    June 6, 2006 at 12:35 pm

    I’m with you, but I believe that there will be unintended consequences

    Here’s one example of such unintended consequences. Not sure those unintended consequences trump demi’s well stated points on the other side, but there will most certainly be a lot this kind of thing happen as a result of same-sex marriage being made legal here.

  75. 75.

    Pb

    June 6, 2006 at 12:36 pm

    Darrell,

    Now apologize to Krista, or go to time out.

  76. 76.

    Darrell

    June 6, 2006 at 12:38 pm

    Pb Says:

    Darrell,

    Now apologize to Krista, or go to time out.

    One obsessed whackjob is enough on this thread Pb

  77. 77.

    Doctor Gonzo

    June 6, 2006 at 12:38 pm

    Here’s one example of such unintended consequences. Not sure those unintended consequences trump demi’s well stated points on the other side, but there will most certainly be a lot this kind of thing happen as a result of same-sex marriage being made legal here.

    You’ve got to be kidding. Are you telling me that only gay people will get married for tax purposes, and straight people never have?

    Seriously, what color is the sky in your world?

  78. 78.

    HyperIon

    June 6, 2006 at 12:41 pm

    last night CSPAN had two back-to-back presentations: one supporting the marriage amendment and one against. IMHO the folks supporting the amendment were very dim bulbs compared to those against, who were from the center for american progress and the cato institute.

    i love CSPAN. they just turn on the cameras and film. i think what they do is as important to democracy as the internet. brian lamb is my hero!

    contrasting the PATHETIC arguments (based primarily on “protect the children!”) from the pro amendment folks with the well-reasoned approach of those against the amendment was very revealing (but only if you appreciate reasoning, i guess).

  79. 79.

    Darrell

    June 6, 2006 at 12:41 pm

    You’ve got to be kidding. Are you telling me that only gay people will get married for tax purposes, and straight people never have?

    That’s not at all what I was saying. But thanks for playing

  80. 80.

    Darby

    June 6, 2006 at 12:41 pm

    Maybe Darrell is referring to the Kristas of the left, of whom Krista herself isn’t a member?

  81. 81.

    Brian

    June 6, 2006 at 12:42 pm

    only to those that have such a dislike or distrust of gays that they don’t want to recognize it in the first place.

    What are you saying? Care to elaborate on this thought?

    It’s not the state’s job to determine what constitutes a “valid” marriage outside of the legal requirements.

    If the state is writing the license, then it absolutely is the state’s right to determine the marriage definition. Otherwise, why get married at all?

    Brother and sister: illegal for incest issues.

    Right. Society sees a value in making this illegal because of the impact on the children that can come out of such unions. It’s not all that different from what I’m arguing. There’s no societal benefit to it, or to any of the other arrangements you find agreeable. It affects the personal individuals involved, at the expense of the population at large in terms of benefit output.

  82. 82.

    Nikki

    June 6, 2006 at 12:42 pm

    Fine. What if two straight women live together, or a brother and sister live together, or two single moms who live together with their kids, or a gay man and his straight female friend (Will & Grace)?

    So what? How does this in any way affect you?

  83. 83.

    Doctor Gonzo

    June 6, 2006 at 12:44 pm

    That’s not at all what I was saying. But thanks for playing

    Then what were you saying? The article you linked to argues that if gay marriage is legalized, then people will get married for tax purposes, completely ignoring the fact that straight people already get married for tax purposes. You are talking to a person who seriously considered getting married in college to get more financial aid, and who knows many students who did just that, BTW. People game the system now if they want to.

    So if you are arguing that getting married for tax purposes is an “unintended consequence”, try again. And if you aren’t arguing that…then, well, what are you trying to say?

  84. 84.

    Blue Neponset

    June 6, 2006 at 12:44 pm

    Fine. What if two straight women live together, or a brother and sister live together, or two single moms who live together with their kids, or a gay man and his straight female friend (Will & Grace)?

    Except for the brother and sister I really don’t care if any of those couples get married or not. I certainly wouldn’t recommend marriage to any of those couples but if any of them want to spend the rest of their lives together, more power to them. The obvious reason to exclude a brother from marrying his sister is because any of the children they may have would probably be born with sever birth defects.

  85. 85.

    srv

    June 6, 2006 at 12:46 pm

    But aside from the closet cases, how does it affect a person to see gay people in public? How does that make people feel insecure? What are they worried about?

    I’m responding in general, not to “marriage” specifically.

    You want to attribute reason to people who have fundamentally fragile value systems. This can happen to those on the left and the right in varying degrees, but it is inherent to those who live by certain religious world-views.

    Who would Jesus hate? The only thing more rare today than a real conservative is a real christian.

  86. 86.

    ppGaz

    June 6, 2006 at 12:46 pm

    Darrell, I promise you, you are done here. Permanently.

    You will be beaten like a mule with new vigor fromt his day forward. Your willful stupidity has now crossed a line.

    American Family ASsholes Association, or whatever the fuck you posted? Are you fucking insane?

    Do you think that there are never “unintended consequences” in the world of straight marriage? People who marry for less than church-approved reasons, or who marry for sociopathic reasons? Those things have nothing to do with sexual preference, you fucking worthless bigot. They have to do with human nature and human fallibility.

    You will wear the “I am a lying homophobe” here from this day on with every post you make as long as I am here to see it. You fucking suck, and you deserve to be banned from this place just on general principles. You don’t even have the courage to stand up for the senseless bigotry you sling here. You sling it and then pretend that you don’t embrace it. Your ruse is now over. You are the poster boy here now for stupidity and ugly bigotry and dishonesty.

    Get used it to, Darrell, because I am dead serious.

  87. 87.

    Perry Como

    June 6, 2006 at 12:48 pm

    Blanket benefits for gays is not as acceptable to me.

    How about blanket benefits for everyone that wishes to enter a committed relationship, regardless of sexuality?

  88. 88.

    Darrell

    June 6, 2006 at 12:48 pm

    So if you are arguing that getting married for tax purposes is an “unintended consequence”, try again

    I never said ‘only’ gay, or ‘only’ straight people may get married for tax purposes or other financial gain as you alleged.

  89. 89.

    Doctor Gonzo

    June 6, 2006 at 12:50 pm

    If the state is writing the license, then it absolutely is the state’s right to determine the marriage definition. Otherwise, why get married at all?

    Okay, so do you support the state making sure that a man and woman really love each other, are planning on having sex, aren’t just getting married for the wrong reasons, etc.? So it’s the state’s job to decide which people are in a “valid” marriage? Remember, I said that the government should only care about the “legal” requirements of marriage. If two people get married and never speak to each other, it’s not the government’s business, nor is it mine.

    Right. Society sees a value in making this illegal because of the impact on the children that can come out of such unions. It’s not all that different from what I’m arguing.

    Umm, there’s a bit of difference between banning incest due to genetics and due to power issues and expanding marriage to include gay couples. Family members shouldn’t marry each other for the same reason teachers shouldn’t sleep with their students: the power dynamic often leads to victimhood. But it is nice to see that you are using the same arguments as lots of other gay marriage opponents, that of “If we legalize gay marriage we will have to legalize polygamy/incest/pedophilia/bestiality!”

  90. 90.

    zzyzx

    June 6, 2006 at 12:52 pm

    “The benefits can be transient with the relationship. When a couple divorce (and gay couples will divorce, I suspect in numbers at least equal to straights) the bennies are lost”

    Yes but the expectation is different. Creating joint property for an arrangement where the people know that they’re going to move out as soon as they meet the right person seems counterproductive.

    This really isn’t an argument against same sex marriage per se anyway, as there’s nothing that stops a gay man marrying his female best friend right now or from people making pacts that if they’re still single at 30 that they’ll get married.

    Marriage is two things, a government system of benefits and a social/religious committment. People are already doing the second half. As long as people are going to take the plunge, letting them see each other when they’re sick seems like the trivial end.

  91. 91.

    tBone

    June 6, 2006 at 12:53 pm

    One obsessed whackjob is enough on this thread Pb

    I agree. Don’t the let door hit you in the ass – or whatever’s left of it after that beautiful p3wning Krista delivered – on your way out.

  92. 92.

    Tom in Texas

    June 6, 2006 at 12:57 pm

    Why should we ban incestuous relationships? Seriously — how is it our business to tell them they can’t wed? The high risk of birth defects is not an argument to me — if we’re using that for justification, can we ban births in low income communities next to chemical refineries? I have to say I really don’t care who marries who. My qualification is that all parties in a relationship be capable of knowing and understanding what they are doing ie: no bestiality, pedophilia, marrying vegetables for an insurance policy etc. As for gay, incestuous, polygamist, or interracial marriages, I don’t think we can dictate it.

  93. 93.

    croatoan

    June 6, 2006 at 12:57 pm

    Can someone give me a persuasive reason to approve gay marriage?

    The The Fourteenth Amendment (my emphasis):

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Also, Loving v. Virginia:

    These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

    Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

  94. 94.

    Sojourner

    June 6, 2006 at 12:58 pm

    Can someone give me a persuasive reason to approve gay marriage?

    It is an important source of societal stability. An important way of encouraging responsibility and commitment to society through the mechanism of love and commitment for another person. Just as with heteros.

  95. 95.

    Darrell

    June 6, 2006 at 12:58 pm

    or whatever’s left of it after that beautiful p3wning Krista delivered

    One more example of how leftists revel in self-congratualatory back slapping. As the ‘deciders’ of who is and is not p3wned, it must be great to have such a long undefeated history among yourselves

  96. 96.

    fwiffo

    June 6, 2006 at 1:00 pm

    our “rights” culture.

    Those darn “rights!” Why do people even want them? They’re such a pain in the ass. Goverment is there to give you only the rights you absolutely need. I mean, they’re “inalienable” right? That means they’re not for aliens. Like those gay homosexuals with the gay.

    There’s no societal benefit to it, or to any of the other arrangements you find agreeable. It affects the personal individuals involved, at the expense of the population at large in terms of benefit output.

    Yeah, you’re totally right. There’s no societal benefit to the children of these individuals growing up in a family with a loving, committed adults and the stability of marriage.

  97. 97.

    Darrell

    June 6, 2006 at 1:03 pm

    As for gay, incestuous, polygamist, or interracial marriages, I don’t think we can dictate it.

    Slippery slope anyone? First gay marriage, then legalized incest. There you have it. Actually, I don’t hold a strong opinion for or against gay marriage, but it’s kind of interesting to see a first hand example of anti-gay marriage advocates’ argument about the dangers of the slippery slope.

  98. 98.

    fwiffo

    June 6, 2006 at 1:07 pm

    Who’s spoofing as Tom in Texas? Come on now, fess up, you’ve confused poor Darrell.

  99. 99.

    tBone

    June 6, 2006 at 1:08 pm

    One more example of how leftists revel in self-congratualatory back slapping.

    Hey, it’s better than jerking off in the corner all by yourself.

  100. 100.

    Some Other Brian Guy

    June 6, 2006 at 1:08 pm

    There you have it. Actually, I don’t hold a strong opinion for or against gay marriage, but it’s kind of interesting to see a first hand example of anti-gay marriage advocates’ argument about the dangers of the slippery slope.

    I guess it doesn’t surprise me to see Darrell and his buddies promoting incest and polygamy. After all their buddies out there in Colorado City, AZ and Hildale, UT are under attack by the left wing activists.

    How long will it be before we hear Darrell shouting “Free Warren Jeffs, he’s done nothing wrong!”

  101. 101.

    Some Other Brian Guy

    June 6, 2006 at 1:10 pm

    One more example of how leftists revel in self-congratualatory back slapping. As the ‘deciders’ of who is and is not p3wned, it must be great to have such a long undefeated history among yourselves

    tBone… great job! You’ve really got Darrell riled now.

  102. 102.

    Tom in Texas

    June 6, 2006 at 1:10 pm

    Actually Tom is being himself today — no spoof. I’m, pretty libertarian at the core, and I’m being perfectly serious. I think state sanctioned marriages are about improving the community. Getting people to live in one home or city for decades, tend to their friends and neighbors, possibly raise a family, and contribute to the very essence of community. I really don’t care who is contributing.

  103. 103.

    Faux News

    June 6, 2006 at 1:12 pm

    Failure to recognize this is ignorant, prejudiced, bigoted and gratuitous manipulation for one’s own purposes. Rather than ask for a rationale for it, you should be looking for one against it. There is none. Not even the lying prick homophobe Darrell, the lyingest piece of crap ever to walk these paths, can state one. And you, you’re just a spoofass troll. But you got a real and comprehensive answer to your question, and there’s not even any charge for it.

    POTD. Now Darrell run along with your Fellow Troll Brian and go to Ptown in MA for your wedding. I will be there to kiss BOTH of the Grooms. :-)

    Jeff Gannon
    Faux News

  104. 104.

    chopper

    June 6, 2006 at 1:12 pm

    You’ve got to be kidding. Are you telling me that only gay people will get married for tax purposes, and straight people never have?

    my god, two gay people are getting married for tax reasons, just like straight people have been doing for all these years? those krazy kweers really are trying to destroy marriage.

  105. 105.

    Some Other Brian Guy

    June 6, 2006 at 1:13 pm

    Society sees a value in making this illegal because of the impact on the children that can come out of such unions.

    Wait a minute. Have you seen the impact on the children when people like Brian marry and reproduce?

    It’s horrific, they become deranged lunatics bent on self-mutilation.

    Obviously the only answer to this is to prevent people like Brian from reproducing. Society must step in to prevent this evil from occuring!

  106. 106.

    zzyzx

    June 6, 2006 at 1:14 pm

    I admit that I’m not scared by the bottom of the slippery slope either. The only way that incest or polygamy or whatever bottom you have becomes legal is if the ickyness factor goes away. Once it does though, it’s very hard to keep the prohibition going.

  107. 107.

    Andrew

    June 6, 2006 at 1:14 pm

    It’s as simple as this:
    I see no reason to allow the government any control over marriage. There should be a government protected, legal right to chose any other single individual (brother, sister, mother, father, spouse, child, friend) of legal age and appropriate competance to act as sole caretaker for medical, legal, and financial purposes.

    Currently, some of these rights are possible via power of attorney and a number of other methods, but they are incomplete and difficult to arrange as compared to marriage.

    Since it does not appear that the system will be changed to make these rights complete and easy to acquire without the legal notion of marriage, legal marriage is the clearest mechanism for a large class of people (homosexuals) to attain the benefits that they are clearly due.

  108. 108.

    searp

    June 6, 2006 at 1:15 pm

    I agree with Blue Neponset. The most rabid defense-of-marriage types are homophobes, pure and simple. They probably read something somewhere, heard their minister say something, had an uncomfortable experience at some point in their lives, or just plain don’t like the idea of homosexuals being accepted in our society.

  109. 109.

    Some Other Brian Guy

    June 6, 2006 at 1:15 pm

    my god, two gay people are getting married for tax reasons, just like straight people have been doing for all these years? those krazy kweers really are trying to destroy marriage.

    As a member of SINK(single-income, no kids), I for one am tired of footing the bill of married people everywhere.

    Let them pay their fair share of taxes, just like the rest of us!

  110. 110.

    Doctor Gonzo

    June 6, 2006 at 1:15 pm

    My qualification is that all parties in a relationship be capable of knowing and understanding what they are doing…

    Which is why incest is illegal. Show me an example of an incestuous relationship that does NOT involve abuse or coercion of some kind.

  111. 111.

    Some Other Brian Guy

    June 6, 2006 at 1:16 pm

    Why is the Government marrying people anyway?

    Isn’t marriage a Religious Institution? Shouldn’t the Churches be doing this?

  112. 112.

    Andrew

    June 6, 2006 at 1:17 pm

    Also, I should clarify that there is no need for a bidirectional responsibility. One person should be able to be legal caretaker of multiple people, but those people are not necessarily caretakers of that person, just like adults can be responsible for multiple children.

    A conventional “marriage” is just two people agreeing to be the caretaker for the other.

  113. 113.

    Tom in Texas

    June 6, 2006 at 1:18 pm

    I admit that I’m not scared by the bottom of the slippery slope either. The only way that incest or polygamy or whatever bottom you have becomes legal is if the ickyness factor goes away. Once it does though, it’s very hard to keep the prohibition going.

    I agree. The main reason people are against incestuous marriages is the ickiness factor. “Dude, that’s your SISTER!!” Marriages aren’t solely about sex and procreation. It’s companionship that matters. Maybe some people really are only happy with their twin sister, or their mom, or whoever. We need to give them incentives to stay together and be happy.

  114. 114.

    chopper

    June 6, 2006 at 1:18 pm

    only to those that have such a dislike or distrust of gays that they don’t want to recognize it in the first place.

    What are you saying? Care to elaborate on this thought?

    i’m saying that it all boils down to a basic dislike or disrespect for homosexuals cloaked in ‘defense of tradition’ or something like that.

    the only way marriage would become ‘unrecognizable’ if gays are let in is if the only marriage you recognize is ‘straight’ in the first place. so saying that letting gays get hitched will make marriage change to the point of being ‘unrecognizable’ is merely begging the question.

  115. 115.

    jaime

    June 6, 2006 at 1:19 pm

    First gay marriage, then legalized incest.

    And before you know it, people will be able to marry their favorite Rice cake. Bears will take up with salmon. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria!!!!!

    Now that that dumbass argument has been taken to its logical conclusion, let’s just get to the point: Two men having sex is icky to you and that colors your whole thinking.

  116. 116.

    Punchy

    June 6, 2006 at 1:19 pm

    Punchy, you’re really walking the line with comments like this. If you don’t care what I think, keep in mind that you are reacting precisely how Coulter wants you to reac

    Tim, I have no idea what comments you’re referring to since your link doesn’t work. I’m not sure what line I’m walking, but if you’d rather I be gleeful and excited rather than angry and disturbed than I’ll just exit out the left door. I don’t need you to tell me how to react to a sure-fire hate monger. You go ahead and acquiesce; I choose to fight.

  117. 117.

    Some Other Brian Guy

    June 6, 2006 at 1:20 pm

    Which is why incest is illegal. Show me an example of an incestuous relationship that does NOT involve abuse or coercion of some kind.

    Queen Victoria!

    She married her cousin Albert!

    A slippery slope indeed!

  118. 118.

    Brian

    June 6, 2006 at 1:20 pm

    Why should we ban incestuous relationships? Seriously—how is it our business to tell them they can’t wed?

    Sure, why not? And while we’re entertaining the possibilities, why should minors be excluded from being available as spouses for adults?

    All of the various options I’ve noted in my comments can be up for grabs if we change what marriage is defined as. I tend to be pro gay marriage, but only because our culture seems to be heading that way, and I don’t care to fight it. I can see many good things coming out of gay marriages, but I can also see many unintended consequences.

    I can’t be on the blog all day discussing this, so allow me to point you to a brief post on the subject from a libertarian blogger I like. She takes no position in favor or against gay marriage. She does cite examples of where the consequences outstripped the expectations when insitutions were “reformed”. The best quote for me from her post is actually attributed to another writer, but is this:

    “people who don’t see the use of a social institution are the last people who should be allowed to reform it”

  119. 119.

    Some Other Brian Guy

    June 6, 2006 at 1:22 pm

    Ah ha!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissing_cousins

    CHARLES DARWIN MARRIED HIS FIRST COUSIN! That’s why the lefties love him, because he’s an incestous gay mexican!

    Half the states in the US allow first cousins to marry. A bunch of incest promoting gay marriage loving, lefty commies, they all are! West Virginia and Kentucky are probably the most popular state to move to to marry your cousin!

  120. 120.

    chopper

    June 6, 2006 at 1:22 pm

    Brother and sister: illegal for incest issues.

    Right. Society sees a value in making this illegal because of the impact on the children that can come out of such unions. It’s not all that different from what I’m arguing.

    we have a natural, biological aversion to incest because it goes against our natural instincts to spread our DNA as far as possible. children of incest are more prone to genetic problems and taking care of those problems are a burden on society. in short, we don’t want to have more retarded kids in this country.

    those problems don’t exist for gay couples. they adopt, or they have surrogates. sperm donors. they can have healthy children several ways.

  121. 121.

    John Cole

    June 6, 2006 at 1:23 pm

    I can’t be on the blog all day discussing this, so allow me to point you to a brief post on the subject from a libertarian blogger I like.

    OooOOoo. Passive-Aggressive. DADDY LIKE!

  122. 122.

    tBone

    June 6, 2006 at 1:23 pm

    Two men having sex is icky to you and that colors your whole thinking.

    Especially if those men are wearing Boy Scout uniforms, at least in Darrell’s case.

  123. 123.

    Mike in SLO

    June 6, 2006 at 1:23 pm

    Marriage is a means of assigning responsibility for children.

    I’m not suprised there is so much contraversy given the fact that we cannot agree on a definition of marriage in the first place. For centuries it was a property arrangement. Now it’s supposedly about raising children, or love and commitment to one another, or a way to get a green card, depending on who you ask.

    I remain unpersuaded by the idea that gays “deserve” a “right” to marry.

    I remain unpersuaded by the idea that straights “deserve” a “right” to marry. A 50%+ divorce rate proves they don’t take it seriously or uphold the so-called “sanctity” of marriage.

    I actually like the idea of everybody having to prove they deserve to marry. Let’s also have everybody prove they deserve to have children. There’d be no unwanted, uncared for children anymore.

    Most people don’t “deserve” any of what they have, but they have it. That’s life, like it or not. The promise of America is that one can have the same opportunity and choice in life as everyone else, whether or not they are the societal norm. Let’s try to actually live our American promise. It’s an American thing to do.

  124. 124.

    Darrell

    June 6, 2006 at 1:23 pm

    Maybe some people really are only happy with their twin sister, or their mom, or whoever.

    Look, after this thread, no matter where you stand on gay marriage, no more ridiculing the ‘absurd’ slippery slope arguments coming from the opponents of same sex marriage.

  125. 125.

    Some Other Brian Guy

    June 6, 2006 at 1:24 pm

    people who don’t see the use of a social institution are the last people who should be allowed to reform it

    If gays want to get married, doesn’t that seem to prove to everyone involved that they see the value of the social institution?

    Wait, I guess I mean everyone involved who still thinks logically.

  126. 126.

    Tom in Texas

    June 6, 2006 at 1:24 pm

    Which is why incest is illegal. Show me an example of an incestuous relationship that does NOT involve abuse or coercion of some kind.

    Perhaps it would help to think of it like this: I support cohabitational rights for relatives who live together. Case in point: My aunts in Philadelphia. They are both in their mid 60’s and support each other in every way. They are a couple. They deserve the same rights as my grandmother and her husband, who she married 4 years ago after my grandfather’s death for financial/support purposes.

  127. 127.

    Some Other Brian Guy

    June 6, 2006 at 1:25 pm

    Look, after this thread, no matter where you stand on gay marriage, no more ridiculing the ‘absurd’ slippery slope arguments coming from the opponents of same sex marriage.

    What are you talking about?

    You’re the one who brought it up. We can only assume you suffer from some sort of Oedipus complex and want to marry your mom. Otherwise, why would you even be thinking about this as a real possibility?

    So if we want to ridicule you for wanting to marry your mom, you know what. That’s our right as Americans!

  128. 128.

    Some Other Brian Guy

    June 6, 2006 at 1:28 pm

    The real question that this thread has brought us to…

    Why does Darrell want to marry his mother?

  129. 129.

    jaime

    June 6, 2006 at 1:29 pm

    why should minors be excluded from being available as spouses for adults?

    Hey, it worked in the Bible. Traditional Biblical law allows me to have a flock of wives that are minors. Why do you want to re-define marriage?

    no more ridiculing the ‘absurd’ slippery slope arguments

    If we allow gays to marry the next thing you know, we’ll be allowing marriage to a hive of bees? Does that count as polygamy?

  130. 130.

    ppGaz

    June 6, 2006 at 1:29 pm

    I never said

    For anyone wondering where Darrell stands, on any subject, it’s easy:

    Get him to say “I never said ………” and whatever he says he never said, that’s his real position.

    He will never come right out and state his real position on anything, so that if you challenge him, he can say “I never said that.”

    That’s his fucking game.

  131. 131.

    Darrell

    June 6, 2006 at 1:32 pm

    You’re the one who brought it up.

    No I didn’t. Re-read the thread dumbass.

  132. 132.

    Steve

    June 6, 2006 at 1:33 pm

    Half the states in the US allow first cousins to marry. A bunch of incest promoting gay marriage loving, lefty commies, they all are! West Virginia and Kentucky are probably the most popular state to move to to marry your cousin!

    You can marry your first cousin in New York. I had to learn that for the bar exam.

  133. 133.

    Doctor Gonzo

    June 6, 2006 at 1:33 pm

    My aunts in Philadelphia. They are both in their mid 60’s and support each other in every way.

    Are they aunts as in sisters, or are they aunts as in they are both married to brothers, and are therefore not related by blood in any way?

    More importantly, do they actually want to marry each other, or is this some kind of hypothetical?

  134. 134.

    tBone

    June 6, 2006 at 1:35 pm

    My aunts in Philadelphia. They are both in their mid 60’s and support each other in every way. They are a couple.

    Please tell me their names aren’t Selma and Patty.

    Face it, if we legalize gay marriage, there’s only one inevitable outcome: gay incestuous cartoon characters getting married.

  135. 135.

    chopper

    June 6, 2006 at 1:36 pm

    And while we’re entertaining the possibilities, why should minors be excluded from being available as spouses for adults?

    because a minor in the sense of ‘age of consent’ is not considered legally competent enough to make the decision for themselves.

    “people who don’t see the use of a social institution are the last people who should be allowed to reform it”

    who does that apply to? those of us who are pushing for gay marriage obviously see the use in marriage. if we didn’t we wouldn’t care either way.

  136. 136.

    Faux News

    June 6, 2006 at 1:37 pm

    From the Huffington Post:

    Homosexuals are not the biggest threat to the institution of marriage in this country.

    Single people are.

    Single people spend their entire lives thinking only of themselves, doing exactly what they want, working out at the gym, staying late at work and getting more raises and promotions, seeing all the new films and theatre productions, reading the best books, making dinner/lunch/brunch plans in trendy new restaurants, sleeping late on week-ends, planning exotic vacations, and flying off for long week-ends to some fun location to see some equally single fun person.

    Then they come back and tell married people all about their lives. And pretty soon the married people want to be … single … and want to spend their lives with … single people.

    So really, if we want to protect and defend marriage, we should go after the single people. Amend the Constitution to prohibit single people from marrying.

    Or we could force them into the closet. Make them wear wedding bands. Teach them to sigh, wring their hands, yell on the phone at an imaginary spouse, dye their hair gray and get wrinkles. They don’t have to state up-front that they are married (since that would be a lie) but we could have a national don’t ask don’t tell policy. (It’s OK to be single and happy, as long as you do so inside your own home with other consenting single adults).

    Or we could do the opposite. Mark the single people clearly to prevent them infecting the normal people – the married ones.

    We could force them to wear a little pin on their clothing to symbolize that they are single – a small gold version of thong underwear for the women, maybe a bench press for the single men. That way children and married people could stay away from them so they would not get infected.

    I’ve known plenty of heterosexual marriages that failed. The primary reasons were (1) someone was screwing around with some other heterosexual; (2) drugs, alcohol, gambling; (3) general overall what a big mistake this was – I just detest him/her and am getting out while I still have a life.

    Maybe we could amend the constitution to forbid people from wanting to be happy – or, expressed in a more positive way, we could add an amendment that said that all people must be happy in their marriage (or else).

    I don’t know. Maybe this won’t work. Maybe we’ll just have to leave it to everyone to work out the personal aspects of their lives.

    Leave the constitution as guaranteeing the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and let the people decide exactly how they go about pursuing their own happiness. That way they’ve got no one to blame but themselves when they screw up.

    – NABNYC, 06.05.2006

  137. 137.

    Tom in Texas

    June 6, 2006 at 1:38 pm

    Doctor: They are sisters, have absolutely no sexual relationship at all (both are widows: One is a retired professor the other a Presbytarian minister) and they want the same legal and medical benifits offered to others. An incestuous relationship, be definition, includes sex. I think that is unfortunate, in that a relationship can be had with no sex at all: both my aunt’s and grandmother’s relationships are utterly asexual. They are pretty much identical — two people supporting each other so they aren’t sent to a home.

  138. 138.

    Doctor Gonzo

    June 6, 2006 at 1:43 pm

    Tom, that’s an interesting scenario. One reason I support universal health care is to remove this calculation from marriage/divorce consideration, so that would take away the medical benefits reason for getting married.

    I’d still have to argue that sisters should not marry, however convenient it would be for your aunts.

  139. 139.

    Tom W.

    June 6, 2006 at 1:45 pm

    Always enjoyed your site – but man, how can you stand having an Anne Coulter ad all over the place? I mean geez, John, is the horror worth the $25?!

  140. 140.

    Tom in Texas

    June 6, 2006 at 1:45 pm

    I’d still have to argue that sisters should not marry, however convenient it would be for your aunts.

    That’s ok. I’m pretty sure I am in the minority on this one.

  141. 141.

    srv

    June 6, 2006 at 1:49 pm

    And while we’re entertaining the possibilities, why should minors be excluded from being available as spouses for adults?

    30 & 40 year old men in the US were marrying teenage girls without societal concern up well into the 20th century.

    So much for consistent religious values.

  142. 142.

    Krista

    June 6, 2006 at 1:49 pm

    OooOOoo. Passive-Aggressive. DADDY LIKE!

    Okay…that was a little creepy, John.

    Oh, wait! Let me run that sentence through the Darrellator 3000 interpretation machine!

    /clunking sounds

    “Okay…that was a little creepy, John, because people on the right are creepy and perverted and homophobic and racist, and I rilly, rilly think that everything that Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan says is the honest truth.”

  143. 143.

    Some Other Brian Guy

    June 6, 2006 at 1:53 pm

    No I didn’t. Re-read the thread dumbass.

    Quite avoiding the question.

    Why do you want to marry your mother!? It is vital to this discussion to understand more about this topic.

    Otherwise how can we properly judge whether or not your incestuous desires are at all similar to gays wanting to get married?

  144. 144.

    DecidedFenceSitter

    June 6, 2006 at 1:53 pm

    You know what, to throw some fuel on this fire I’m going to do something stupid.

    Hi, I’m polyamorous.

    Everyone on here who has interacted with me has interacted with someone who supports the gay rights debate, not only for the intrinsic value of the granting equal protection, but moving the legal benefits from their socio-religious roots but into a more equitable contactual relationship.

    I have a wife. On the 22nd I will have been married to her for four years now. We dated for three years prior to that for a grand total of 7 years.

    I have a girlfriend. January was our two year anniversary of dating; and I plan on buying and giving her a ring this fall on a date that is meaningful to the two of us.

    She moved into our home two years ago, and became a home owner a year later (i.e., paying mortgage and not rent).

    And in the fall of 2007, we’re going to have a ceremony, a “untraditional celebration of a traditional notion” as one of my friends coined it.

    I don’t even know why I’m writing this at this point. After several years of being a minor activist, I’m tired of making the same arguments, of coming up against the same prejudices, the same ideologies.

    So you know what? Pass your damn amendment. It’ll be the second time that the Constitution has been amended to restrict the rights of the people rather than protect and enumerate them. And I’m just as sure that in a decade that it will be appealed as well. I can be patient.

    I can wait. And the tide will turn. Read the polls, those who are my age already support gay marriage in far higher numbers then those 10-20 years older.

    I can wait.

  145. 145.

    Kirk Spencer

    June 6, 2006 at 1:56 pm

    Brian said:

    Can someone give me a persuasive reason to approve gay marriage?

    Brian, I’ll try (seriously). To begin, I have to disambiguate this term “marriage”. See, this ‘joining of two people together’ has two functional definitions. One is religious, the other is civil. And in the United States, the two are separate.

    Religiously, marriage is a sacrament. It is a ceremony in faith of joining two into one forevermore – in just about every religion I’ve studied. And this grants absolutely zero civil benefits.

    Civilly, marriage is a contract. It grants an exchange of benefits and responsibilities. Benefits include (for example) assumption of power of attorney in lieu of an actual agreement in emergency circumstances, and a host of equal picayune legal assumptions of power and authority. It carries with it the responsibility of provision of support both to the spouse (the other contract holder) and to any dependents mutually obtained, again along with a host of equivalent benefits (to include the peculiar ‘a spouse’s testimony can be blocked by the fifth amendment’ decisions).

    The proof that these are separate is simple. You can be married civilly without a religious component. If you do so, you do not lose ANY civil benefits, though certain religions will not (officially) consider you married. (Specific example: Until not so long ago, and possibly even at present, a marriage outside the Roman Catholic Church is, barring specific exception, not considered a marriage in the faith.) The reverse can also be true if the religious figure officiating does not have a license to grant civil recognition of the marriage. They are specifically and legally DIFFERENT applications of the same word and broad concept.

    Marriage (civil) is the right to grant another individual a host of default legal permissions balanced by another host of assumed responsibilities until the contract is specifically voided (divorce).

    Now, why should people be allowed to grant this authority to people of the same gender? And – I think relevantly – why should it not apply to members of the same family?

    There are two reasons for the allowance, one philosophical, one practical. Philosophically, it’s a core concept of the constitution as amended. We call it due process. There shall not be a citizen who solely by virtue of being of a general class shall be denied the rights of the majority. Restriction and revocation of rights must be on a case by case basis and must be shown to be to the benefit of the civil society. Perhaps you have trouble with that concept, so I will instead use a practical one.

    Every year, a number of people are required to jump through loopholes and paperwork that is neutralized by the default permissions of ‘marriage’. In more than a few cases this effort includes time and money in courts to persuade people that the individual does indeed have right and authority to operate as the other person’s partner. In specific example I cite the estimated 3-10% (depending on reference) of all wills challenged, that are challenged solely on the basis that the partner is not blood and so the will should be negated and the property given to ‘family’. Success of the challenge depends on the state of probate, but the cost of the court not only to the participants but to we the taxpayers is huge. And wills are far from the only example.

    Bottom line: Allowing gays to marry (civilly) reduces costs to we the citizens; and allowing gays to marry (civilly) elimminates the practical creation of a second class citizen.

    Challenges and responses:
    Well, why can’t we just allow family to be married? Response: family by blood gains a significant number of these civil advantages already. Normally it requires “opt-out” by the individual to prevent them, making the “opt-in” of marriage unnecessary. The exception tends to be in the area of procreation.
    CH: Well, why don’t we just allow marriage to so-called underage members? Response: I failed to include an adjective in the above discussion. “Adult”. That is, believed to be of sufficient mental awareness and self-sufficiency as to truly ‘be of their own mind’. We know, sadly, that there are 40 year old people who can be led to do just about anything by someone who gives them the time of day, and that there are 13 year olds who could be effective independent figures able to withstand peer pressure from almost any source. We have arbitrarily decided that a series of ages – 16, 18 and 21 in most states – will be used as a standin for this mental balance we call adulthood. The goal is a liberal one – the innocent shall be protected till they are able to defend themselves and pass along the protection to those who follow.
    What about bigamy/polygamy(andry)? Interestingly, this one may be a concern. The greatest difficulty created is in the fact that there is no longer a single voiced power of attorney, but rather that there are multiples who may be in conflict. The resolution of this conflict negates a number of benefits the default authority was meant to overcome. In other words, if Wife A and Husband A have to go to court to resolve which decides the correct medical action for Spouse B, the waste of time and resources makes the whole benefit moot.

    Kirk

  146. 146.

    Kirk Spencer

    June 6, 2006 at 2:01 pm

    Addendum to my post in light of the ‘benefits for sisters’ mess above.

    As per my remark about family, it’s different. I can get my sister (or brother) declared as my dependent – my responsibility for provision of care and support. My insurance will allow me to add her in that case. There are existing ‘loopholes’ to the default allowances granted by marriage for blood (or adoptive – legal, not emotional) family.

  147. 147.

    Pb

    June 6, 2006 at 2:10 pm

    Darrell,

    One obsessed whackjob is enough on this thread

    I agree, but unfortunately we’ve got both you *and* Brian… :(

  148. 148.

    Sojourner

    June 6, 2006 at 2:24 pm

    Slippery slope anyone?

    No slippery slope. Gays want the same right as heteros:

    To marry the one person they love as long as that person is able to give legal consent, is not related, etc.

  149. 149.

    Bruce Moomaw

    June 6, 2006 at 2:25 pm

    I think the reason for the Christian Right’s infuriated opposition to gay marriage is perfectly simple: they are convinced, on religious grounds, that homsexuals are seriously immoral just by dint of being homosexuals, and so naturally they think they should be punished for that sin. Period. The nonsense about gay marriage somehow “threatening the stability of heterosexual marriages” is recognized perfectly clearly by everyone on both sides as nonsense; the Christian Right wants to ban gay marriage not because they actually believe it would weaken straight marriage, but simply because they want to punish homosexuality by any means which they can possibly get passed legally at this point.

    All that official business from Bush about the reason being that it would “endanger straight marriage” is just a figleaf — a classic political ploy to try to straddle the gap between two opposed political groups as well as he possibly can under the awkward circumstances. Legions of politicians have done it before, and legions more will in the future.

  150. 150.

    Krista

    June 6, 2006 at 2:28 pm

    pb – But we forget! In Darrell-land, anybody who tries to actually hold him accountable for his wild accusations, and doesn’t get sidetracked by his fleet of jackalopes, is an “obsessed whackjob”.

    Feh…I knew he wouldn’t have the balls to admit error. Poor Darrell. It must be tough, looking at yourself in the mirror and wondering why nobody likes you, not realizing that cowardice just emanates from you like a toxic cloud. I really feel sorry for him, actually.

  151. 151.

    Pb

    June 6, 2006 at 2:32 pm

    Krista,

    I really feel sorry for him, actually.

    That’s because you’re far too nice. I, on the other hand, feel sorry for the rest of us.

  152. 152.

    Bruce Moomaw

    June 6, 2006 at 2:33 pm

    As for the twaddle we’re getting on this thread about marriage to very young minors being no more immoral than gay marriage: please. The point is that gay marriage harms no one in any way, while marriage between an adult and a young minor who is almost certainly not nearly ready for it emotionally (and who can be easily bullied by that adult) DOES do harm to that minor.

    And if you insist on believing that homosexuality is immoral even if does no harm to anyone, then you’re faced with the obvious next question: just HOW immoral is it in that case? As immoral as murder? As stealing $5000? As stealing a penny? And, in any such case, why?

    Put that way, it becomes instantly obvious that people who call homosexuality immoral are really just saying that it’s AESTHETICALLY offensive to them; they don’t like to look at it. But physically deformed people are aesthetically offensive to us too, and we don’t think they have a moral duty to stay tucked indoors out of sight.

    Christ, do I actually have to explain any of this to adults?

  153. 153.

    Punchy

    June 6, 2006 at 2:37 pm

    All that official business from Bush about the reason being that it would “endanger straight marriage” is just a figleaf—a classic political ploy to try to straddle the gap

    EXACTLY. He cannot say “my religion forbids it” without looking like he’s governing from his Bible. Instead, it’s this bullshit about “sanctity of marriage”, but the origin has nothing to do with concern about marriage and all to do with concerns about what his Bible says.

    And the kicker is that he obviously thinks we can’t see through all that….won’t notice his sham proclamations..

  154. 154.

    Some Other Brian Guy

    June 6, 2006 at 2:37 pm

    Well Darrell has disappeared when questioned about his mother.

    But the point is, where my questions no more ridiculous or stupid then what Brian and Darrell have spewed on this thread as reasonable issues?

    That is why Some Other Brian Guy exists, to de-spoo the wingnuttery pretending to be reasonable.

  155. 155.

    Some Other Brian Guy

    June 6, 2006 at 2:42 pm

    The point is that gay marriage harms no one in any way

    That can’t possibly be true!

    If two guys get married, assuming we have a balanced population of men and women… that means there are two women in this world who can’t find a husband.

    This forces those women to engage in a lesbian affair!

    This does appear to be the argument Brian and Darrell are making.

  156. 156.

    Krista

    June 6, 2006 at 2:44 pm

    DecidedFenceSitter – Either we’re a pretty jaded bunch, or nobody really knows quite how to respond to your disclosure. :)

  157. 157.

    Tom in Texas

    June 6, 2006 at 2:44 pm

    That’s because you’re far too nice. I, on the other hand, feel sorry for the rest of us.

    That’s why I could never marry a Canadian. They speak (or at least understand some) French. They’re too nice — plus that whole “eh” thing would drive me batty. Who watches hockey in the US of A? CANUCK MARRIAGES ARE RUINING AMERICAN VALUES. We need an amendment. Hell, all I need is an addendum to the current one. Can we PLEASE ban Canadians from marrying here as well?

  158. 158.

    Darrell

    June 6, 2006 at 2:44 pm

    But the point is, where my questions no more ridiculous or stupid then what Brian and Darrell have spewed on this thread as reasonable issues?

    What so over-the-top ridiculous or stupid things have either of us ‘spewed’ which compare with your ever so witty and hilarious comments regarding my mother? Given that I don’t feel strongly one way or another regarding gay marriage, seems some of you are so extreme that even middle of road points of discussion get painted by you as beyond the pale.. whatev

  159. 159.

    Pb

    June 6, 2006 at 2:44 pm

    Some Other Brian Guy,

    Actually, it’s more nefarious than that–all those gay men and women not making babies with each other all the time collectively lowers America’s birth rate, which is why the Mexicans are taking over!

  160. 160.

    Andrei

    June 6, 2006 at 2:45 pm

    But we forget! In Darrell-land, anybody who tries to actually hold him accountable for his wild accusations, and doesn’t get sidetracked by his fleet of jackalopes, is an “obsessed whackjob”.

    Actually… given how John defended Stormy and banned me when I called Stormy an epitaph to prove to her that not all of us lay the smackdown like sissies, I’m wondering where his sense of chilvary has gone when Darrell called Krista “a dishonest fucking bitch.”

    Not that Krista needs defending given how well she reacted to the whole thing. (Although many claimed that Stormy didn’t need defending either.)

    It’s one thing to not ban a guy like Darrell for basically being an idiot. That’s all fine and dandy and well within the rules of what B-J is supposed to be about I guess. But it still begs the question amoung many commenters and readers here why Cole doesn’t respond to Darrell explicitly after all this time.

    Sure, there’s no need to read anything into a non-response (busy with work, missed the comments, thinks the comments aren’t worth responding to, who knows) and there’s no need to make up some wild conspiracy about the motives of keeping silent in responding to a guy like Darrell… but in this particular thread, when Darrell has very clearly crossed the intellectually dishonesty debate line, one has to wonder why the host remains silent on letting one person consistently act like a screaming six year old in the grocery wanting candy in the checkout line.

  161. 161.

    Darrell

    June 6, 2006 at 2:45 pm

    Poor Darrell. It must be tough, looking at yourself in the mirror and wondering why nobody likes you, not realizing that cowardice just emanates from you like a toxic cloud. I really feel sorry for him, actually.

    Ouch! Get me some ice for that spanking you gave me Krista. You guys are way too clever

  162. 162.

    Tom in Texas

    June 6, 2006 at 2:46 pm

    No offense intended Krista — I’ve never seen a hint of French from you :)

  163. 163.

    srv

    June 6, 2006 at 2:48 pm

    That’s why I could never marry a Canadian. They speak (or at least understand some) French.

    Outside Quebec, I wonder how many speak French. If we could just get them to secede, we could pick up the nice parts.

  164. 164.

    Some Other Brian Guy

    June 6, 2006 at 2:49 pm

    But physically deformed people are aesthetically offensive to us too, and we don’t think they have a moral duty to stay tucked indoors out of sight.

    Well actually, in Soviet Russia they do. People who are not normal are really looked down upon. This included the gays, cripples everybody.

    So Darrell and Brian want to turn the United States into a version of the Soviet Union.

    That makes Darrell and Brian Communists!

    COMMIE BASTARDS!!!!!! YOU KILLED KENNY!

  165. 165.

    Krista

    June 6, 2006 at 2:50 pm

    No offense intended Krista—I’ve never seen a hint of French from you

    Vraiment?

  166. 166.

    Darrell

    June 6, 2006 at 2:50 pm

    I’m wondering where his sense of chilvary has gone when Darrell called Krista “a dishonest fucking bitch.”

    In case you didn’t notice, my comment was a response in kind to this from her

    Krista Says:

    Darrell, you are a fucking dishonest coward who should hang his head in shame.

    Unlike you calling Stormy a “cunt” without her cursing at you, I was responding to expletives thrown at me from Krista. See the difference now you jackass?

  167. 167.

    Darrell

    June 6, 2006 at 2:52 pm

    So Darrell and Brian want to turn the United States into a version of the Soviet Union.

    This is what passes as ‘reality’ among so many on the left.

  168. 168.

    Some Other Brian Guy

    June 6, 2006 at 2:54 pm

    What so over-the-top ridiculous or stupid things have either of us ‘spewed’ which compare with your ever so witty and hilarious comments regarding my mother? Given that I don’t feel strongly one way or another regarding gay marriage, seems some of you are so extreme that even middle of road points of discussion get painted by you as beyond the pale..

    So let me get this straight. Your position is, “I don’t care, I won’t be affected by this… therefore I am in support of Amending our Constitution to include discrimination.”

    That makes perfect sense.

    So it’s not that you are a bigot, you just support this gay marriage amendment thing because it’s a political angle you think will help the GOP win votes with.

    Which is exactly what everybody has been saying it is, that you called whacked.

    Fascinating.

    But you still have not answered why you want to marry your mother.

  169. 169.

    Some Other Brian Guy

    June 6, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    This is what passes as ‘reality’ among so many on the left.

    Have you ever belonged to an organization such as the Communist Party?

    Answer the question Darrell, and we better not find out you are lying or we’ll string your family up at Gitmo!

    -Some Other Brian Guy
    Chairmen of the Coalition to Protect American Values

  170. 170.

    Darrell

    June 6, 2006 at 2:57 pm

    So let me get this straight. Your position is, “I don’t care, I won’t be affected by this… therefore I am in support of Amending our Constitution to include discrimination.”

    Hey, keep pounding those strawmen if that’s what floats your boat. Just don’t pretend like you’re a normal rational human being

    But you still have not answered why you want to marry your mother.

    Oh you lefties are so witty. And such a nice touch bringing up my mother. ‘Reality based’ community is what you call yourselves, right?

  171. 171.

    Some Other Brian Guy

    June 6, 2006 at 2:58 pm

    Unlike you calling Stormy a “^&&%” without her cursing at you, I was responding to expletives thrown at me from Krista. See the difference now you jackass?

    Actually no.

  172. 172.

    Some Other Brian Guy

    June 6, 2006 at 3:01 pm

    Hey, keep pounding those strawmen if that’s what floats your boat. Just don’t pretend like you’re a normal rational human being

    Why are you running away from your position?

    I mean which is it. Do you care, or don’t you care? If you don’t care then this is obviously political… if you do care, then obviously you’re a bigot.

    Hey, keep pounding those strawmen if that’s what floats your boat. Just don’t pretend like you’re a normal rational human being

    Enough with the reality based community. I spit on reality. I am the antithesis of Reality!

    I am Some Other Brian Guy! I use righty argumentation style to make my point. Look in the mirror, Darrell, you will see Some Other Brian Guy in reverse.

    Now answer the question.

    Why do you want to marry your mother.

    Have you ever belonged to an organization, such as the Communist Party?

    Are you supporting gay marriage bans because you are a bigot, or because you are a political hack?

  173. 173.

    Some Other Brian Guy

    June 6, 2006 at 3:02 pm

    THREE QUESTIONS!

    There are three questions placed before Darrell. Let us see how long he can spin without answering them.

  174. 174.

    Krista

    June 6, 2006 at 3:02 pm

    Andrei, Darrell’s right about the cursing aspect of it. It was evenly dealt out by both of us, so I didn’t take particular offense. Thank you, though, for your thoughfulness.

  175. 175.

    Tom in Texas

    June 6, 2006 at 3:03 pm

    Krista:
    Next time just cuss him out in French. How will he know?

  176. 176.

    Krista

    June 6, 2006 at 3:05 pm

    Ignore the misspellings, please and thank you.

    And Darrell, just because I’m not taking offense at you calling me a fucking bitch, it doesn’t mean I still don’t think you’re a cowardly dishonest ass.

    Just wanted you to know. :)

  177. 177.

    Some Other Brian Guy

    June 6, 2006 at 3:11 pm

    On a related note…

    Proof that God is Dead

  178. 178.

    Tom in Texas

    June 6, 2006 at 3:12 pm

    Or English works just fine.

  179. 179.

    The Easter Bunny

    June 6, 2006 at 3:14 pm

    CANUCK MARRIAGES ARE RUINING AMERICAN VALUES. We need an amendment. Hell, all I need is an addendum to the current one. Can we PLEASE ban Canadians from marrying here as well?

    You ought to be a Senator, Tommy Texas. Nice to see that the moonbats and kooks haven’t driven away all the sane people here.

    You don’t go far enough, though. Not only do we need to ban Canucki marriages; we need to round up the Canuckistanis in our midst and ship them all to Gitmo for some good old-fashioned American waterboarding. That’ll teach ’em to try to push their perverted gay moose-worshipping ways on decent folks like us.

    And you lefties can take your whiny little complaints about due process and Geneva conventions and all the rest of your moonbeam rainbow hippy-dippy horseshit and shove it right up your tailpipes. 5/29 changed everything. We’re fighting a global war on Canucki extremism and gay marriage, bitches!

  180. 180.

    Andrei

    June 6, 2006 at 3:20 pm

    It was evenly dealt out by both of us, so I didn’t take particular offense.

    I know. (Although I find it amusing Darrell equates “coward” with “bitch” in terms of expletives. Obviously, the word “fucking” hit the right button inside Darrell and for that, you are to either be congratulated or chastised. I can’t tell which!) It was just more of a thinking out loud exercise of how it is that guys who seem rationale like John Cole don’t respond to what I think many of us would agree are patently absurd discussion points from a guy like Darrell. (And yes, the original articles themselves do that to a certain degree, but one would think there’s opportunity for direct clarification.)

    My favorite conspiracy theory right now is that John is Darrell, and uses that identity to keep the ad clicks going and his ranking reasonably popular on some blog tracker that watches page activity. But that would make me sound crazy like ppGaz so I try to avoid speaking about that crazy train openly.

  181. 181.

    fwiffo

    June 6, 2006 at 3:20 pm

    Balloon Juice – where people of all political persuasions, ethnicities, orientations and cultural backgrounds can come together as one and act like absolute jackasses.

  182. 182.

    Darrell

    June 6, 2006 at 3:25 pm

    Why are you lefties focusing on your creepy obsessive nonsense, when we have such a fascinating persona in our midst with FenceSitter:

    I have a wife. On the 22nd I will have been married to her for four years now. We dated for three years prior to that for a grand total of 7 years.

    I have a girlfriend. January was our two year anniversary of dating; and I plan on buying and giving her a ring this fall on a date that is meaningful to the two of us.

    She moved into our home two years ago, and became a home owner a year later

    Dude, it would be really interesting to hear a few of the details on how you pulled that off. If you all are truly happy, then congrats and take a bow.

    I don’t mean to appear snarky over what appears to be a seriously poignant real life story.. but can you tell us how you sprung this on your wife and then convinced her to go along with it? Wow. You must have some incredible sales skills.. that, or a huge schlong:)

  183. 183.

    Tom in Texas

    June 6, 2006 at 3:34 pm

    You ought to be a Senator, Tommy Texas.

    Now that you mention it, there’s a certain house seat I’ve got my eye on. A different Tom just had to give it up because of a huge media conspiracy to demonize him. It’s true — I heard it from Steven Colbert himself.

  184. 184.

    ImJohnGalt

    June 6, 2006 at 3:42 pm

    Wow. You must have some incredible sales skills.. that, or a huge schlong:)

    Ah yes, gay marriage is a problem, but if some guy enters a consenting arrangement with two women, well that’s titillating. Darrell just can’t help himself. Now, if only they were boy scouts, that’d be a trifecta, eh?

    Seriously, Darrell, are you that sheltered? Polyamorous couples don’t “convince” each other to go along with polyamoury (at least, not ones with relationships that last).

    Generally a couple comes to polyamoury together after establishing a secure relationship with one another but a desire to explore the lifestyle together, or they meet within the community. If a partner needs “convincing” to do it, it can quickly become coercive, and the relationship will die.

  185. 185.

    Some Other Brian Guy

    June 6, 2006 at 3:43 pm

    It’s interesting, with Darrell’s obsession about marrying his mother and everything.

    There’s no Constitution Amendment banning Polygamy or Incest. Yet we have numerous laws against it.

    Why aren’t they concerned about this?

    I mean even the wording of the amendments I’ve seen, something about one man and one woman, don’t point out that the pair can’t be related.

    So Darrell could marry his mother after all, there’s no amendment stopping him!

  186. 186.

    Darrell

    June 6, 2006 at 3:47 pm

    Seriously, Darrell, are you that sheltered? Polyamorous couples don’t “convince” each other to go along with polyamoury

    I guess I am, as I’ve never knowlingly encountered a polygamist before. I’m skeptical though at your assertion that one of the parties typically doesn’t need be ‘sold’ on the idea. I would think it would take a lot of convincing, at least inititally.. as the sharing of attention would seem to arouse jealousy.

    All hail FenceSitter!

  187. 187.

    Pb

    June 6, 2006 at 3:51 pm

    Why are you lefties focusing on your creepy obsessive nonsense, when we have

    …Darrell creepily obsessing over a personal story of polyamory?

    My apologies, DecidedFenceSitter, since Darrell never will. That is to say, personally, I’d rather be ignored than have Darrell fantasizing about my personal life. Ugh.

  188. 188.

    Brian

    June 6, 2006 at 3:51 pm

    So, if I understand the gist of this thread, with the possible exception of minors and siblings, any couple or “family unit” should be able to have civil marriage rights or at least the benefits that come with marriage. Have I got that essentially correct?

  189. 189.

    Pb

    June 6, 2006 at 3:58 pm

    Brian,

    More or less–the recognition or at least the legal rights. Either that, or get the government out of the marriage business in the first place (although that’d be a lot tougher).

  190. 190.

    Andrei

    June 6, 2006 at 4:02 pm

    Given John’s D-Day post now up on the blog… it seems quite sad to me to think my conspiracy theory about John being Darrell couldn’t possibly be true, given how long and how much time that post probably took to assemble. (It also potentially answers the question why John isn’t repsonding to Darrell. Ah well… back to my cave.)

  191. 191.

    demimondian

    June 6, 2006 at 4:05 pm

    Balloon Juice – where people of all political persuasions, ethnicities, orientations and cultural backgrounds can come together as one and act like absolute jackasses.

    potd

  192. 192.

    Punchy

    June 6, 2006 at 4:06 pm

    Outside Quebec, I wonder how many speak French. If we could just get them to secede, we could pick up the nice parts.

    Pick up? Nah…let’s TRADE. They give us Saskatubigword and Nova Scotia, we give them Mississippi and Alabama. We can then trade Tennessee (on the condition Frist goes with it) to Mexico for Cancun, and just give Louisiana to the Gulf of Mexico in a “sacrifice to the Sea God” type maneuver. To maintain 50 states (and thus avoid the idea of the country en masse purchasing 2 billion new flags), we could split Florida in two, with the state line between N and S based on where tan-lines become noticable (around Orlando, I’d say).

  193. 193.

    Pb

    June 6, 2006 at 4:15 pm

    Andrei,

    Given John’s D-Day post now up on the blog… it seems quite sad to me to think my conspiracy theory about John being Darrell couldn’t possibly be true, given how long and how much time that post probably took to assemble.

    Sadly, no–that was a repost from 2004.

  194. 194.

    RSA

    June 6, 2006 at 4:25 pm

    Can someone give me a persuasive reason to approve gay marriage?

    Okay, here goes: Gay people, by virtue of having chosen their particular sexual orientation, clearly demonstrate their low moral fiber. We can thus expect a higher incidence of other failings, such as being bad credit risks and violent criminals. Gay marriage is the solution: gay partners will become responsible for each other’s debts, and they will be more likely to murder each other than right-thinking straight people. Marriage is punishment for gays, and they won’t even realize it. . .muahaha.

  195. 195.

    Andrei

    June 6, 2006 at 4:38 pm

    Ah! I missed that! My fault. I’m sorry.

    (See Darrell… not so hard to say.)

  196. 196.

    DecidedFenceSitter

    June 6, 2006 at 4:55 pm

    DecidedFenceSitter – Either we’re a pretty jaded bunch, or nobody really knows quite how to respond to your disclosure.

    Actually, unsurprisingly that is most of the reactions fall along two reactions for those not personally involved, i.e., coming out to our parents –

    1) OMG the sex must be great, how the hell did you do it; or
    2) Whatever floats your boat, dude.

    —

    I didn’t post this to titillate, though I expected it to. It is one of the more common male fantasies. My life is a lot of work, a lot of balancing, and everything that I know, every time someone comes up to me to ask questions about the lifestyle, well, the lessons that I’ve learned are just as applicable to a more standard.

    No, I mostly posted this cause I’ve hit bitter, I’m sick of people telling me how I’ve got to live my life because it doesn’t fit within their norms. Basically, I’d love for every supporter of these measures, whether an active or passive supporter, to go up to a gay couple of 10+ years and say “I don’t believe you deserve equal protection under the law.”

    And for many of the true believers, that wouldn’t be an issue. But I just want them to know who the ones who they are hurting are, I want them to put a face to the pain they choose to inflict. I want them to know what damage they cause.

    Unfortunately, I’m not gay, though I do support their rights. So I can’t drop that hammer, I can’t bring that experience.

    But I am part of an outlier culture, every day I commit a class D misdemeanor in my state, our five years plans moving out of a state I love because I need to be in a state that the Child Protective Services won’t take away my kids when I do have them.

    That is why I posted this.

    And to answer the question posed, no matter how crudely asked, because I do try. My wife and I came to this through conversation and communication, the hallmarks of any stable relationship, and because someone was pursuing her. So if there was someone who had to be convinced almost 3 years ago, it was me, not her.

    Lord knows the sex is not worth the headache, legal issues, and stress that this lifestyle puts on us.

    But the love is. And the sense of family.

    —

    Brian, yes that is exactly what those who are proponents of these equal protection want IMO. The amount of variance covers the spectrum, much as it does on any controversial issue, but as a baseline generalization – “civil marriage rights or at least the benefits that come with marriage” – would make my life a lot easier. And save me several thousand dollars in lawyer to get all those rights fees versus a 50 dollar marriage license next year. :)

  197. 197.

    The Other Steve

    June 6, 2006 at 4:57 pm

    So, if I understand the gist of this thread, with the possible exception of minors and siblings, any couple or “family unit” should be able to have civil marriage rights or at least the benefits that come with marriage. Have I got that essentially correct?

    Here’s a question.

    Why should we be opposed to polygamy?

    It always struck that polygamy and opposition to it, tended to prove Smith and Hume’s theory of moral sentiments. Quite obviously in the bible there are examples of individuals who had multiple wives, even concubines. I am aware of nothing that says “Thou shalt not”.

    In historical context, it makes sense. Since men did the dangerous stuff they had a shorter life expectancy, meaning more women in the society compared to men and a strong demand to have more babies. Clearly having multiple wives in this situation bears fruit.

    But as society balances, population increases and the need for increasing the population vanishes along with the relative imbalance of men to women. Now you have a different situation, where to insure a reduction in societal friction you don’t have a handful of men marrying up all the available women. Otherwise you have some men who are very frustrated and prone to suicide bombing attacks.

    So the morality here isn’t one of God’s creation, but rather one of societies sentiments based upon needs.

    Just interesting. I’m opposed to polygamy, but only because I went to a college with a 70/30 male to female ratio, and I thought it was very unfair when guys had multiple girlfriends.

  198. 198.

    Punchy

    June 6, 2006 at 5:17 pm

    I went to a college with a 70/30 male to female ratio

    OUCH. If I may…it’s an engineering school, wasn’t it? Milwaukee School of Engineering?

  199. 199.

    Krista

    June 6, 2006 at 5:19 pm

    DFS – I have only one question: where on earth do you find the time? :) (I’m kidding — you don’t have to answer. My viewpoint falls into the “Whatever floats your boat” category.)

    And Punchy?

    Pick up? Nah…let’s TRADE. They give us Saskatubigword and Nova Scotia, we give them Mississippi and Alabama.

    Bite your tongue, sir. While it’s flattering to think that you desire Nova Scotia in this hypothetical trade, there’s no damn way I’m giving up my healthcare.

  200. 200.

    Krista

    June 6, 2006 at 5:21 pm

    Anybody know offhand what the ratio is of polygamists to polyandrists? I seem to recall reading that there are very few instances of polyandry. Any married women here can probably understand why.

  201. 201.

    demimondian

    June 6, 2006 at 5:31 pm

    Formal polyandry is rare among humans, although there are a very few societies which practice it. Given the potential for violence in such relationships, that’s not entirely surprising. Functional polyandry, however, appears to be quite common in all societies: even today, the rate of misattributed paternity has been estimated to be about 1 in fifteen live births in England, for instance.

    I infer that there are lot of functionally polyandrous female humans. The alternative is blasphemous.

  202. 202.

    demimondian

    June 6, 2006 at 5:36 pm

    While it’s flattering to think that you desire Nova Scotia in this hypothetical trade, there’s no damn way I’m giving up my healthcare.

    What gives you the impression that you’ve got a choice? We’re going to come back and conquer you, just like we did back in 1812.

  203. 203.

    Brian

    June 6, 2006 at 5:37 pm

    Marriage is punishment for gays, and they won’t even realize it. . .muahaha

    ppGaz…I found you a new spoof.

    Why should we be opposed to polygamy?

    I’m not sure that we should be, at least in a legal sense. I don’t understand how these situations work. How do the finances work? How is the man shared amongst the wives?

    Polygamy has always struck me as a logistical nightmare in our culture for those involved, and therefore a natural bar to many participating in it.

  204. 204.

    demimondian

    June 6, 2006 at 5:49 pm

    Polygamy has always struck me as a logistical nightmare in our culture for those involved, and therefore a natural bar to many participating in it.

    Actually, cultures that practice formal polygyny tend to be strongly patriarchal. As a result, the man brings home a pretty young wife when he wants one, and he does with the older one as he wants. Typically, she becomes an unpaid slave. Since such societies tend to have no means for women to escape such marriages, you can usually describe them as “hell on Earth” without overstating the case too much.

    I don’t deny the possibility that a consensual multi-party marriage could work, you understand. Monogamy has a certain intrisic symmetry which seems hard to replicate in polyamorous matrimonial relationships, though, so I’m skeptical about them.

  205. 205.

    Sean

    June 6, 2006 at 5:49 pm

    I’m coming rather late to this game and the conversation has wandered rather far afield from the first “why” question that was posted. As a recovering conservative, I’ll give you my $.02 on why change is such a problem for some conservatives.

    The farther right you go, the more the belief systems are based on a single, immutable Truth. The farther right you go, the more adherants to said belief systems are convinced they are the sole custodians of said Truth. Anything that challenges that Truth shakes the foundations of their world view.

    Krista:

    I just finished an intro to sociology class and can proudly pontificate in response to your question about polyandry, though I can’t give you any numbers.

    Polyandry is almost non-existant. There are only a handful of cultures where it still exists. It exists in regions where living conditions are extreme, food is scarce and children can are a liability: mountain cultures in the Himilayas and the Andes for example. It’s also worth noting that cultures that practice polyandry are not matriarchies where the woman gets to pick her husbands. The woman is usually shared between brothers.

  206. 206.

    Punchy

    June 6, 2006 at 6:06 pm

    While it’s flattering to think that you desire Nova Scotia in this hypothetical trade, there’s no damn way I’m giving up my healthcare.

    You can move to Manitoba. Wicked good fishing, I hear. You’d make a fine ‘Pegian….

  207. 207.

    The Easter Bunny

    June 6, 2006 at 6:48 pm

    What gives you the impression that you’ve got a choice? We’re going to come back and conquer you, just like we did back in 1812.

    About time you woke up and realized the need to take the fight to the Canuckistanis, demi. We will crush our enemies, see them driven before us, and hear the lamentations of their women.

    You feel that burning, stinging itch, Canuckis? That’s the rash of freedom and democracy, bitches, and we’re going to spread it in your country like crabs at the Burning Man Festival.

  208. 208.

    Krista

    June 6, 2006 at 8:04 pm

    TEB – just a marketing tip. If you want to promote freedom and democracy, you might want to make it sound a tiny bit more appealing.

  209. 209.

    DecidedFenceSitter

    June 6, 2006 at 8:05 pm

    You choose what’s important to you K, I don’t watch TV, I rarely go to the movies, instead I spend more time with my friends, with my loves.
    A typical schedule goes like this:
    1st,3rd,5th Monday – Family Dinner Night I have 9-12 people over, close personal friends who might as well be family.
    2nd and 4th Monday – Me Nights, I get to choose what I want to do without consulting.
    Every Tuesday – Happy Hour with a different group, generally with my girlfriend.
    Every Wednesday – Family Night, just the three of us, staying in.
    1st and 3rd Thursday – Date Night with my wife, where we do something special, just the two of us.
    2nd and 4th Thursday – Date night with my girlfriend.
    5th Thursday – Me Night.
    1st,3rd,5th Friday – I have friends over for geekery.
    2nd and 4th Fridays – Free
    Weekends are generally a motley of activities; but I generally have to get my oil replaced every 6-7 weeks due to the mileage I put on my car.
    —

    As far as practical finances goes, well, our home is run very much like a business. For comparisons, my wife is the CFO because she wants to have absolute control over the finances, and it pleases her to balance to the penny. Otherwise, every month, on the first Wednesday, we have a small business meeting where we review the budget and expenditures for the previous month, and plan our events for the next 6-8 weeks. The curses of having a huge social circle.

    Note that those of us in this subculture try to stay aways from polygamy, polyandry and polygymy simply because of the social stigma that those words carry, or to quote a friend, “So that’s some sort of Mormon thing?” Hence the bastardization of greek and latin for polyamory.

    Oh and for those that think my wife is a poor abused neglected thing, please tell her that. No one’s dared say that to her in about two years after the last tongue lashing she meted out.
    —
    And to go back to finances, it works the same way it does in any healthy relationship, compromise and talking. We have a single joint account that all three of us have access to, and our own separate accounts. We’ve agreed and compromised on what comes out of what account, and it works. We get all the bills paid, we get to have fun, and if something explodes like the A/C unit, well we pay for the repairs, and it doesn’t really impact us.

    Considering the high cost of living in the area (DC Metro), it’s nice to have the three incomes as well.

  210. 210.

    Krista

    June 6, 2006 at 8:17 pm

    Mm, I’d imagine. And yeah, if you don’t watch TV, that would make a huge difference. It’s disturbing how much of a time-suck TV can become.

    Well, you sound happy, and if you and your loves are happy as well, then my proverbial hat is off to you. Relationships can be damn hard work, and I’m sure that adding another human’s quirks and foibles into the mix can make it even more so.

    Anyhoo, I’m off to bed, but I really want to thank you for having honoured me with a personal glimpse into your life — I think many of us have walked away with more open minds tonight because of what you’ve chosen to share.

  211. 211.

    ppGaz

    June 6, 2006 at 8:19 pm

    FenceSitter …. I am a firm believer in leaving other people alone when it comes to matters that are none of my business. So good luck to you on your living situation.

    But I can’t help reading your story and imagining myself in that situation ……

    Hi, I have a girlfriend. My wife just found about it.

    Please in the name of God, somebody call 911 and save me from being cut up by an angry woman wielding a large carving knife and calling me names I can’t make out over the sound of my car being driven into the dining room …..

    Okay now I have large objects including cast iron frypans and chairs being thrown directly at my head …..

    Oh Jesus now she has me in the doorway and is smashing the door over and over into my head ….

    ….who knew she could run this fast oh fuck I will never be able to get away from her before she …..

    …are those my good shirts in the front yard with the arms cut off and Eat Shit and Die spray painted on them?

    How the hell did she get my credit cards and Oh Christ here comes the car into the kitchen ….

  212. 212.

    Krista

    June 6, 2006 at 8:25 pm

    ppGaz – you’re assuming that more than one woman could put up with you, hon. :) (I kid, I kid.)

  213. 213.

    ppGaz

    June 6, 2006 at 8:26 pm

    AAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHELPMEAAAAAAAAA

  214. 214.

    Krista

    June 6, 2006 at 8:39 pm

    Note to Mrs. ppGaz – have you realized you’re living with a veritable comic genius?

    (Sorry p – I shouldn’t rib you like this. I must still be feeling a bit feisty from going toe-to-toe with Darrell today. It’s not something I’m used to, so it takes awhile for the blood to cool down, evidently.)

  215. 215.

    Tulkinghorn

    June 6, 2006 at 8:40 pm

    Fencesitter:

    What you are describing is not polygamy, but monogamy with concubinage. There is ample allowance for it in the Bible, but not in common law. As you are probably aware, girlfriend/concubine has no rights at common law or by any statutes I have ever heard of. A raw deal for her, really, as there is no good way to protect her rights.

    Perhaps the best approach would be to divorce wife, move the threesome to Massachusetts or Canada, and have wife and concubine marry as spouse and spouse. You would maintain visitation/custody rights and support obligations to all children, but would have to prove paternity… This is more interesting than the family law exams that they could come up with just five years ago.

  216. 216.

    The Other Steve

    June 6, 2006 at 8:43 pm

    OUCH. If I may…it’s an engineering school, wasn’t it? Milwaukee School of Engineering?

    Aye, engineering. Iowa State. It’s more 50/50 now, but back in the late 80’s it was 70/30 and it sucked. Bottom 3 dorm floors were girls, top 7 were guys. I don’t know why the guys had to be on top, but that’s the way the girls liked it.

  217. 217.

    Perry Como

    June 6, 2006 at 8:56 pm

    Considering the high cost of living in the area (DC Metro), it’s nice to have the three incomes as well.

    Sen. Santorum, is that you?

  218. 218.

    demimondian

    June 6, 2006 at 9:02 pm

    TOS — none of you knows from unbalanced gender ratios. When I was in grad school, the department had 183 grad students, of whom three were female.

  219. 219.

    demimondian

    June 6, 2006 at 9:04 pm

    Sen. Santorum, is that you?

    Well, he doesn’t live in Pennsylvania, so it’s possible.

  220. 220.

    Punchy

    June 6, 2006 at 9:22 pm

    Aye, engineering. Iowa State

    Wow. I went to Iowa. Never heard of such m/w ratios over there in Ames. Great town, nice Veisha parties. Of course, when going home with a date means your hands are in your pockets, that musta sucked. Still, great party town.

  221. 221.

    Punchy

    June 6, 2006 at 9:26 pm

    monogamy with concubinage

    we’re going to spread it in your country like crabs at the Burning Man Festival.

    Such wordsmithing on this blog never ceases to amaze me.

  222. 222.

    The Easter Bunny

    June 6, 2006 at 9:58 pm

    TEB – just a marketing tip. If you want to promote freedom and democracy, you might want to make it sound a tiny bit more appealing.

    Look, sister, we’re running a war here, not a marketing campaign. I’m not some blow-dried wind-surfing focus-tested poll-monkey. I don’t give a shit if the only way we can win hearts and minds is by surgically removing them and holding a lottery.

    So get used to it. I’m a straight-talker, not a homo-talker like you people with your fancy French words. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. If you don’t like it, tough. It tests great with unemployed 18-54-year-old white males living in their parents’ basements, and that’s what counts.

  223. 223.

    demimondian

    June 6, 2006 at 10:14 pm

    Listen, Krista. It’s time for us all to wise up to TEB’s abuse of the dead of 5/29. Despite his rhetoric, he has betrayed their sacred memories — I mean, really, “If you don’t eat Peeps this spring, then the Canuckofascists will have won”?

    Let us honor (you can spell the word however you like, OK) those who died on that tragic day by rising above narrow partisanship, and by uniting to face tomorrow with peace through strength, prosperity through production, and contentment through well-deserved rest. Let us go forward, together, to make the world a place that the scared dead of that tragic day will not be rejoicing to have avoided.

  224. 224.

    Otto Man

    June 6, 2006 at 10:49 pm

    Why should we be opposed to polygamy?

    Instead of 8 Santorum kids, we’d have 32. ‘Nuff said.

  225. 225.

    ppGaz

    June 7, 2006 at 1:03 am

    Monogamy with concubinage?

    Isn’t that like vegetarianism with meatballage?

  226. 226.

    The Other Steve

    June 7, 2006 at 1:22 am

    Wow. I went to Iowa. Never heard of such m/w ratios over there in Ames. Great town, nice Veisha parties. Of course, when going home with a date means your hands are in your pockets, that musta sucked. Still, great party town.

    Dates? What dates? I told you it was a 70/30 male to female ratio. :-)

  227. 227.

    The Other Steve

    June 7, 2006 at 1:22 am

    Instead of 8 Santorum kids, we’d have 32. ‘Nuff said.

    Shouldn’t that be enough for a anti-Santorum marriage amendment?

  228. 228.

    Beej

    June 7, 2006 at 2:28 am

    ppGaz,

    My husband asked me what I would do if he went out with another woman. I assured him that in 10 or 12 years I would probably cool down enough to put flowers on his grave. My best to your wife. I think I like her style!!

  229. 229.

    DecidedFenceSitter

    June 7, 2006 at 4:08 am

    Tulkinghorn, my friends who are becoming lawyers love my life to debate what would happen if… some of them keep wanting to bring it up in law class and see what the professor does.

    Actually in Canada, some reports have stated that with the Muslims coming in with multiple wives, the 2nd and 3rd wives are coming in as “cousins” to the first.

  230. 230.

    Tulkinghorn

    June 7, 2006 at 5:34 am

    You are a good sport to let people treat your personal life as an intellectual curiosity. I recall a law in England that allowed muslims to claim one wife at a time, but not more than one, to come in under the immigration laws.

    Where there is universal health insurance the issues are less pressing… people can live together and still have access to health care. The old model was if you had a large family you would often have an aunt or cousin living with you to help out. Under our post-war insurance regime extended families are penalized if they do this and are not a part of the workforce.

  231. 231.

    John S.

    June 7, 2006 at 7:33 am

    Under our post-war insurance regime extended families are penalized if they do this and are not a part of the workforce.

    I have long thought this was the harsh undercurrent of the gay marriage debate. The Chrisitan ‘outrage’ over the matter is little more than a red herring. The REAL force opposed to it are big business – namely the insurance companies. If gay marriage became as legal as segregated marriage, then all of a sudden millions of people would become ‘insurable’ – at the expense of their employers and the insurance companies that would represent them. Given the dreadful situation of healthcare in this country, does anyone doubt that instantly making millions more eligible for care doesn’t scare the shit out of the business and insurance lobbies? You can bet it does.

  232. 232.

    Steve

    June 7, 2006 at 8:18 am

    Um, insuring additional people is not an expense for insurance companies. In fact, it is how they make money.

    It would be an additional expense for businesses, although I really haven’t seen a strong push by the business lobby. Many large companies already have domestic partner policies in place, so they wouldn’t even be affected.

    Let’s think about this for a second. If the social cons AND the business lobby felt strongly about this, why wouldn’t it be a bigger priority for Bush, as opposed to something he only brings up in an election year? The reason the administration only pays lip service to the issue is because, yes indeed, it is only a major issue for the religious right.

  233. 233.

    The Easter Bunny

    June 7, 2006 at 8:26 am

    Let us honor (you can spell the word however you like, OK) those who died on that tragic day by rising above narrow partisanship, and by uniting to face tomorrow with peace through strength, prosperity through production, and contentment through well-deserved rest.

    Wow, that sounds really nice, demi. You should take that message on the road. Fill up your Happy Pouch with rainbow dust and pixie juice and go skipping down Moonbat Lane. Sing Kumbaya. Hug a tree. Save a whale.

    But when you step on a Canuckistani bomb and get blown into smoking gobbets of kook-flesh, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

  234. 234.

    Pb

    June 7, 2006 at 8:38 am

    DecidedFenceSitter,

    A typical schedule goes like this:

    Way too much work for me–I’m so not that organized. :)

  235. 235.

    demimondian

    June 7, 2006 at 8:55 am

    As we have seen so often, the so-called Canuckistani-leaning BTM (Bunny Trail Media) still latch onto TEB’s sound bites like dolphins in a tuna-net. What evidence does he have to support his claim that fighting the Disciples of the Moose will actually keep them there, rather than bring them here? If anything, it will create locally grown radicals, who will respond to the random deaths of their compatriots in Eastern Canuckistan by attacking us here.

    John, Tim — when are you going to take action against the liars who share your radical philosophy, instead of against us who try to protect AMERICAN RIGHTS?

  236. 236.

    John S.

    June 7, 2006 at 9:16 am

    Um, insuring additional people is not an expense for insurance companies. In fact, it is how they make money.

    It is an expense – or rather, a reduction in profit – when people previously covered under costly individual policies are now eligible for insurance under cheaper group policies.

    It would be an additional expense for businesses, although I really haven’t seen a strong push by the business lobby.

    You wouldn’t see it. The best lobbying is the kind you don’t see.

    Let’s think about this for a second. If the social cons AND the business lobby felt strongly about this, why wouldn’t it be a bigger priority for Bush, as opposed to something he only brings up in an election year?

    Because they oppose it from different angles. Social cons can publicly oppose gay marriage under the cloak of ‘traditional values’ and ‘morality’. That’s a lot different than opposing gay marriage because of profits. The lobbies work quietly to ensure that millions of homosexuals and their families will not be eligible for insurance while publicly the religious right wage their crusade. Although their goals are the same, the ideology that drives the two groups have nothing in common.

  237. 237.

    The Easter Bunny

    June 7, 2006 at 9:38 am

    What evidence does he have to support his claim that fighting the Disciples of the Moose will actually keep them there, rather than bring them here?

    It’s the flypaper theory, mofo. Our ordnance is blowing huge chunks out of Canuckistan and leaving behind a thin, sticky residue of freedom and democracy that traps the terrorists. The more they struggle, the stickier it gets. Canuckis can check in, but they can’t check out, bitches!

  238. 238.

    dlnevins

    June 7, 2006 at 12:26 pm

    Aye, engineering. Iowa State. It’s more 50/50 now, but back in the late 80’s it was 70/30 and it sucked. Bottom 3 dorm floors were girls, top 7 were guys.

    Let me guess: you lived in Towers?

    (ISU grad, class of 1985, and one of only 3 women to major in Chemistry in my class. Yes, the sex ratio was wierd then, but as it tilted in my favor, I can’t complain much.)

  239. 239.

    Jess

    June 7, 2006 at 5:12 pm

    Re: Polygamy:
    Until recently I had a fairly libertarian attitude towards it and didn’t think it should be illegal, but I started reading “Under the Banner of Heaven,” which discusses how it works out in practice among fundamentalist Mormon communities, and it appears to be an ugly deal, very exploitative of women. This book has been criticized for its bias, but really, how else can a community maintain this practice without brainwashing and coercion? There may be individuals like DFS and his women who make it work fairly for everyone involved, but most women are not going to go for it unless they’ve been more-or-less bullied into it from childhood. I don’t know if making it illegal is the solution (it doesn’t seem to be working to stop these cases where it exists illegally), but I don’t see it as a benign alternative anymore. It’s not equivalent to gay marriage, which is between adults of relatively equal power within their community.

  240. 240.

    Pb

    June 8, 2006 at 2:12 am

    Jess,

    how it works out in practice among fundamentalist Mormon communities, and it appears to be an ugly deal, very exploitative of women […] how else can a community maintain this practice without brainwashing and coercion?

    Indeed–that’s my opinion of fundamentalism too.

  241. 241.

    Jess

    June 8, 2006 at 2:24 am

    PB,
    Ditto.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Recent Comments

  • sab on American Has Turned Upside Down (Mar 28, 2023 @ 7:50pm)
  • kalakal on Russian Affairs Open Thread: The Child Snatchers (Mar 28, 2023 @ 7:50pm)
  • Ruckus on Russian Affairs Open Thread: The Child Snatchers (Mar 28, 2023 @ 7:49pm)
  • West of the Cascades on Russian Affairs Open Thread: The Child Snatchers (Mar 28, 2023 @ 7:49pm)
  • Ruckus on Russian Affairs Open Thread: The Child Snatchers (Mar 28, 2023 @ 7:47pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!