EJ, I found this really great article last night, which was so on target for the discussions that have been going on about equal marriage here at TPMCafe.  I was thinking, "I need to add this to one of my comments.  That'll show 'em."  And then I scrolled back up to see who wrote the piece.

[laughing]  You can imagine my surprise to see that you were the author.  But I shouldn't have been surprised to see that you have been remarkably patient here. 

Your article did show me that I erred in one regard and that is my thinking about who is the primary driver for this issue.  It looks like the gauntlet has been thrown down.  And it looks to me like you're bringing it where it needs to be brought--right here, right now.

I just have to say it:  You go, girl!

It is really unclear what you mean by upside down. The point is that heterosexuals are not affored special rights based on what they do with their genitals AT ALL. The only individuals 'demanding' those type of so called 'rights are sexual deviants.

Marrying out of one's race, caste, religion was not deviant behavior.  It was unacceptable behavior...there is a difference.

You seem to miss the point. Heterosexuals are not demanding rights based on their genitals.  Every single individual in this society is allowed to marry the opposite sex. Marriage is a RITE not a RIGHT.

What sexually deviant individuals want is to marry the same gender. That is what makes them deviant.

I agree that marriage is a private relationship that folks enter voluntarily...the point is why is it that sexual deviants believe society to change to accomodate them?

Government has not injected itself in marriage whatsoever. The law is involved when their is a dissolution of marriage and that is due to 'property rights'

For a long time, I have wondered what government is doing in the marriage business.  Wes Clark seemed to take that attitude too.  Honestly, why shouldn't we just abolish the whole thing, and leave it to religious institutions to worry about?  As a civil institutions, all people of all sexual orientations should be free to make contracts, wills and designate others to care for them and tend to them in sickness. And if we want to give tax benefits to people who live together, let's look at households and domestic economic entities.  Love and affection are lovely things but they aren't successfully resolved by legal institutions.  Just look at contested divorces.

You keep trying to equate various crimes against persons with sex between two consenting adults. It just doesn't fly. You can be as righteously indignant as you want, but there's no crime there.

"You keep trying to equate various crimes against persons with sex between two consenting adults. It just doesn't fly. You can be as righteously indignant as you want, but there's no crime there"

 No. I am not trying to equate them with crime. I am grouping them together as sexual deviant behaviors.  Moreover, two consenting adults are not the only individuals who practice same gender sex.  In fact, most data shows that individuals have their first same sex encounter as minors just like heterosexuals do.

I never inferred that homosexuality was a crime. Nor do I beleive that because people consent to engage in an activity that it makes it ethicall or morally OK.

After all, rapists claim their victims 'desired them or were teasing them' and many people who engage in incest claim they are 'guiding the child' in terms of sexual development.

So, to me...consent is an exceptionally poor rationale to support DEVIANT behavior.

After all there is nothing criminal about prostitution (in terms of consent), but it STILL is not legal is it?

LOL LOL

DD, marriage is about PROPERTY rights, and division of assets and inheirtance.

It is downright unAMERICAN to not have clear laws regarding PROPERTY rights...individuals resort to WAR and combat when left to settle those issues on their own.

Thus the government intercedes in terms of PROPERTY rights.

Marriage is only one way of SANCTIONING property rights...numerous other legal documents are available for ALL american citizens to delienate how they want their property dispose of  WITHOUT using the institution of marriage as the basis

I think whiterosebuddy's comments make it pretty clear that some people reject any claims that we are full human beings, entitled to ordinary respect for our loves, our commitments, and our family lives.

Sad, but true. Even sadder, representative of many people in this country.

Dissent Protects Democracy

Its unfortunate that so many feel as hateful as whiterosebuddy, those mentioned as deviants child molesters, rapists,drunk drivers yes of course these hurt multitudes. Gays just dont fit in this catagory. We dont hear of gangs of gays going around beating on heterosexuals or going to funerals and spewing hate towards the families whove lost a loved one. This is strictly the actions of the straight society . Human and civil rights are the creators gift to all , and its sad that in a society that is based on these ideals can be so blind to the real issue. No one is being hurt by adults in an adult relationship and to deny them the same rights as any other couple is wrong. When our government is so bent on taking everyones rights away we need to pull together and stand up for the rights of all. If we use wrb's measure then anything not strictly the missionary position and only for conception might be considered deviant too! Everyone deserves to be loved and to be happy in that love, straight or gay.

cscs- as usual you're being baited into identity politics by a fringe element like whiterosebuddy, an obvious troll. Like I've told you before, you have some growing up to do, and in the meanwhile people like whiterosebuddy will keep you spinning and chasing your tail.

It's always troubling when any group, right or left, takes on such Orwellian rhtorical techniques. Ususally it leads to no good.

I'm afraid that I'm just worn out on some of these questions.  ...  But here's the main point: This discussion is over. ... The antigay movement has gleefully identified this as a winner, and would keep running referenda on this issue even if every American lesbian and gay man fled to Canada. A dozen more anti-marriage amendments will be on state ballots within the next three years.

So basically, Graff can't address issues in detail because she's too worn out. Words like "freedom" and "equality" are energizing, but details, tedious.

Anyone who questions the practicality of gay marriage activism now, is part of the "antigay movement." A movement that is so zealous it would keep attacking gays even if there were no gays. Really? So, presumably the vast majority of Americans neccessary to pass constitutional amendments, they form a zealous and monolithic "antigay movement." Really... Then I wonder why civil-unions and other gay-rights poll much better with most of those same people. Big hole in the logic there.

But the outcome of such rhetoric is predictable. FEAR! Outrage! It's black and white! Against an enemy like that, why bother with details? Or pragmatism? There is a built in excuse for any failure: "they just hate us."

"A dozen more anti-marriage amendments" in additions to those already passed. Does Graf take any responsibility for that failure? No, becasue that excuse is built in. Tactics have nothing to do with it, nor do details, and anyone opposed to gay marriage (meaning the vast majority of America) is too hateful for any incremental progress to have been accomplished.

Anyone wonder why this movement is failing? Maybe it's time for better leadership that is wise enough to make incremental gains rather than overreaching, failing, and then excusing themselves.

Like I said, grow up cscs.

Many of your expressed opinions are knee-jerk, and you love the whiterosebuddy types becasue they play the foil to your simplistic and immature views.

You and him are flip sides of the same coin.

Revised statement:

You go through all my comments on this post and rate them all a one, and I'm the one that has to grow up?

haha. 

Dissent Protects Democracy

Yes. They're all the same childish identity politics, devid of content or thought, and troll feeding/baiting, which is another form of trolling.

You're an embarrassment to this blog.

Please, give me another 1.  

Dissent Protects Democracy

What a silly and empty comment that was.

For anyone who missed it, hcberkowitz has been down-rating anyone less zealous about gay marriage than he, no matter how much a person attempts to discuss matters civilly and on the issues.

He's already misattributed several things to me, and I've had to point out he's simply attacking in his posts without reading the thread or understanding who raised what issues. While he apologized for the misattribution once, he then did it again, and that emotionalism and inaccuracy seems to be his MO.

He's now siding with cscs because... ? cscs has made well reasoned and nuanced arguments? No, it's just identity/team politics again. Virtual back scratching and ass pats. Well, we’re all just human apes after all. Doesn;t accomplish anything, but it's typical. 

 Government can easily defuse this whole issue.  Right now there are many economic benefits given only to opposite sex couples, clearly a violation of the equal protection clause in the constitution.  If government will recognize marriages as the partnerships that they are, legally, and grant any economic benefits to all such partnerships between any two people, most of this controversy goes away.

The religious issue involved in marriage belongs only in the churches.  Even today the Catholic church only recognizes some weddings, not all, and possibly other churches do the same.  I don't see it as a big deal if those churches decide to recognize only man-woman-wanting-children marriages, if that is their belief.  And, I doubt that gay people would have much heartburn about it either.

Our constitution was intended to separate religion and government, but for some reason the issue of marriage doesn't seem to be seen as such an issue.  I have no doubt that 100 years from now this will have changed and marriage partnerships will all be treated equally under the laws. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

Note To E.J. Graff:

Your posts here continue to get derailed. Perhaps I am part of the problem? If so, I apologize. But I find it difficult to let certain ignorant comments go by without saying something.

In any case, and I hope I speak for many here, please do not let the noise discourage you from posting. I think what you have to say here is incredibly important -- nothing could be as important as equality for all.

Maybe it's a compliment that your posts bring out such passion, good and bad.

You're doing something right. Please keep doing it. 

Dissent Protects Democracy

Stay classy, Nick.

Dissent Protects Democracy

Yes, I made a deliberately silly, but not empty, comment, as, perhaps, a bit of feedback from your universe. I was about to make the observation about your arrogance in not asking why anyone does anything, rather making ex cathedra pronouncements on their motivations.

But hark! In your very next paragraph, you make flat statements -- erroneous, but flat -- about why I am doing things. As far as civil discussion, I have seen one civil remark from you in this thread. I gave it a 3.

I suggest you find a specific post where I stated specific support for gay marriage. While I believe that may be a reasonable compromise, my personal preference would be for the only state role to be the recording of contracts of union. I consider the criteria for a union to be the ability to enter into contracts. In my ideal, religious rites would be completely privatized, certainly with the parallel opportunities for persons to take secular oath in public.

No, Mr. Doe. If one made a courteous, clear argument here for heterosexual covenant marriage, I might well give that a 4. In your case, I rate most of your comments for their condescending yet defensive tone, with a high ratio of ad hominem to substance. Indeed, I am delighted with people with opposing views, who discuss with civility and with focus on the issues. I suggest, Sir, that you find such a person and have them mentor you, since, by the thunderbolts of Thor, you wouldn't recognize that form of exchange if it rose from the primordial slime and assimilated you.

I once apologized because I had indeed, misattributed. Subsequently, I discovered that a regular and whiny defensive technique of yours was to constantly complain about being misquoted. No, I don't plan to quote back at you, but, since you seem to believe yourself qualified to judge my motivations, I shall judge you on your general affect rather than specific words.

I do not need to "side with" cscs to observe your emotional outbursts, your lack of substance, and what I now believe to be deliberate trolling. Speaking as you do, I believe your only purpose in this thread is to be inflammatory...strike that...one of your purposes is to be inflammatory. The other is to play the martyr, since all the big boys and girls are picking on you.

Martyrdom really must be done in good taste: "Be of good cheer, Master Ridley. Play the man. We shall this day light a candle in England that, with God's good grace, shall never be put out." You, sir, do not light candles, as even the smallest candle illuminates. A more appropriate metaphor for your style of rhetoric would be that of the squid, emitting clouds of obscuring ink and squirting water jets to dart in another direction.

No, I do not consider you a human ape. Baboons, for example, demonstrate high cohesion and indeed will defend their troop to the death.

As you put it, yes, your behavior is typical. Of what stereotype, I must continue to ponder, pausing to ask myself if I really want to know, or if I already know sufficient chaos theory. Yes, I think that fits. It is a pitiful strange attractor that cannot even gather a chaotic following.

Now, this is emotional. It is not, however, inaccurate.

Shall we have the next dance?

You cite the nutshell, presumably because that is your preferred aquatic vehicle?

It was.

Nonesense. That's a terrible simplification, of the type radicals seeking easy answers tend to embrace while trying to appear smarter than they are.

Households for the purpose of procreation, whether actual or simply in  potential, is one of the primary reasons for marriage. It's a far from perfect system and becomes less perfect the further we move away from a society where everyone has children as routine.

But it's still an important consideration, a cultural legacy, and interwoven throghout society, creating dependancies in the same way as many legal precedents often do.

The easy answers types who won't face that reality, well they've been around for decades, and maybe when they're tired of political irrelevance and whining they'll start dealing with reality.

Nor do I beleive that because people consent to engage in an activity that it makes it ethicall or morally OK.

After all, rapists claim their victims 'desired them or were teasing them' and many people who engage in incest claim they are 'guiding the child' in terms of sexual development.

Ehh.  Right.  But claiming something does not make it true.  Every murderer claims they didn't kill the victim.  We don't absolve them of the crime on that count.

 If a rapist claims the victim consented then an evaluation is made first by the police, then ultimately by a court that that was not the case.

But if two consenting adults agree to something there is no dispute.

I suspect you purposely elided the concepts of "two people consenting" with one person "claiming consent" on purpose.  Which would make you intellectually dishonest. 

But perhaps it was an accident, in which case you are merely extremely obtuse.

Good, if frustrating, historical observations. I honestly don't know the level of support in the US, especially when one differentiates between civil union and gay marriage -- and I've seen a lot of polls that did not exactly phrase the questions in neutral terms.

As I've mentioned, my personal desire -- which is politically implausible -- is to get government completely out of the marriage definition business, and limit its functions to recording of contracts of unions among people legally qualified to enter into contracts. This kind of function exists elsewhere, such as in real estate -- and while the social policy issues such as children don't enter into real estate court actions, social policy certainly is involved in things such as home ownership.

I consider myself a centrist, with an odd mixture of beliefs in both economic and ethical values for certain social safety nets, with libertarian attitudes about individual rights, as well as strong but wise (which it's not at present) national security. These things intertwine: it doesn't often occur, at first, to people outside medicine, but public health is a national security issue even without considering bioterrorism.

Universal access to health care has public, as well as individual, health aspects. Think flu shots, even when there isn't anything as threatening as a pandemic. While I'm not insured, flu shots are not expensive -- but it's a considerable hassle to find someplace to get them, even when there isn't a vaccine shortage (and I'm high risk).

To put this back on the thread topic, Gettysburg, media circuses may "play to the base" on either side, but don't necessarily win elections. There needs to be an alternative to the present Administration, even if that is no more than Congressional Republicans that are more willing to say "no" or "let's discuss that--in detail" to the White House. I like to think such Republicans would act such because of conscience, but if that's because they are really scared of being replaced, so be it. Right now, I think a Democratic House would be good for the country, and is a desperately important goal that can't be sacrificed for media events that don't improve the political balance. We've seen the effect of Rove's media event to the social conservative base.

And what is it that people like you fear Johanna?  Facts, possibly?  Ignorance is bliss indeed for individuals such as you.

Your cognitive process are stuck on assumptions, presumptions and accusations out of fear that truth, facts and reality will expose your ignorance.

Basically you are a bore.

Thank you for claridying for all those who needed it the definition of deviant.

Hopefully, this means that they can now accept the reality that homosxuals are indeed sexual deviants based on their BEHAVIOR in our society.

I also wish that you  and those with the pack mentality would understand that simply because I have a differing opinion does not mean I NEED to change nor does it mean the 'culture' needs to change.

What needs to happen here is that sexual deviants need to accept the reality of there not being discrimated against on the basis of housing and employment means that the culture HAS changed.  And that they should accept this as being their rights as American citizens and stop with this additional narcisstic assumption that somehow society has to accomodate them in terms of what marriage means.

You see, what most sexual deviants do not seem to get is that somehow their sexual deviant behavior should in someway afford them special rights.  They want to completely ignore the fact that they as all other individuals in this society are free to marry the opposite sex.  Every single citizen has that right.

There is no reason that society should change or accomodate sexual deviants based on their genital BEHAVIOR...absolutely NONE.

No one can articluate or put forth any argument that justifys that.

What they do instead is attack the messenger and get all emotional..which is not in anyway persuasive.  There are no FACTS or CRITICAL REASONING to that supports 'genital preference' as a basis to change the culture or structure of the society, when those individuals have the rights of all citizens.

Democrats in this society need to oppose any change in culture based on 'genital preference' because it leads to an erosion of the moral conduct of society in terms of all sexual deviants being able to then claim some ' genital rights' based on what they do with their genitalia, whether it be pedophilia, incest or rape.

Its unfortunate that so many feel as hateful as whiterosebuddy, those mentioned as deviants child molesters, rapists,drunk drivers yes of course these hurt multitudes. Gays just dont fit in this catagory. We dont hear of gangs of gays going around beating on heterosexuals or going to funerals and spewing hate towards the families whove lost a loved one. This is strictly the actions of the straight society .

O please!! no wonder you call yourself 'fuzzyhopper'..your thinking is all fuzzy and you hop all over the facts to reach any type of emotional conclusion to soothe your perpetual fuzziness.  How dare you say ANYthing is strictly the actions of straight society. Homosexuals are some of the most racist individuals on the planet. There are many homosexual 'white only domains' and homosexuals can be quite viscious and petty when it comes to internecine squabbles as well..so stop with this 'hate' being some exclusive trait of NONE homosexuals..it jsut is not so.

Furthermore, up to 40% of child molestation cases involve homosexual acts...and when the incidence of sexual devianct behavior is only about 1-2% that means there is something seriously 'hateful' about those same gender sex deviants. And do I need to even bring up how that only fatal STD in the history of the world has 'homosexuality' as its primary RISK group?  So just STOP IT!! Learn some facts and quit trying to defend the indefensible. 

If we use wrb's measure then anything not strictly the missionary position and only for conception might be considered deviant too! Everyone deserves to be loved and to be happy in that love, straight or gay.

See this is typically homosexual dribble. No one is talking about sexual positions other than you. The issue is sexual PREFERENCE and no one is talking about conception,...since it goes without saying that it is biologically IMPOSSIBLE for same gender sex partners to conceive ANYTHING human while engaged in sexual relations with themselves..

Now as far as this everyone deserving to be loved and be happy goes. The last time I checked...sex did not have a darn thing to do with love. Sex is about pleasure, hedonism and eroticism...not LOVE. 

Love is not about shyts and giggles..at ALL

This thread was completly derailed by people like cscs and whiterosebuddy before I (and probably most people) even saw it was up.

What a croc!!  I did not derail anything. You simply are not able to tolerate differing views...you attack the messenger in all your posts

But that makes sense...becasue to think IS to differ.

 I think whiterosebuddy's comments make it pretty clear that some people reject any claims that we are full human beings, entitled to ordinary respect for our loves, our commitments, and our family lives

O please!! Give me a break. Just what civil rights are denied homosexuals on the basis of them being US citizens, name one please.

And how about you define what a 'full' human being is while you are at it. I consider people individuals and human beings INDEPENDENT of their sexuallly deviant BEHAVIOR.

And as far as this respect for love goes...since when is love about sex?

Probably it's too late to say this, but maybe I'm entitled, as it was my question elsewhere about that strategic value and moral necessity of pushing for gay marriages rather than civil unions that led EJG to start a new topic. So, if I may, everyone calm down. WRB's opposition to other legal protections for gays beyond gay marriage, plus the general tone of vituperation, are simply off topic, much as they may be worthy of engagement.

Like NickDoe, I'm sorry both that it's taken over the post, that replies to it might take him as typical of a larger community, or that anyone questioning gay marriage stands in opposition to gay rights. If it were so, EJG wouldn't have been considerate to me in starting this! And please, guys, don't take it out on Nick. He said in the other post that he in fact hopes that gay marriage would eventually become reality.

My mind's still not made up, and I'm still a bit skeptical. I can write more another time.  But please all, relax, in the interests of clarifying and civilizing matters.

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

CSCS

Gay marriage and the Civil Rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's is not particularly similar to the gay marriage issue.  In the case of the former, not only were basic civil liberties such as voting, housing, and employment being denied, there were issues of unbridled violence and hatred.  The gay marriage debate does not fall along any of those lines.

Gay marriage is certainly about basic rights. And gays are subject to all the things you listed. Most certainly unbridled violence and hatred.

There are tons of things that married straight people get automatically just by being married. There are over 1000 federal laws that grant rights based on marital status.

It's about equal rights for all. Not some, but all. 

Dissent Protects Democracy

 WRB's opposition to other legal protections for gays beyond gay marriage, ... are simply off topic

Are you reading someone else's post and attributing them to me? I am NOT opposed to other legal proctections for gays at all. 

lNo one can deny the horrible effect of the Holocaust on Jews worldwide.  No one can deny the heroic efforts of American blacks to gain the civil liberties that they should have had without a struggle.  But we should not dismiss the struggles and suffering of gay Americans because others have suffered and struggled

The flaw in this reasoning is that homosexuals are not identifiable in this society unless they CHOOSE to  BEHAVE in a manner which incites and elicits discriminationation against them. That is what makes their 'plight' uniquely different.

The question here is why individuals who engage in sexually deviant behavior which makes it biologically impossible to have children, believe somehow they should adopt or foster parent children.  The question becomes why would they expose the child to sexually deviant behavior as a model for a happy healthy lifestyle, when they already know that is ridiculous. Even the slaves killed their children rather than have them endure the barbaric conditions of slavery. They committed suicide for the same reason. 

There is an avalanche of data that attests to homosexuality being an unhealthy lifestyle with diminished longevity.

I personally believe that all human beings are entitled to work where they choose and live where they choose, without fear of reprisal or discrimination. I do not believe that means that society or  the culture has to tolerate them being married or raising children that are not their own. 

If individuals who exhibit other types of sexually deviant behavior s such as pedophiles, incestous parents, rapists and prostitues are not deemed acceptable as adoptees and foster parents neither should homosexuals.

Society feels the same way about individuals who are substance abusers...such individuals are poor role models for the types of behaviors that contribute to a stable and productive society.

whiterosebuddy, I know all about property rights, division of assets and inheritance, thank you very much.  All of those issues can be determined without an institution called "marriage".  Children are born of people not married all the time and they can still inherit.  People who are single, people who live together without benefit of marriage - all people have property rights which do not have to depend on marriage.  Marriage requires going to a little bit of trouble, and very few people know all of its ramifications.  Instead of marriage, people could go to the same amount of trouble to actually agree on what should happen to them and their property depending on what contingencies occur.  A system where people actually knew and consented to each thing they were doing would prevent a lot of shock and disappointment when the "default" regime kicked in.

whiterosebuddy, I know all about property rights, division of assets and inheritance, thank you very much

LOL LOL..Yoooour welcome!

All of those issues can be determined without an institution called "marriage".  Children are born of people not married all the time and they can still inherit.  People who are single, people who live together without benefit of marriage - all people have property rights which do not have to depend on marriage.

I agree. That was my point as well. That their are numerous legal instruments which can be used to handle property rights OTHER than marriage.

Instead of marriage, people could go to the same amount of trouble to actually agree on what should happen to them and their property depending on what contingencies occur.  A system where people actually knew and consented to each thing they were doing would prevent a lot of shock and disappointment when the "default" regime kicked in.

I concur. Hmmm, not sure now why we 'seemed' to be at odds. Perhaps, my  attempt at humor was misunderstood .

cscs

It would appear as if part of the problem with this issue comes down to the unfortunate blending of church and state with regard to the institution of marriage.  Marriage, after all, is a Holy Sacrament of the church.  The government, furthermore, recognizes this sacrament and allows for financial privileges.  Is this the right thing to do?  I'm not in a position to say.  I would say, however, that I am a staunch supporter of seperation between church and state.  Are American homosexuals upset that they cannot be married or are they upset that they are not privy to all of the financial arrangements which marriage conveniently offers?  It is an interesting question.  I would also like to point out that there is certainly a bias against single heterosexuals in the United States as well.  I can say this with personal expertise.  We live in an intolerant nation.  I would say that as long as a simple majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, the thing is likely to fail.  I do believe, however, that this majority will only last as long as the Baby Boom generation maintains power.  Generation X and Y will likely be far different and far more tolerant.  But it takes time. 

Whiterosebuddy: I don't know how old you are, so I don't know if you've been in love before.  But let's assume you have been in love.  Deep, all-encompassing love, with both emotional and sexual components.  The kind of love where you want to share your life with that person, where you want to make a life-long commitment to that person.  Perhaps even raise children together.

Now imagine