Redstate

I can tell you you're wrong. I would not be surprised to see that 45% number be right. Polling 3 years ago showed support around 35%. And New York is far more liberal than Tennessee. Many people in the state are rather indifferent, and support the idea for no reason other than they don't see any reason why they should get worked up over it.

Social issues have killed the GOP in the old bastions of the suburbs. People on Long Island, where I grew up and where my parents still live, are not social conservatives. In many cases they actively disagree with conservative positions. In many other cases they simply don't care about the issue and would be happy either way. They are fiscal conservatives and respond to those issues.

There are few "true conservatives" in New York (I factor in your home state in guessing what you mean by that term). Even the "conservatives" in the NYGOP are ACU rated in the 70s and maybe 80s. I don't think that you'd get a state constitutional amendment through in NY. And I don't think gay marriage will drive turnout.

The poll mentioned in the article has no background to go with it. But, as I said from what I know having lived in NYC, the NYC suburbs, and in the more rural upstate areas at various times, 45% support does not strike me as being all that far off. The policy is certainly widely popular in NYC, which makes up a good portion of the electorate. Combine that with at best indifferent suburbanites, and you have a majority of the state's population. The more socially liberal attitudes of downstate could easily get you to 45%.

My point is that even at 45% it is not enjoying majority support, and shows something of a tone-deafness by the governor to the real issues that need to be addressed and are of concern to voters. He keeps opening the door for the GOP. If only they weren't so dysfunctional and would take advantage of it.

Do you believe the heavy non-Jewish immigrant community in NYC supports gay marriage?
Secondly, do you believe that indifference or support for "gay rights" necessarily correlates with support "gay" marriage?
Finally, will any newspaper in the city or state come out against Spitzer's proposal?

the non-Jewish immigrant community is not sufficiently large to tilt the scales in NYC. The gay community is huge, and has significantly more political power than the immigrants. And to the extent the immigrants do oppose this, they are trapped - they are represented by liberal Democrats who are virtually immune from defeat - the immigrants probably would not turn out their Senators over this.

Indifference to the issue was specifically meant as indifference to gay marriage, not towards "gay rights." "Gay rights" is a virtual non-issue: most of the suburbanites know, work with, etc. gay people - they work for companies that give domestic partner benefits, etc. It's just part of life. They are indifferent to whether gays are allowed to get married. Maybe they wouldn't actively support it, but they don't see any reason to be bothered by it - a very "live and let live" attitude.

The NY Post, which has a fairly conservative editorial board (they regularly run Maggie Galagher, John Podhoretz and Michelle Malkin columns), might blast Spitzer for it. As might the NY Sun. But I don't think either of those papers will sway too many people that aren't already on their side on the issue. But since folks like the NY Times Editorial Board were all for the State Court of Appeals declaring it a right, I am not all that surprised.

The bottom line is that NY conservatives are not like other conservatives. What worked on this issue in Ohio, Tennessee and other states will not work here - the downstate Republicans will not be able to run solely as "no gay marriage" candidates. They would do better to run solely on the driver's license issue - which was much more unpopular in the suburbs.

I believe what will be interesting is even if you are inclined to believe the 45/45 split in New York on the "gay" issues, does that correlate to 45% will go out and vote FOR homosexual marriage? What the adgendaist have been very successful doing is creating the impression with "moderate" and "what difference does it make?" voters that the anti-"gay" or pro-normalcy crowd is pushing these issues in people's face with referendums and other measures. In truth, it was quite politically successful in 99% of the states to have these referendums (including California and Oregon, certainly no bastions of red statesmanship), but it can easily be seen that the pro-normalcy crowd is pushing an "agenda".

However, in the case of New York with spitzer it will be the pro-homosexual crowd who is pushing the agenda and pushing the issue in the "faces" of the voters, albeit through their elected officials.

Finally, you are dead-on with your description of the left-wing legislators defying the wishes of their immigrant constituents. It would be interesting to see just how much pro-homosexual money legislators at the federal and state level that represent minority communities have received from special rights groups. We hear about every cent or phone call or attendance at gatherings that politicians have from anti-homosexual marriage individuals and groups. Yet, the MSM is strangely silent on the sway that the pro-homosexual groups have on legislators in minority districts. Sway that I suggest does not represent the feelings of their constituents on this issue. Granted, many of the constituents are more concerned with other issues, but it's interesting legislators have free (but paid for) reign to promote the homosexual agenda.

The shoe is on the other foot in this case. This will be an issue in races around the state. Democrats have been counting over the last few election cycles on being able to replace suburban Republican senators with Democrats. They have had success so far. Will people go out to support the idea of gay marriage - probably not. But we also can't expect to get votes just on this issue either. We will need to focus attention on the fact that Democrats want to pass gay marriage, give drivers licenses to illegals, and still have done nothing to fix the state government, bring any sort of transparency or efficiency to Albany, have failed to address the real pressing issues in New York.

The kicker is to ask if people are really interested in gay marriage.

The State's highest Court has already turned away the litigants with no relief. The decision said that there were rational reasons for restricting marriage - which the Court clearly agreed the state had done - and that therefore the issue of changing the extent of marriage was one for the Legislature to decide.

So Pataki wasn't all bad - the Court that decided the case was almost entirely Pataki appointees.

It is modestly comforting to know that not every state court is as, erm, creative as is the MA SJC.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

n/t

The up-and-coming generation of the early 1990s was supposed to make sure that America stayed pro-choice forever. Curiously, the two sides are at parity now. Funny, huh?

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

And curiously, Republicans lost control of congress in 2006.

Funny, huh?

Only because the Democrats and the press did everything short of starting a Pogrom against homosexuals in '06. Even then, they only won 49 Senate seats, taking control of the Senate by virtue of the Socialist and the Lieberman for Connecticut Senators.

And the House? We'll see if they even get 10% of their last, 40-year run.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Gosh Neil. So the MSM/VLWC outing of Foley at precisely the right time, short of conducting full scale physical violence against all gays, was the reason the GOP lost congress.

I learn something every day.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Poor schlep is too stupid to be worth the scorn.

I'm not saying that about anyone. That's what the Democrats in and out of the Press were saying over, and over, and over, in the run-up to the 2006 election.

HTML Help for Red Staters

You also apparently slept through the last several years.

Even to the Democrats 2006 was all about Iraq. Voters didn't go to the polls to elect a pro-choice Congress. Just go read Pelosi's statements immediately after the elections - lots about "cleaning up government," and "ethics," and especially "changing course in Iraq." That's what won it for Democrats.

So your comment that the 2006 election results somehow refute the statement that the parties - on the abortion issue - are roughly equal in standing, is patently absurd.

HTML Help for Red Staters

I think his opponent was running a me-too campaign on the life issue. "I'm opposed to abortions just like Rick Santorum, but I don't support "Bush's War"". Wasn't that the gist of the Pennsylvania campaign?

Of course, Rick Santorum never supported "Bush's War". Rick Santorum has always been for America to win America's war against the terrorists.

In any event it is a stretch to call the 2006 Pennsylvania election a message in favor of abortion-on-demand.

Thank you for sending it along. Yours was one of many dozens of submissions we review every day to see if you are a good fit for TRE, but unfortunately, your numerous submissions showed a lack of the sort of substantive content -- which is to say any -- that is our sine qua non for posting here.

We wish you best of luck in your future endeavors.

Sincerely,

Thomas Crown

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

He also said he would clean up state government. I haven't seen much of that going on. He said he would push it. He had the overwhelmingly Democratic Assembly pass a bill and then did nothing when the Republican Senate buried it. His answer is not to advocate or lobby, it's to tell people to elect more Democrats.

If Spitzer had even bothered to address the pressing issues people elected him to address (read: not gay marriage) maybe he wouldn't sound like such an idiot right now. Licenses, gay marriage. Meanwhile, Albany is a cesspool, the budget is still the personal fiefdom of the Assembly Speaker, Senate Majority Leader and Governor, government in NY is still done behind closed doors, and you're lucky if your elected representative are even told what they're voting on. And the state economy still crumbles.

Spitzer could probably pass a domestic partnership bill (ala California) or even Civil Unions right now if he wanted. But that's not Spitzer. That would actually make people better off. Unfortunately, it would also remove an issue he thinks he can turn into political gain.

So you've got 1 poll indicating 55% support for civil unions. This same poll indicates 55% support for abortion - a finding that does not agree with any number of other polls which do not peg "legal in all or most cases" anywhere near that high. The poll does not indicate anything about the partisan or geographic makeup of the sample (which was 1300 or so adults). And quite clearly states that there is little support for the idea in the Midwest and South (looks like it will be a much longer amount of time there).

Second you have a poll of 1300 adults that claims to measure with any accuracy the attitudes of 18-29 yr. olds. Now, using some figures from the Census Bureau, it seems 18-29 yr olds make up about 17% of the population. So, assuming random distribution of the sample, you are basing your inevitability argument on a sample of about 220 people.

And finally, the liberals have sold the same line on abortion for years - young people overwhelmingly support legalized abortion. Yet we're seeing more and more young people turning to conservative positions and the "inevitable" abortion majority hasn't materialized.

18-29 year olds will of course be more accepting of things because they are generally more liberal overall than older cohorts. However, the continued assumption that all people carry the exact same political views throughout their lives, is willful ignorance. People change their views and many of those 18-29 year olds, when they get to be 30-45 year olds may well find their enthusiasm for civil unions diminishing.

There is a lot of polling that says there is majority support for civil unions, but you shouldn't read too much into that just yet. For one thing, you should remember that the one and only time a state has put the matter of domestic partnerships/civil unions before the public, the public rejected them! And this was in the Democratic year of 2006, in the Democrat-trending state of Colorado. I think it was something like 54-46; not a blowout, but not very close either. I don't know what the polling was saying going into election day, but I think its common for the actual vote against gay marriage to be higher than polls suggest in most of the states that have held popular votes on it.

And of course the matter probably varies greatly depending on region and each state. Even with the leftwing views of younger people on the matter, do you really think that there will be a voting majority in favor of even gay marriage's euphemistic substitutes in most states anytime soon, or ever? The only way I can envision popular support for civil unions in the most conservative states is if the Left/gay lobby is able to use economic coercion, in which they, for example, pressure major corporations to refuse to open new facilities in states that don't recognize gay marriage/civil unions. I fully expect to see attempts at this if the battle to keep the Sup Court from imposing gay marriage/civil unions is actually won.

So yeah, it probably is only a matter of time in many states, but many other states are not any where close to going down that path. As such, conservatives should not lose sight of one goal that should unite all people left of center, and that is that judges and courts should stay out of it and not play any role in setting policy. If we can achieve this, then the conservative states will at least have a chance to maintain what has always been and what is in no need of change. If we achieve this, and then at some point the people choose to embrace gay marriage/civil unions of their own free will, then so be it. I wouldn't like it, but losing a fair fight (well, as fair as it can be with all of popular culture, all of the mainstream media, most corporations, and msot educational institutions siding with the Left) is a lot easier to take than having as few as five arrogant, power-usurping judges impose an outcome is.

a few years ago as well

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

You're being rose-colored. The Republican majority in the Senate stems mainly from the fact that Republicans have held the suburban seats since time immemorial. Most of them are of advanced age, and seemingly every time one of them retires, takes a new job, or otherwise opens a seat, the Democrats have taken it. Take a look at the special elections and other open seat information for the Long Island and Westchester districts. Lots of Democrat takeovers. That will only continue as our members get older.

Democrats really believe they have a shot at the Senate - not because the districts have changed but because the people in those districts have. The GOP has, for a number of years now, failed to field candidates that resonate with suburban voters. Democrats control both Nassau and Suffolk County government (they hold both count exec offices and have majorities in both county legislatures). Pete King is the ONLY Republican still holding a suburban congressional seat.

We lost the 7th SD in February of this year. Got trounced in the 16th AD. A very small shift in the 3rd SD is all that is needed to topple Trunazo Every time we open up a seat we lose it. And the Democrats have been picking away at our majority in every cycle. And actually, with a Democrat Lt. Gov., the Dems only need 2 seats to create a 31-31 tie that would be broken in their favor.

Republicans in NY need to find a way to reconnect with surburbanites. Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk used to be reliably Republican and had consistent Republican majorities. Now, it is only incumbancy that has allowed them to hang on. If they can't come up with a message that addresses the issues people care about (and on Long Island, that will not be a platform of social issues), then it will not be long before the New York legislature looks like the Massachusetts General Court, with veto-proof majorities that can consistently enshrine themselves in office through re-districting.

And PS - Republicans have held the Senate since 1965.

Makes sense--even the most durable gerrymandering may eventually give way to the gradual destruction of conservatism in New York State, in part because folks like me flee, and will flee the state. But I can't go back--couldn't stand to live in the depressing rust belt, can't afford to live downstate, and can't in good conscience try to raise my kids there.

It was depressing in my youth watching New York go from a state Reagan could win, where a pro-life candidate could conceivably compette state-wide (Lehrman, D'Amato), to a state where we at least had a thoughtful Democrat in the form of Moynihan (even if Dukakis carried it handily), to a state where pro-lifers were purged (early 90s) in order to qualify as "moderates" by the NY Times--anyone who's pro-choice even if they favored executing the mentally retarded. My own home district (Dutchess County) first went from pro-life Republican to "moderate" Republican, and now a Democrat in Congress.

Oh yeah--by mentioning the gerrymandering, I wasn't putting on my rose-colored glasses, I was being cynical.

What can we do to re-connect? Sure, no use copying what works in Texas. But we can start by thinking about having a dynamic, center-right platform and stop relying on the politicians for life that dominate the statewide party.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

Upthread I posted a picture of the remnants of a NY Shaker community. What happens when you segregate by sex and encourage abortions is eventually you are left with single old women. The communities that have traditional families and children remain young and vibrant places.

I know the Shakers advocated celibacy instead of encouraging abortions, but you get the same results either way.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

So if they legalize gay marriage, all of the heterosexuals will suddenly switch teams? Gay marriage or civil unions are an inevitability in this country. I have no fear that my marriage to a wonderful woman will suddenly disolve or be devalued if gay marriage were legalized. The same goes for abortion. My wife and I are blessed to have three wonderful little ones and we weren't ever tempted to abort any of them. Of course, once in a while I want to strangle the middle child but that passes quickly. :-)

There are more important things to worry about than whether the two guys living in the house down the street are "confirmed bachelors" or a gay married couple.

I said nothing in my post about switching teams. What I said is that IF a large percentage of people segregate themselves sexually, and prevent births they are going to eventually grow old and fade away. You replied about small number of gays living amongst a larger number of normal heterosexual families which is different from what I wrote about.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

The objection, or major objection, to same sex marriage isn't that it will dissolve heterosexual marriages, but that it is a redefinition of something that cannot simply be redefined. In short, marriage IS something specific. It isn't whatever we decide it to be. Marriage is a recognition of human nature and the purpose of human union, that is, the continuation of the species. It is the connecting of the two halves of humanity. This union, man and woman, is UNIQUE in all humanity because that is how the race survives. No other union produces that effect, and that is why it is in DIRECT interest to the state to protect, and support that specific union. That union and that union alone allows the state to grow. Allowing same sex marriage undermines the foundations of human society. It mocks the seriousness of the union to the next generation, and that can produce disasterous effects in terms of understanding and promoting family.
...As for abortion, the whole point is that unborn humans are being killed in the womb. It has NOTHING to do with your three little ones. It is the fight over the value of human life. The issue is HUGE. That is like saying, "I don't get this abolitionist nonsense. Why worry about slavery? I have three wonderful little black friends, and I've never been tempted to own any of them."
...Aborted fetuses are murdered humans. That is the entire point.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“It must not be supposed that folly is as powerful as truth,
just because it can, if it likes, shout louder and longer than truth.”

--Augustine

I just don't think that making it illegal will actually make a significant dent in the number of abortions. I would rather spend my time teaching our kids self respect, respect for others and respect for life.

On the marriage front, I agree that mariage as defined within religious institutions should be preserved and that the government has no right to interfere in that institution. However, as a matter of contract law, there is no compelling reason for the government to prevent two individuals from entering a contract that allows them to share property rights and other similar rights (hospital visitation, inheritance, etc.)

you also support legalizing the killing of born children. After all, if we teach our children respect for human life, we would never have any murders or killilng, would we?

The objection, or major objection, to same sex marriage isn't that it will dissolve heterosexual marriages, but that it is a redefinition of something that cannot simply be redefined. In short, marriage IS something specific. It isn't whatever we decide it to be. Marriage is a recognition of human nature and the purpose of human union, that is, the continuation of the species. It is the connecting of the two halves of humanity. This union, man and woman, is UNIQUE in all humanity because that is how the race survives. No other union produces that effect, and that is why it is in DIRECT interest to the state to protect, and support that specific union. That union and that union alone allows the state to grow. Allowing same sex marriage undermines the foundations of human society. It mocks the seriousness of the union to the next generation, and that can produce disasterous effects in terms of understanding and promoting family.
...As for abortion, the whole point is that unborn humans are being killed in the womb. It has NOTHING to do with your three little ones. It is the fight over the value of human life. The issue is HUGE. That is like saying, "I don't get this abolitionist nonsense. Why worry about slavery? I have three wonderful little black friends, and I've never been tempted to own any of them."
...Aborted fetuses are murdered humans. That is the entire point.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“It must not be supposed that folly is as powerful as truth,
just because it can, if it likes, shout louder and longer than truth.”

--Augustine

I agree generally with you Contra. I do think there is something to the fact that marriage means something.

But, conservatives really do need to stop a moment, take a step back, and realize that the state has used a pre-existing institution for purposes of granting civic benefits that are not an inherent part of marriage. The fact that there was a history of common law understandings about the "marriage contract" made it easy for legislatures to be lazy and simply glom on to another institution.

It is to that extent that there should be some accomodation made for individuals who do not fit the traditional category. Would it really be so terrible to allow a same-sex couple to file a joint tax return? Given that even some states (and even some with marriage amendments) allow gays both singly and as couples to adopt, shouldn't we seek to provide a structure that enhances the stability and security of those children? Should we continue to allow the parents or siblings of a gay man to go to the probate court upon his death and make the argument that his will should be invalidated because he left his estate to a gay partner (yes, in some places, that is still all too frequent, thwarting the decedent's wishes and potentially causing the surviving partner great financial hardship).

Unfortunately, the gay community has allowed the gay lobby to set the terms, and their terms are all or nothing. If more gays would buck their self-annointed "leaders" we might be able to find a way to protect the traditional sensibilities of conservatives while addressing some of the civic/legal concerns of same-sex couples. [I plan on developing this idea a bit into a diary of its own at some point - after some careful research that would allow me to highlight specific issues where disconnecting the traditional societal aspects of marriage from the more modern legal code treatment applied to the institution might allow for consensus].

What if the local government subtracts the legal penalties and punitive laws toward homosexuals and adds no new benefits or incentives for homosexuals? This might sound strange, but I'm thinking of Nevada and the sparsely populated counties with brothels. Prostitutes are protected by law, but there is no added incentives or benefits for prostitutes.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

Well, you missed my point on consensus - the whole point was to find consensus on where we can jointly acknowledge that benefits and duties attached to marriage by law are not some sort of historically inherent aspect of marriage.

As to your point, with the Lawrence case, we pretty much are at your consensus - there are no "penalties" imposed on gays - unless you define the legal disadvantages imposed by prohibiting any civic recognition of relationships a penalty.

Even without Lawrence we were fast moving to a point where legal penalties were virtually non-existent. Even where things like sodomy laws still technically existed on the books, there was no active effort to seek out offenders and punish them. Enforcement was limited to instances where it was literally out in the open.

.

Civic recognition is a positive act. You don't have to prohibit it because it can only exist if positively granted. So, I'm not sure exactly what "prohibitions" can be lifted without an attendant express permission allowing it.

Second, if you eliminate these "prohibitions" but provide no benefits, what is the point? Gays don't want marriage because they want a the piece of paper of a license, they want it because of the legal structure that attends it. If you provide "civic recognition" without any attendant legal structure, it is empty. Gays already have "commitment ceremonies" and other such affirmations of there relationships.

Your version of consensus seems to involve the gay community giving all the ground in the deal. Kind of like what Democrats mean when they say "bipartisan" or "compromise."

I do not believe that the government should hassle or mistreat people for will petitions etc just because they are gay. That is the civic recognition I refer to. I also do not think the government should encourage the lifestyle because nothing is there to promote growth in the community. I realize the gay lobby wants a lot more, but they are getting something.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

"I also do not think the government should encourage the lifestyle because nothing is there to promote growth in the community."

Are you suggesting gay couples do not contribute to their communities? Could you clearify that?

Gays do not procreate to increase population growth in the community.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

Should we prohibit a marriage if one of the parties is sterile? How about prohibiting a marriage between two senior citizens? They aren't likely to procreate. I think homosexuals merely want to be able to have the legal protections of marriage like property and survivor rights and that's fine with me.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

Same sex couples adopt children and raise them and so they do contribute to the community. They are in fact raising children heterosexual couples do not take responsibility for.

You can't seriously pin the entire institute of marriage on procreation, if so then you must be in favor of a law requiring heterosexual couples to have children within three years of marriage or their marriage is null and void, silly isn't it.

society in that way. But the subject was not "contribute" to society, rather it was that same sex couples don't procreate.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

Same sex couples don't procreate?!? That must be news to all the same sex couples that have children via IVF with sperm donnors and surrogate mothers. Come on and join the rest of us in the 21st century where in vitro fertilization has been around for 30 years!

The problem, as you touched on, is the fact that if you give some an inch they take a mile. Yes, these gay groups will have nothing short of complete acceptance of their lifestyle- legally, morally, and religiously. Any move to fairness in "granting civic benefits" toward the gay community provides a potential foothold for future legislation that aims to expand the definition of marriage to include same sex couples. (With group marriages coming around the corner. After all, why not? How can you descriminate against the number of people in marriage. Why shouldn't threesomes have the same rights as twosomes?) You know that as well as I do. So, what is a nation to do if it wants to retain tradition marriage as the rule? It is a tricky situation, and I'm not sure of the answer. (Actually, I think I have an idea, but the gay community certainly won't like it.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“It must not be supposed that folly is as powerful as truth,
just because it can, if it likes, shout louder and longer than truth.”

--Augustine

First of all, I don't agree with those pushing civil unions as a compromise. Giving equal rights, benefits, and responsibilities to homosexual couples but calling it by a different name, aside from being silly, has a very familiar "separate but equal" ring to it. I also take issue with the notion that providing homosexuals with equal treatment under the law requires you to accept their lifestyle morally and religiously. No one is arguing that churches should be forced to recognize gay marriage, and allowing gay marriage does not require that you agree with it morally any more than allowing interracial marriage does.

Second, the "slippery slope to polygamy" scare tactic is not a legitimate legal argument. Prohibiting homosexual couples from marrying is gender discrimination, which must pass intermediate scrutiny. Limiting marriage to two people is discrimination, but it is not discrimination based on race, religion, or gender. It would therefore only need to survive rational basis scrutiny, which is exceedingly easy.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

If you are going make an asserting like that, at least have the courtesy to read the rather long discussion about that very issue that has already occurred and offer at least one reason why any of the responses given to your argument are invalid. Saying a thing doesn't make it true, and even with my general opposition to redefining marriage, I have to say that this simple KnownFact does nothing to sway people.

As for the "gender discrimination" argument above. That's an equal invalid argument. Most recently, Maryland's Supreme Court said as much - gay marriage restrictions are not gender discrimination. Gender discrimination targets a person because of their gender, not because of a third party's gender. Marriage laws are equally applicable to men and women, they do not grant any different treatment to a man looking to marry than they do a woman. The laws discriminate against sexual orientation - and that is not a protected class (and nor should it be), and so is not required to pass anything more than rational review. Even in Lawrence they used, nominally, rational review - the error they made there was in thinking that laws based on moral beliefs are irrational.

To sum up, there is no unlawful discrimination going on in refusing to accept gay marriage. It may be wrong-headed, bad policy, unnecessarily devisive, and any number of things - but it is not unlawful or unconstitutional.

misses the point and is a device the gay marriage lobby uses to divert attention from the intrinsic wrong that is same sex marriage.

Have the courtesy to think before you reply and don't prtesume to instruct me how to reply and don't presume I haven't read anything.

please

The gay marriage lobby turns a high percentage of diaries that have nothing to do with gayness on RS into a discussion of this issue. The issue is the same now as it has been. There are no new arguments.

The best the gays have is that seniors and the sterile can't pro-create.

geesh

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

I disagree with that court's analysis. If I want to marry X, who is male, the law discriminates against me if I am also male. The lower court got it right.

To say the law applies equally to men and women is just to say that it equally discriminates against both. Similar arguments were made in favor of anti-miscegenation statutes (they applied equally to all races).

anyone you desire is a right. Would you mind pointing out in the Constitution where it says that?

...country IF the courts can be kept from imposing them. And whatever one's personal beliefs about what policy should be, the goal of keeping the courts out of it is one that should unite all conservatives because the courts should have no role in setting policy here.

You have to buy into the absurd 'living Constitution' method of constitutional interpretation to believe that the Constitution demands the state give equal or similar recognition to same-sex unions that it gives to traditional marriages. And if you buy into it for gay marriage, then you have no reason to complain when the living constitution imposes all sorts of other outrages that you happen to disagree with.

Unfortunately the NYGOP is plagued to some extent by the turn that the national debate has taken. Social issues are a key element of national Republican campaigns, and to an extent we have let that become "the" thing that gets talked about. When we're battling over judges and seats in the House and Senate, that's effective. However, it has had carry over to the state level, where it simply doesn't work.

The Conservatives in NY are a good start, but I think they really need to be realistic about some things and stop making 100% adherence to the SoCon platform a requirement for support. There is a reason the old Right to Life Party has fallen by the wayside - it just wasn't a rallying issue in NY anymore.

Republicans need to return, in some respects to the country clubber days, days when the things Republicans in downstate NY were talking about were fiscal and economic. It wasn't that the "country clubbers" were social liberals (they might have been, they probably were more moderate), it's that it wasn't what was driving people to the polls.

I really believe that the NYGOP needs to put together a kind of Contract with NY that stresses concrete governmental reform to bring openness and accountability to Albany, some real plans for how to re-attract business and industry to what you referred to as the Rust Belt (I assume you mean the Binghamton, Elmira, Corning region along the Southern Tier and the Central NY turnpike corridor - Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo), proposals for how to alleviate the tax burden without bankrupting the state, proposals for how to ensure that we can continue to have successful schools.

And I'm not ashamed to say, the GOP needs to give up on NYC - it's time to do a little "class warfare" of our own. One dynamic you can always count on is resentment - upstaters resent being made into the checking account for NYC programs. Suburbanites got out of the city because they wanted something better. The rest of the state resents seeing tons of tax dollars flow from them to NYC. The GOP should be out in front talking about how they are going to insure that all parts of the state get the attention they deserve.

Republicans in NY don't need to become socially liberal, but they need to stop thinking that they should be basing their candidacies on "god, gays, and guns." They need to be talking about taxes, jobs, the regulations that drive up the cost of living. Republicans won in NY when they talked about pocketbook issues. Lately they seem to think that the model that works in Texas will work in NY. It doesn't - it only leads us towards looking extreme or out-of-touch (extreme to people who are more liberal, and out-of-touch to those who see other issues as vastly more important).

NE of Binghamton and I have to agree with every thing you are saying, everything. I am not sure what will work in NY, but what we have now, the 3 men in a room state government system, isn't working. We are hightest on the tax list and lowest on the friendliness to businesses list.

NY is driving educated young people out in droves and replacing them with minimum wage earners. It seems like the Dems are having their way after all.

won't allow Spitzer to pass a gay marriage law any more then they allowed him to give licenses to illegals. Sources in Albany say it's the Clinton's that shut down that plan, it made Hillary look bad on the campaign trail.

I agree that Bill and Hill will insure that Spitzer keeps his mouth shut for the most part on this issue. But they won't stop him from passing the law. His plan is to push this AFTER the 2008 elections, when he figures his party will have control of both houses and the governor's mansion. In the Clinton's universe, Hillary will already be prepping for her inauguration, at which point she could probably give a hoot what Spitzer does.

I spent 7 years in Ithaca and worked for a matrimonial lawyer for a few of them - a practice that took us all over the region - Ithaca, Cortland, Binghamton, Elmira, all the way out to Bath and Hornell. It was depressing to see what used to be a vibrant area literally rotting away.

It is why I really think that the GOP should reach out to the CP and they should jointly develop a Contract with America-style 10 point plan as a platform to run on in the 2010 races - from governor on down. The focus should be first and foremost on reforming and openning the state government. Pledges to liberalize the rules in the Assembly and Senate to take some powers from the Speaker and Majority Leader and give them to the rank-and-file. Pledges on a sound, realistic budget process. Then move on to the economics - ideas for lowering taxes on individuals, small businesses and corporations, for attracting companies to invest in the state and specifically the rust belt, ways to reduce the burdens that drive away the very people that the state needs to keep to spur growth.

I don't know that the current crop in the Party have anybody on the order of Gingrich and Armey who can generate those kind of innovative ideas (sometimes I wonder if they have anybody who can generate ANY idea), but they need to find one fast.

I'm a FredHead, but Rudy's probably my fall back guy. Part of me hopes that Rudy doesn't get the nod, not because he wouldn't be a solid president, but because it would mean we could try to recruit him for the 2010 race against Spitzer and give the party something to rally around. And one thing Rudy could do is put together the people necessary to formulate the kind of vision the NYGOP has been lacking.

where we have more dairy cows then people. All the industry is gone, all of it. I ran a plant for a medical device manufacturer in Hancock and without warning they closed the plant. New York is driving out businesses by the droves and there are many reasons.

Taxes, utilities, toll roads, fuel costs are all very high here. I honestly don't know what the answer is, I don't think there will be one in my life time.

Most of upstate rurual New York is soildly GOP, but the population mass in in the greater NYC area, which is solidly DEM and it is where most of our Govenors come from, Rockefeller, Cuomo, Pataki and Spitzer are all city boys and they know where the votes are.

scolded the upstate counties into harmony and plenty, and that tbe local villagers are eternally grateful for her ministrations.

It's even better downstate, where even dishwashers in Chinatown revel in the new prosperity, and donate some of their rising incomes to Hillary's coffers.

She listened only for as long as it took to win the election. After that she did what all Democrats in NY do, pandered to the elite liberals in NYC.

Usually a Republican has to have it to win. But given that Rudy won twice without it, do you think it enhanced the Party's image in his eyes? Did they get a seat at the table during those 8 years? Rudy showed he could do it without them.

I agree, sometimes you need to just step back, but there are numerous times where the CP withholds its endorsement from the Republican over something silly and petty that, in the long run isn't going to matter. The CP likes to be "pure" and, as a result, can bear part of the blame for the state of the political landscape.

The CP frequently runs its own guy in a race that winds up going to the Democrat. Compare them with the up-and-coming Working Families Party, which endorses the Democrat 90% of the time (occasionally they pick a Republican, they almost never go off completely on their own). The are the difference maker in a number of races, and that enhances their status. Maybe if the CP held its nose every now and then, they might find they have more say. If the Republican wins because of the votes he got on the CP line - how much does that help when the CP asks for some of their policies? They have the club of possibly costing the guy re-election. Instead they pick someone of their own and nobody wins.

Hillary and the rest of the gang do support gay marriage, or more specifically, they support having a handful of judges impose it on the entire nation so they can keep their hands clean. Then they'll proclaim that the Court has spoken, its a settled matter of law, and that the only thing for good Americans to do now is to submit to the will of the judges w/o further complaint. And such a decision from the Sup Court is inevitable if Hilllary (or any other Democrat) wins and gets to replace Stevens and Ginsburg, and then Scalia and Kennedy in a second term.

This gigantic conflict between what Hillary and the Democrats claim versus what type of decisions their judges would hand down is obvious, yet I guarantee it will never be brought up by the mainstream media. It is a sign of the media's bias. And we can be sure that whoever moderates the debates, the following question will not be asked;

---"Senator Clinton, you claim to oppose gay marriage, support civil unions, and favor letting states decide, but isn't it a near certainty that the type of judge you would appoint would vote to strike down every traditional state marriage law and impose gay marriage/civil unions on the entire nation? How can you reconcile the position you claim to hold with the type of jurisprudence your nominees would practice?" ---

It would be nice if the Republican nominee filled in the gap left by the media, but I don't think that will happen either.

Can't tell, but I'm guessing you've been a member here for, oh, 2 hours.

Why don't you take off.

In case you haven't been awake in this country for the past 6 years - lots of people care. In fact majorities of people in something like half the states have passed amendments to their state Constitutions banning gay marriage. That includes "blue" states like Hawaii, Oregon, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Polls show that opposition to gay marriage nationally runs well above 50%.

And if it's such a non-issue why is every presidential candidate on both sides of the aisle answering questions about their position on it?

Gay marriage is an issue. Crawl out of whatever little bubble you live in. It's unfortunate that we even let people as stupid as you vote.

Shouldn't always be the criteria if an idea is good or not, or the Iraq war would have ended long ago. As you stated though, those states did vote to ban it, and as much as it galls at my personal ethics, I must respect their decision.

The American people are wise enough to run their own affairs. They do not need Fuehrers, Strong Men, Technocrats, Commissars, Silver Shirts, Theocrats, or any other sort of dictator.-Robert Heinlein

Agreed. Popular support does not indicate good policy. My comments were aimed at the assertion by the original commenter that gay marriage was a non-issue, and the initial question of "who cares?"

Whether it should be an issue is debatable. Whether the policies implemented are good or bad is debatable. But I don't think one can debate that there is an issue there, and that there are many people on both sides who care a great deal about it and its outcome.

The American people are wise enough to run their own affairs. They do not need Fuehrers, Strong Men, Technocrats, Commissars, Silver Shirts, Theocrats, or any other sort of dictator.-Robert Heinlein

I tend to think what the original poster was implying was that if you polled the gay marriage issue with other issues, Iraq, Economy, Taxes, it would be bottom of the list if on the list at all.
Take this one as an example:

26% The war in Iraq
16% Health care
14% Job creation and economic growth
13% Terrorism
11% Illegal immigration
8% The environment and global warming
6% Energy and the cost of gas
3% Social issues such as abortion and gay marriage

http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

....nice example. Now go do an actual poll. My guess is that you will find that social issues get more than 3%, and you seem to think that if people don't rank it as their most important issue they don't care about it at all.

My number 1 issue in the current election is the national security issue. But that doesn't mean I care only about that or that I vote solely on that issue. Your standard "issues poll" usually adds to more than 100% because they ask people to give their top 3 or 4 issues - or to list any issue that is going to be important in your voting decision.

When you get beyond the simple "this is my biggest issue" (which, I will agree, social issues will probably be lower on that list, though not as low as you hypothesize) thing you will find that it is an issue for a significant number of people and that is significant enough to determine people's votes.

If you can see no logical difference between a man marrying another man and a man marrying a goat, then you should probably refrain from opening your mouth much.

Clearly the human mind creates rationality and the ability to consent. Consent is a key factor in almost every societal-legal structure. There is simply no logical way to argue that an animal can consent. They are of inferior mental rationality as to humans. To argue that gay marriage requires the allowance of bestiality is like saying that gay marriage requires us to allow you to marry a 6-year-old girl.

As to polygamy, I will grant that there is a thornier issue to be had there. The line to be drawn is tougher. But the line to be drawn now is not all that much more logical. Lots of legal lines are arbitrary with little to speak for them other than "that's what we as a community are willing to accept." Why is the drinking age 21? What is magical about the line between 20 and 21 that suddenly alters the acceptability of things? Maturity? Well, there are lots of very mature 19 year olds, and equal number of horrendously immature 30 year olds.

The argument that the allowance of gay marriage topples us over the slippery slope is to implicitly argue that all political ideas need to be carried to their logical conclusion. Now, I grant that if we treat gay marriage as some sort of right, we would have a hard time justifying some desirable lines in a way that would conform with the constitution. But when we are talking about a legislative decision, the logic is no different than granting drivers license - it is a privilege being granted and therefore the legislature gets to set the boundaries of that privilege.

As for the "line" to separate gay marriage from polygamy - one that makes sense to me is that the duties and benefits of marriage in a legal sense (as in things granted by statutory and common law) have developed around a two-person institution where each party is contracted exclusively to the other. It is not feasible nor wise to attempt to alter those rules to account for the presence of a third or fourth party.

For example, a fringe Mormon man who maintains he can have multiple wives. He marries each woman, but they do not marry each other - nor do they (as far as I am aware) have any say in the identity of the other wife - nor do they have a legal relationship with the other wife. We would have to create rules for that interaction - they would have to have some sort of duties to each other.

More concerning is the rules that would have to develop in the "chain marriage" polygamy - as polygamy cannot be restricted to one gender. How can the law even begin to comprehend a situation where A marries B, then A marries a second wife C, and then that second wife marries a second husband D. Wouldn't we need to establish some protections or rules as to B and D who really bear no relationship directly but are tied together through the multiple marriages of their own partners?

So, the legal complexity that would result from the allowance of polygamy is a logical and rational reason why a legislative body could say yes to gay marriage, where individuals will play by the traditional rules of an exclusive union of two and only two people, while saying no to polygamy.

My view is simple, if a set of consenting adults seeks to spend their lives together. They should be allowed to do so without the government interfering. Personally I doubt the idea will draw large scale approval, but I fail to see any reason to deny people the right to do this. As long as the parties linked together are consenting adults.

The American people are wise enough to run their own affairs. They do not need Fuehrers, Strong Men, Technocrats, Commissars, Silver Shirts, Theocrats, or any other sort of dictator.-Robert Heinlein

That's a sweet sentiment. But it totally fails to address the very real issues that polygamy would create in the actual civic and legal situation in which we all live.

It also fails to address my point that the government, in granting a civic privilege (like drivers licenses, or a legal cause of action, or the protections, duties, and benefits currently granted to married couples) can draw whatever line it chooses within the fairly broad limits of equal protection.

As polygamists are not a protected class, there need only, under current Supreme Court jurisprudence, be a rational basis for the distinction. I think I outlined a sufficiently rational basis to pass muster. All that being addressed, originally, to the idea that passing a bill allowing gay marriage would somehow open the floodgates to polygamy and marrying the family cat.

Legal issues could be addressed as well civic ones by those who are seeking to pass the law by their respective legislator.

I also don't believe that granting these rights would open the floodgates to "marrying the family" cat. I see no place for the judiciary in this issue, I see it purely as one that should be dealt with by the legislator.

The American people are wise enough to run their own affairs. They do not need Fuehrers, Strong Men, Technocrats, Commissars, Silver Shirts, Theocrats, or any other sort of dictator.-Robert Heinlein

As a legislative matter it is simply a matter of what the public, through their representatives is willing to accept in the way of policy. Courts are best kept away from things that are so policy-laden.

My initial points, which may have confused you as to my personal position, were responses to a comment that asked how we could stop gay marriage from leading to marrying animals or polygamy, and what logical line could be drawn between those things and gay marriage.

The well-trained lawyer that I am, I spun out the answer for him. None of that is to say I would, ab initio, adhere to that scenario as a policy preference or even a policy proposal. It was merely a rebuttal of something I considered false.

I think the confusion was mine.

The American people are wise enough to run their own affairs. They do not need Fuehrers, Strong Men, Technocrats, Commissars, Silver Shirts, Theocrats, or any other sort of dictator.-Robert Heinlein

Marriage is one man and one woman, the ideal arrangement for bearing and rearing children. You do not have to have children if you get married, but children are a natural outcome of marriage.

Marriage has been one man and one woman in all of this country from 1776 until very recently. It was one man and one woman in western Europe for a thousand years before 1776. Marriage is still one man and one woman in 49 states.

In Massachussetts a woman can become part of a "marriage" that contains two wives. However, a man in Massachussetts cannot be in a marriage that contains two wives. Seems like gender discrimination. If I were a bigamist in MA I'd sure try to use it as a defense.

I will grant you there is some difference between a woman "marrying" another woman and a woman "marrying" both another woman and a man. However, the biggest difference is allowing marriage to be anything other than one man and one woman. Once you crack the dam, how do you keep the breach small?

We know traditional marriage works. We tinker with it at our peril. And this is about shoring up the most vulnerable members of our society, not just keeping our own personal marriages strong. A rich Hollywood actress can have a baby out of wedlock or engage in other unusual living arrangements and minimize the adverse affects. However, a woman who does not make much money and who has a child out of wedlock often lives a life of poverty and so does the child.

Gay marriage does not require animal marriage, but if gay marriage is allowed, any argument for forbidding animal marriage is greatly weakened. Suppose I am in love with another man and I have health benefits where I work, but he does not. If I could "marry" him then he could get health insurance too. Of course, at least in theory, he could get another job with health benefits. Now suppose I love my dog and I want my dog to have health insurance - why can't I marry my dog? My dog cannot get a job with health benefits.

I believe that marriage should remain one man and one woman.

The people who want to change marriage owe the rest of us an explanation of why allowing one type of unusual "marriage" will not open the doors to allowing all sorts of other unusual "marriages.

It is not legal to practice polygmy is Massachusetts regardless of sexual orientation. You would be logically flawed to assume that allowing same sex couples the right to marriage changes that in anyway. The institue of marriage or rather the laws governing such in MA have not been altered to allow same sex couples, same sex couples have simply been given the right to take part in that institution.

And as for your perseverance in wanting to marry animals that might be something you need to take up with your therapist. I believe someone already answered this for you but animals can not 'consent' to enter into the contract of marriage. State's issue driver's licenses and do not specify sexual orientation and you haven't seen dogs driving yet.

The institue of marriage or rather the laws governing such in MA have not been altered to allow same sex couples, same sex couples have simply been given the right to take part in that institution.

This is just trying to win an argument on semantics.

I doubt, for instance, that the New York law Spitzer will lobby for will create some new being. It will amend and reword the section of the NY Domestic Relations Law that "defines" marriage for purposes of the law.

However, I still do agree with the other comment that trying to equate gay marriage with polygamy is a scare tactic that shows either a mental deficiency or simple laziness, as it doesn't take all that much thought to find any number of distinctions between the two that would be legally and logically valid.

The comparison is also unnecessary and unhelpful. The average person who is not immersed in this issue is not going to be won over by the assertion because it makes no sense. And there are any number of reasons to not allow gay marriage on the merits without resort to the "slippery slope" (which people seem very worried about in this area but not so much on any number of other things).

Since I wrote it I would obviously disagree.

Marriage as an institution is viewed on the State and on the Federal level as a civil right. The Supreme court in Loving v. Virginia arguably solidified it as such (Virginia had laws making interracial marriage illegal up until 1967). Massachusetts has very specific anti-discrimination laws which include any discrimination because of sex or sexual orientation. The existing MA marriage laws also do not define marriage in terms of gender, they use terms like 'spouse' which is genderless. The judges could find no legal footing to uphold a same sex couple marriage ban. None of MA laws on marriage have been altered.

In an example where laws were altered in a somewhat related case involving employment and the military. Those same anti-discrimination laws apply to employers, those laws define groups one can not discriminate against and include: race, color, religious creed, age, national origin, sex,
sexual orientation, handicap, genetic information, and ancestry. They never mention the military and so an employer could not hire or fire someone simply for being in the military and that soldier would have absolutely no recurse because they did not have that right. So legislators had to alter/ammend the anti-discrimination laws to include the military.

It is may seem like subtle difference but it is not semantics.

if marriage were a dam. It isn't.

In Massachussetts a woman can become part of a "marriage" that contains two wives. However, a man in Massachussetts cannot be in a marriage that contains two wives. Seems like gender discrimination. If I were a bigamist in MA I'd sure try to use it as a defense.

You would attract justifiable derision. If the law recognised a legal distinction between the status of a wife and a husband you would be on stronger ground. If it were compulsory for wives to do all the cleaning, for example, or if wives could inherit property from their husbands free of tax but husbands were taxed on inheritance from their wives, there would be a case of sex discrimination. But, of course, there would be a wider sex discrimination already in the law, that would itself be open to challenge.

By the way, don't confuse sex and gender. Gender is a grammatical term wholly unconnected with sex and almost absent from English. The fact that nouns in French are divided into two categories and one is called 'male' and the other 'female' does not mean these categories have any relationship to sex.

I believe there is a Native American language in which the two genders are called 'animate' and 'inanimate'. This does not mean that treating people differently from real estate is 'gender discrimination'.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

I've answered the polygamy thing before. If you cannot see any legal distinction between a marriage of 2 people and a marriage of 3 or 4 people, you should stop talking now. You may not agree with the distinction, but there is one and you seem to want to willfully ignore it. You are no lawyer that's for sure.

So, to address your marriage is "for the children" argument. You were good enough to slip in your qualifier in the first sentence, but do nothing to say why it supports your argument.

Two 70 year olds can marry. They won't be having children. They probably already have children from other marriages and probably even have grandchildren. Why should we give legal and financial benefits to them? And to the extent we do think it worth giving certain benefits and protections to them, why exactly is it inappropriate to extend those benefits to others.

You talk about centuries old tradition. I don't disagree. I actually am not advocating gay marriage. I am advocating that everybody look at the issue more closely and we'll see that a lot of things that are part of "marriage" are really just things the state tacked on to it that have nothing to do with the validity, security, or sanctity of marriage.

An example - if I marry someone today and write my will to leave her everything I own, an attempt by my parents to claim in probate court that my will is invalid because my wife "unduly influenced" me would be laughed out of court (I admit there are the Anna Nicole Smith-style exceptions for "non-traditional age pairings). Now if (as is the case), I am gay and write a will to leave everything I have to my partner of 20 years, there are still many states where my parents' would not only NOT be laughed out of court, but would actually have a presumption in their favor that in fact I wasn't sane enough to make a will. Is the probate system an inherent part of marriage that has existed for centuries?

More recently - how about social security survivor benefits? Two couples live next door to each other. Couple A is married, couple B has been together as long, but they're gay, so they're not married. If the "bread winner" in each household dies, the survivor in Couple A gets a death benefit, and usually is entitled to continue Social Security payments based on the decedent's lifetime earnings. For the survivor in Couple B, he gets no death benefit, and his benefits are reduced to whatever he would be entitled to as a single person. Fair, not really. Better question - how many centuries has this set-up been a part of "tradition?" Oh that's right, less than one.

I do not want gay marriage. In fact I think that civil unions are silly too - they are just a lazy way to do the same thing without using "the M word." But I do think that there are a lot of places where a secular civil society (and that's what we are - regardless of how prominent a place God should have in life, we do not govern by canon law), can equalize treatment without somehow "rocking the foundations of society."

Gay marriage is not "the enemy." The Right is a bit lazy in this as well. It is not gay marriage that has caused a decline in the family - it is loose divorce laws, the inability of some to instill a sense of responsibility and duty in their next generation (contributing to illegitimacy), the cheapness with which heterosexual couples treat the institution. And in some part, the fact that we have refused to take the step back I propose, has only worsened things.

What is truly worse, having gay marriage in a society that treats such a compact seriously and gravely, or a society where we have proliferated "pseudo-marriage" systems, like "domestic partnership" and civil unions, to make it easier for gay couples to provide for themselves and their dependents, that ultimately only make it easier for heterosexual couples to have many of the goodies of marriage without any of the real responsibility? I'm not sure that a system where marriage was open to gay and straight, but was harder to both get into and out of, and where civic benefits really encouraged such commitments would be worse than the present state of things.

1. Why is marriage two people? Because marriage is one man plus one woman and one plus one is two. Now if you redefine marriage to be any two people, a person could ask, why just two people - why wouldn't three or four or some other number of people be just as ok as two? Now, if the legislature did the redefining, you could say "a marriage is only two people because that's what the legislature said". There is some validity to that answer, but it has nowhere near as strong a foundation as the foundation behind marriage is one man and one woman. And there is nothing preventing some other legislature from saying "a marriage is any grouping of any number of people" in our state. It is even worse if some judge redefines marriage because "marriage limited to one man and one woman isn't FAIR". People can come up with reasons why marriage limited only to any TWO people isn't FAIR either.

2. If a person has been friends with another person for 20 years and they write their will to leave everything to their friend, they ought to be able to do that. That person's parents certainly shouldn't have a presumption that the will is invalid.

3. I agree that divorce is harmful and should be discouraged.

We have 4000 years of western culture that says marriage is one man and one woman. Some of us, a LOT of us, like this definition and respect this tradition. We see no reason to let a vocal minority to force us to change it.

That is really all the reason I need.

Some sort of partnership to allow rights to community property, insurance, etc? I see nothing wrong with that, but it need not be based on sexuality. It could be any two adults.

Just don't change the legal definition of marriage.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Some sort of partnership to allow rights to community property, insurance, etc? I see nothing wrong with that, but it need not be based on sexuality. It could be any two adults.

Indeed, why should it be based on sexuality? If two people live together and have built a lfie together and wish each other to be accepted as, say, next of kin for hospital visiting and medical decisions in case of one being non compos mentis one question I would hope the authorities would not see fit to ask is "do you have sex with each other?"

If such is the case, I see no need for the government to be involved in defining marriage at all. For your own purposes you can define the word in any way that you want.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Unfortunately the "save marriage" side of the debate doesn't see things like that. For many, the whole point of stopping gay marriage is to also stop gays from getting any legal benefits that are currently attached to marriage.

I'm not a representative sample, but I would say that if the Republican Party were to develop a plan by which marriage would stay heterosexual but there would be a system that would allow gay couples to access legal protections, and certain welfare state and tax advantages - a system that would allow them to rather easily order their lives (one that doesn't require them to sign dozens of legal agreements, contracts, and such) - if the GOP came out for that, the "gay lobby" would virtually dry up. Most gay men and lesbians have better things to do then worry about what you call it. I refer only to Vermont and Connecticut - the nutters are still out there trying to litigate their way to marriage, force the issue in the legislature, etc., but they've lost most of the grassroots support with the advent of civil unions. The marginal benefit of "marriage" is too small to justify the time, money and energy for the average gay man in the neighborhood.

I only speak for me.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

Um, you've changed it before. Since you go back 4000 years, I presume you include the hearty traditions of Egypt in your review. You know Egypt, where it was perfectly fine to marry your sister. You got rid of that little practice. Or how about Rome, where marriage meant nothing and everybody routinely had affairs. That the kind of marriage we should emulate? Maybe we should go back to the system where children were contracted in marriage by their parents and got no say in the matter.

Marriage has already changed over time. Do you think it wasn't seen as "radical" and a "weakening of society" when parents stopped having the power to decide who and when their children would marry? I suspect those folks were horrified and thought it would destroy the social fabric.

You can oppose gay marriage for whatever reason you want. But don't try to claim that every gay person is exactly like the loons you see from the "gay lobby." Most of us would be fine leaving you with marriage. But as long as you keep the "sanctity of marriage" bundled with all the tax breaks, credits, and welfare state goodies, and feel that gays shouldn't get ANY of it, you will meet with people who are willing to wipe out your institution if that's what it will take to get a fair shake.

no, your quite wrong, I don't care about historical aberrations, nor do I care about "destroying the social fabric". I am saying it is OUR definition, and OUR culture, and we are going to stand up to a whiny little special interest group because we are quite frankly tired of taking it on the chin.

Don't like that? too bad.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle