- I really enjoyed this post, which – being on the right-wing Koch Fellows blog – might have escaped some “Alas” readers’ notice. The author is arguing that even if same-sex marriage somehow weakens straight marriage (something SSM opponents have failed to prove, to put it mildly), it by no means follows logically that same-sex marriage ought be outlawed.
If we’re judging the “strength” of straight marriage by indicators like the number of divorces and births out of wedlock, allow me to offer some social variables that strengthen straight marriage. Where there is ess financial independence for women, divorces will be less common. Where women have fewer choices and opportunities for education or work, more will seek security through marriage. Excision certainly cuts down on infidelity. And hey, for a sure-fire way to ensure the “strength” of marriage, as evaluated by births out of wedlock, try honor killings and radically enforced sharia (see also: northern Nigeria). If we assigned an infinite value to stable straight marriage, we wouldn’t think twice about the necessity and value of the above.
- Gabriel Rosenberg has a must-read trilogy of posts (1 2 3) regarding sex discrimination and SSM. In particular, the last two posts – one responding to those who say hets-only marriage isn’t sex discrimination, one responding to tose who say hets-only marriage is justified sex discrimination – are terrific.
- Stephen Miller (conservative but pro-gay) reviews the Democratic Convention and finds it wanting. Still, he expects the Republican convention to be even worse.
- Along similar lines, Matt Foreman is disappointed in the lackluster Democratic support for gays.
- I’m a bit late in linking to this, but still: Dale Carpenter argues – I think persuasively – that there is no excuse for Kerry and Edwards to have skipped out on the Federal Marriage Amendment vote.
- Nearly all the Senate Democrats took Kerry’s “I’m against gay marriage but also against amending the (federal) constitution” line, but one honorable exception is Ted Kennedy, who calls a vote for the FMA “a vote for imposing discrimination, plain and simple, on all 50 states.” (Teddy does make one lousy argument, however: the FMA would not have told “churches they cannot consecrate a same-sex marriage.”)
- The Common Man, bouncing off a post of mine, discusses his own history to make the point that having opposite-sex parents isn’t a guarantee of anything.
- I would have guessed that same-sex parenting was most common in places like Vermont and Northhampton, Massachusetts. I would have been wrong. According to the author of the Gay and Lesbian Atlas:
The states where same-sex couples are most likely raising children are in order the top 10—I won’t name all 50—Mississippi, South Dakota, Alaska, South Carolina, Louisiana, Alabama, Texas, Kansas, and Utah—oh, and one more. And Arizona is number 10. […]
So while the atlas is, I think, good at demonstrating differences in the geographic and demographic characteristics between same-sex and different-sex couples, perhaps its most compelling contribution to the marriage debate is the extent to which these couples are similar and share many of the characteristics of their married counterparts.
The quote comes from an Urban Institute discussion: Marriages Made in Political Heaven: Families, Values, and the Election. Thanks to Chairm for pointing this link out to me.
- The debate over same-sex parenting at Sed Contra continues. (Again, if anyone participates because of my link, please be very polite.)
- New to the blogroll: FreedomToMarry.org.
- Susan Frelich Appleton argues for SSM from the anti-sex-discrimination angle.
When capitalized, "Sie" is the formal way to address adults of either gender in polite German. I majored in the…
I don’t mind the trackback, but is there some reason why it shows up multiple times?
I’m sure there is a reason – something I’m doing wrong or something. However, I’m afraid I do not know what the reason is.
Why do gays, liberals, progressives and social/sexual libertarians seek to engage The Right in a debate over gay marriage? Various retorts are offered to The Right in an effort to somehow define their objections to gay marriage as illogical, unfair or unfounded. Don’t you people get it? The Right’s reasons for opposing SSM are disingenuous and a red herring. The fact of the matter is conservative straights, and some even leaning leftward, DON’T LIKE GAYS!! They don’t want gays to have any rights at all. They don’t want to work with them, have their kids in school with them, sell or offer them goods or services, rent or sell them housing, or see them in church or anywhere else. However, to propose banning them from any of the above is unseemly. So, they draw the line at the legal rights they do not yet have. But it’s really not about marriage, they just hate them because they’re gay. If The Right could get away with another holocaust, conducted on gays, they would do it. So when you debate someone on SSM just remember they’re not really horrified you want to marry, they’re horrified you’re even breathing.
The Koch Fellows blog isn’t “right wing”–it’s made up of college students who received Koch Summer Fellowships to intern at various think tanks and orgs in D.C. There are some Repubs and some libertarians and a whole host of interesting views expressed by the blog’s authors.
The purpose of countering the ridiculous but superficially attractive arguments of the right is to educate that mushy middle who haven’t thought about the issue much, but don’t automatically panic at the mere existence of gays and lesbians.
Yep, Twilight of the Golds, anyone?
steve, we know that. The point is to strip away all the BS arguments they wrap around their prejudice that might convince the unwary. Eventually they are reduced to either looking like fools, as they argue that up is down and day is night, or they lose it and admit they just don’t like queers. Either way, the undecided get to see, as a friend of mine puts it, “the egg finally crack open and the grub crawl out”.
Die-hard racists felt and feel the same way about black people, but that was no excuse. The full-on press not only draws fence-sitters to our side but makes bigotry more and more shameful, in part because it’s so irrational.
The right most emphatically does not want a new holocaust to exterminate gays. Yes, they are uncomfortable around us–but that’s all.
Saying that they secretly favor extermination is every bit as false as the right-wing lie that we gays would rather abolish the family and dissolve western civilization into one giant bisexual orgy. Both of these are strawman positions at best; neither of them are true–but they speak volumes about the fears of the individuals articulating them.
If you’re upset with right-wingers for their distortion of the pro-SSM side, then you should think long and hard about how you distort their message as well.
And yes–I support same-sex marriage. I’m even IN a same-sex marriage. But I simply cannot believe that conservatives really want to destroy me. Mostly, they just want to tell lies about me (like the bisexual orgy thing), then make me sit down and shut up.
I’ve had it with their lies, and I’m fighting back. I’m not going to sit down, and I’m not going to shut up. But then… My father is very much against homosexuality too, and I know for a fact that he doesn’t want to kill me. He doesn’t want to talk about “that,” he doesn’t want to see it or hear about it. As to killing–He’d never dream of it, and nor would most.
The things I learn on this blog: First about the universal appeal of Brad Pitt, and now about the word “het.” Why, I feel a song coming on….
When you’re a Het,
you’re a Het all the way.
You might be a jerk,
but at least you’re not gay.
Here come the Hets,
like a bolt from above
‘Cuz we’ve got the only
right way to make love!
You’re never alone.
You’re never disconnected.
You’re in sync with your hormone:
When women are expected,
You’re well erected!
Then you are set
with a capital H,
You’re like Romeo & Jule;
you’re like Ross and like Rach.
When you’re a Het –
You –
Stay –
A –
Het!
That opposite sex,
ya know they’ll never fail ya
But if you don’t select
friends based on genitalia,
we’re gonna nail ya!
It does not matter
how bad we may get
Because we all belong
to that club we call “HET!”
The sky’s the limit
for hypocrisy.
We don’t have to make sense –
we’re the majority!
The Gay Agenda threat
is not just overblown hype.
Protect your fellow Het,
‘cuz if you’re one of my type
then you’re JUST NOT MY TYPE!
Here come the Hets, yeah!
And maybe we’ll beat
Off to films of Brad Pitt
but, hey, that’s not a cheat
Cuz Who –
Doesn’t –
LOVE –
BRAD –
PITT?
To the misinformed above, spend a few hours in any redneck honky-tonk in America. Instigate a conversation that leads to the issue of homosexuality, any aspect of it. In short order you’ll have a chorus of people saying they’d just as soon blow the head off a faggot as fish. If you don’t think there are literally millions of Americans that think gays deserve to die, and that they’d pull the trigger if and when the pogrom starts, you’re naive. Talk to Matthew Shepherd’s parents should you need to verify my thoughts.
Steve,
There are some right wingers who would exterminate gays, but I don’t think it’s the majority by any means. It isn’t fair to characterize the whole group from a few.
Lucia, you miss my point. I’m sure at some point in time the majority of Germans thought it inconceivable they’d drag an SS officer to the front door of a Jew and out them, helping send them on a train to Auschwitz. Today an individual person leaning heavily to the right probably wouldn’t go hunting gays. But a vast number of them would join in if the shooting started in earnest.
Saying that they secretly favor extermination is every bit as false as the right-wing lie that we gays would rather abolish the family and dissolve western civilization into one giant bisexual orgy.
Wait a sec, that giant bisexual orgy doesn’t sound all that bad. Would there be singing, like in “Hair”? :-P
I know and like too many evangelical Christians to believe that they’d support an anti-gay program. While I don’t doubt that there are some violent gay-haters in America, they aren’t able to get their policies enacted, and I don’t think they should be our primary focus right now.
And I agree with those who said the purpose of engaging anti-gay arguments is to try and make our side look good to the fence-sitters. With all due respect, Steve, I don’t think your arguments here are serving that purpose. (Did you see you were mentioned in a recent post on Dust in the Light?)
I have to admit I really don’t care if they want to kill me or just convince me to come to Jesus. They’re evil and they support hurting people for irrational, indefensible reasons.
Whoops. Where I intended to write “an anti-gay pogrom,” I instead wrote “anti-gay program.”
I think the large majority of evangelical christians would not support an anti-gay pogrom. However, sadly, most of them would (and do) support anti-gay political program.
In addition to Kennedy, Mark Dayton argued against the FMA because he felt that states should confer the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples. John Corzine cited its potential to destroy New Jersey’s domestic partnerships, and Carl Levin expressed similar reservations. Perhaps one of these deserves an honorable mention as well.
I have to admit I really don’t care if they want to kill me or just convince me to come to Jesus.
I have to admit, I do care if whether they want to kill me or just convert me!
I do think it’s important to distinguish between levels of discrimination and ill treatement. Discrimination is bad. Extermination is, clearly, worse.
“When you’re a Het:” I laughed my ass off.
About the other stuff: Well… I like to think that we can still reach out to them, one by one. Maybe I’m being a Pollyanna, but I like to think that I can reach out to them, particularly my own father, who shows no sign either of embracing me or of wanting to kill me.
Perhaps it’s not so much a question of demographics, or of precise statistical measurement, but I maintain the hope that many conservatives are approachable. At any rate, past trends, which show a slow but steady increase in the acceptance of same-sex relations, does support what I’m saying. Let’s just hope that those trends hold.
On multiple trackbacks:
Amp, I think your trackbacks might be timing out. If you look in mt.cfg there’s a place to set the variable PingTimeout – the amount of time MT will wait for confirmation from a pinged server (either an update server like weblogs.com, or the server you’re sending a trackback to) before it gives up. Sometimes, MT hits this limit and gives up after the ping has been processed by the receiving server, but before it gets confirmation of a successful ping. When that happens, it keeps trying the ping, resulting in multiple trackbacks.
Long story short, increase the timeout, see if that helps.
I have to admit, I do care if whether they want to kill me or just convert me!
To clarify: obviously I care. But I don’t think it’s useful to quibble about how far their hatred and stupidity goes when we’re talking about the issues of opposition to SSM.