Redstate

thank you for that well thought out diary.  i have never read that book you mention but it sounds good.

i have never thought about politics in terms of these traditions.  i will only say a little bit about my tradition (i would say the backcountry self-determination one) and how it affects my view on this issue.

yes its true that i see the imposition of gay marriage by judges as a big problem.  but there's more to it than that.  

if you believe as i do that all liberties follow from natural liberty, then you also believe that its important to listen to nature.

if we look at nature with our eyes open what do we see?

do we really see that love between two women or two men is really the moral and practical equivalent of love between a man and a woman?

do we see that homosexuals are more happy in their lifestyle than they would be in a traditional lifestyle of one man and one woman?

do we see that children raised by a same sex marriage are just as happy as those raised by a traditional man and wife?  or do we hear the opposite?

the real question is -- is nature telling us that gay marriage isn't ok?  ultimately the issue hinges on that for me, and all the laws and judges and amendments are more of a sideshow than anything else.

that is how i would analyze the question, without the utopian ideas of activists and judges being brought to bear.

i will post later how i would answer these questions.  but not right away because i really would like to know what people think, as my opinions are still evolving on this subject.

to give you a hint though i myself am 100 % heterosexual and am married, christian and would call myself very conservative.

Know a guy who would want to look over the sources of US Marriage you listed.  Mind citing a couple of your sources for posterity?

shrugs As for myself, I understand the legal issues involved and the desire for the preservation of rights by both sides of the picture (Conservative thought seeking to preserve the state of rights and priveleges as is, Liberal seeking to assert rights for a minority party that it sees as real.).  However, while I keep my nose in the legal affairs, I am infinitely more concerned with moral and religious permutations, and as such am likely to tell the government to take a flying leap on this one, and take the hit on taxes if it comes to it.

shrugs the views of the divine are simply more important to me in this regard than the legal decisions of the US of A.

Excellent post!  Recommended.

Just based on a rudimentary understanding of most of America's basic regional differences, it appears to me that, at a very general level, your categories would fit in modern-day America as follows:

Yankees: Northeast, obviously.

Tidewater: South.

Quakers: Midwest

Backcountry: West

There are some exceptions, of course.  Southern Florida, the southwest, and the west coast are all mixtures of these and a dozen other cultures.  And some border regions may be a healthy mix.  I, for example, grew up in Michigan, where north meets midwest.  As such, I can definitely see how both the Yankee and Quaker values you described would apply to people's sentiments up there.

Yet I've always been a westerner at heart, and I have to admit, I find the backcountry self-determination view of marriage, and of many similar issues, closest to my own.  I have no problem with the people of a state selecting to institute gay marriage or civil unions or whatever, but when it's attempted via judicial fiat, I immediately go into battle mode.  For this reason, I also opposed the FMA, as it also felt like a power-grab from those half a world away.

the South (think Appalachia, Kentucky, Tennessee etc).

Considering that my family is all from the Tennessee/Kentucky Mountains and the only non UK heritage is German, everything else was either Welsh, Scotch or Irish-not any English.

I once read something intriguing...the notion was that one of the reasons there has always been this sort of Hatfield/McCoy dynamic between the American north and south is that southerners are largely descended from Scots and northerners from Britons and they sort of carried their ancient feud over here with them.

Don't know if it's true, but stranger things have happened.

a great article at the office on this.

I'll get it Monday/.

Also see Thomas Sowell's new book

"Black Rednecks and White Liberals"

I think

I'm heterosexual, married, two wonderful, brilliant kids.  I'm not sure which folkway I belong to (is there some sort of online quiz?), but this thread seems as good as any to discuss how my attitude on the issue of gay marriage developed.

1. My marriage would have been illegal in a number of states prior to Loving v. Virginia.  Given that many at the time denounced that decision as unacceptable judicial activism, I instinctively bristle when I see similar arguments used against gay marriage and/or civil unions today.  I do, of course, understand that the situations are dissimilar in a number of ways (none would argue that a mixed-race family is incapable of procreation), but it strikes me that there were quite a few people in those days who felt that "miscegenation" was a definite threat to the basis of the institution of marriage.  Again, it's clearly an emotional reaction on my part, but I imagine the same is often true on the other side of the issue.
   
2.  My real awakening on this issue came through my daughter's interaction with the adopted children of a gay couple in her preschool.  These men had adopted two children (and a third since) of the sort who tend otherwise to bounce around the foster care system and end up in dire straits: drug-addicted mothers, emotional and developmental difficulties, the works.  When we first met them, it was clear that the kids had been through a lot.    And yet, by the time our children had finished preschool, these two had blossomed into sweet, well-adjusted little boys through a supportive family life.  After getting to know this couple (who have been together far longer than my wife and I), it seemed almost churlish for me to begrudge them the ability to make family visits to each other in the hospital, or to jointly adopt their children, or to share health benefit plans, or any other of the privileges my wife and I gained when we signed our marriage certificate.  I'm not a stickler for the nomenclature - "civil unions" are fine by me, although I don't entirely feel comfortable making concessions on an issue that doesn't directly affect me - but my basic feeling remains that their family can't possibly be a net harm to society.

I realize these are probably stereotypically "lefty" sentiments, but I hope they aren't ban-worthy.  Anyway, I suppose I've rambled enough.

If they ban you for this, then they're as bad as the North Carolina Primary for throwing the Log Cabin caucus out after it paid its dues.

No, strike that.  Redstate gives warnings about acceptability of viewpoints.  I think they'd be less wrong than NC.  Maybe they could have been more specific on hotbutton issues, but they're not as bad as the NC Primary if they do that.

I don't think your views are "lefty" comments at all.  To the contrary, you've used rational and logical thought to utilize facts and come to a conclusion.  Just because your conclusion differs from most conservatives shouldn't be cause for alarm.

This is a good, interesting, and thoughtful post.  "Albion's Seed" is on my list of books to read in the near future, and I think you've done a good job of parsing how the different world views of the various Anglo tribes reflect on the issue of homosexuality in the contemporary US.

I'm not sure, however, that this advances the pragmatic, real world issues surrounding gay marriage in a useful way.

If I may, I would like to speak for the gay community on this topic.  Since I'm not gay, that's extremely presumptious, but I'm willing to go out on limb and make a couple of very simple points.

What, exactly, is the gay agenda regarding marriage?  Why do gays want their relationships to have the same social imprimatur as heterosexuals?

The answer to this is pretty simple, actually.  Gays want to be treated the same as everyone else.  Period.

I recognize that, for religious and social reasons, this is highly problematic for lots of folks, and frankly I respect that.  In the context of US civil law, however, gays are asking for one very simple thing.  They want to be treated like everyone else.

IMO, it's really not all that much to ask.  Your opinion may differ.  IMO it's important, however, to understand what the question on the table actually is.  The question on the table is whether we will give homosexuals the same rights and privileges that heterosexuals enjoy, or whether we will deny them those rights and privileges because of their sexual orientation.  Thats it.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Cheers -

moral equivalent: maybe

practical equivalent: definitely not

more happy in their lifestyle: yes

are their children happy: NO

Every fourth decade, like clockwork, our nation nearly boils over due to one or more big cultural issues.

In the 1920s, it was Prohibition.

In the 1960s, it was civil rights and equality for all races and both genders.

This may be the decade, I fear, when our nation once again experiences massive social unrest over emotionally-charged issues.

The big moral issues of the coming culture war appear to be revolve around two areas.  The first are issues related to life: abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research.  The second are issues related to the increasing demands of gay Americans to be included in civil society.

How this will all play out, no one really knows.  But just as nobody would have predicted the dramatic nature of the civil rights movement and the feminist movement in 1960, I suspect that 2005 is similarly a calm before a cultural storm.

I'm not sure, however, that this advances the pragmatic, real world issues surrounding gay marriage in a useful way.

It can... if people will listen to what it is telling them. You, for example, have not. Observe:

The question on the table is whether we will give homosexuals the same rights and privileges that heterosexuals enjoy, or whether we will deny them those rights and privileges because of their sexual orientation. Thats it. Nothing more, nothing less

You have expressed the "contract," or New Englanders' view of marriage, and done so in a way that asserts that no other interpretation is possible ("Thats it. Nothing more, nothing less").

What the article is trying to tell you is that your argument will fall on deaf ears in large parts of the country, where the 'contract' view of marriage is not part of the set of assumptions.

The article is trying to warn you that pushing that line, and insisting on it, will simply annoy people. It will convince no one.

The pragmatic improvement that could be provided is that the debate on the subject might move beyond the "talking past each other" stage if more people understood that not everyone holds their fundamental assumptions.

To a certain extent, I think Fischer's work supports the thesis that the Civil War can be seen as a conflict between a Celtic South (Chesapeake Tidewater Saxons allied with Scots-Irish backcountry folk) and a Germanic North (Anglian Yankees and Quakers from the Northern Midlands).  But one has to be careful making too broad a generalization here, particularly about backcountry/borderland folk who lived all along the American frontier, north and south (they seceded to form W Va for example).

That's right, my presentation is a simplification of the story.  To flesh a few things out:

-Scots-Irish is not a term they would have used for themselves at the time.  Fischer notes the cultural similarities of the clans--some self-identified as English, some Scots, few as Irish--who lived along the western England-Scotland border.  

-The borderlands folk came largely through PA over a long period of the 18th century and were encouraged to not stay too long in the Quaker areas.  They spread to western PA and from there along the mountains up to NH and down to GA. They continued through KY ('elbow room' was a phrase often used by Daniel Boone) and from there to the southwest.

-Other migration patterns: Yankees across the 'blue states' (including CA) excluding the 'battleground states'.  Quakers throughout the northern midwest.  Tidewater folks through the old South.  Evidence in Albion's Seed is presented in terms of linguistic maps, settlement patterns, and political maps.

-Again, this theory is best used, I think, to explain general cultural inclinations, not necessarily any given individual's psychology.  Thus while we can all think of several influences on ourselves, but the theory speaks more to the behavior of the nation and the electorate in general over time.

-Clarification: This interpretation of Fischer's work into Gay Marriage is entirely my own application of his theory; I am not using analysis other than Fischer's.

tended to be pro-Union and in some cases even anti-slavery. In some ways the Civil War was more like a repeat of the English Civil War between the Puritans (North) and the Cavaliers (South).

moral equivalent -- yes

practical equivalent -- increasingly yes as liberal adoption laws and technology can level the playing field

(I'm talking about raising children here -- I see no other practical difference.)

happiness of couple -- yes

haapiness of children -- I know gay couples personally, but none with children, so I can't answer from personal experience, but the anecdotal evidence I have seen (including on this thread) says yes. Do you have a cite for your opposite answer?

Today, as I write this, a gay man anywhere in the United States can legally marry. He can, just as a straight man can, go to city hall and apply for, and be granted a marriage license.

As long as the person he is marrying is of the opposite sex.

The city clerk will not ask him his sexual orientation.

The argument is over "same-sex marriage", not gay marriage.

Otherwise, a well-written and interesting analysis.

was not only indirect, on New England, but also direct, on New Amsterdam -> New York. Also, New Amsterdam was a refuge for people from all over Europe who were fleeing things like the Huguenot persecution and the Thirty Years War.

The Dutch also had their own experience with people trying to rule them from afar.

So here in the blue states we have a long tradition of hostility towards people who want to tell us how we should live, who we should marry and such.

And the Tidewater people were exactly those that the Yankees were trying to escape from, so* there's not a lot of sympathy for their point of view up here.

* I don't know how valid the causal relationship is here, but it seems to fit the historical generalizations we are bandying about.

but perhaps we can extrapolate from the previous two experiences, which ended with the people who wanted to live their lives the way they saw fit, gaining victory over those who would restrict them.

The more I think about it, the more I feel that the historical methodologies in this diary do indeed apply to today.  

The current political divide in this country since Reagan has basically been one between those who want more federal power and those who want less.

Red-staters are basically an alliance between the Tidewater types of the South and the Backcountry folks of the border regions and West.  The Tidewater descendants prefer less federal power because local control allows for the continued preservation of the cultural norms and traditions that still exist in their communities.  Backcountry types, such as myself, are also distrust federal power due to our anti-elitism, our preference for majority-rule, and our desire to be free from overlords from afar.

The blue-staters are an alliance between the Quakers and the Yankees.  The Yanks want more federal power because their belief in collectivism and in community rights makes things like higher taxation and lots of gov't programs second-nature to them.  The Quaker descendants in the midwest support more gov't because of their cultural belief in assisting those less fortunate than themselves even though they do agree with the backcountry types on individualism.

This is very interesting because the cultural reasons for these alliances show that the red/blue divide could someday be turned on its head.  You could easily see, for example, the Backcountry libertarian types forming a coalition with the Quakers over their mutual belief that the rights of the individual are sacrosanct and, as such, form sort of a "libertarianism with a conscience" ideology.  Conversely, you can imagine the Yanks and the Tidewater folks, who are largely based in the northeast and old south where tradition and heritage go back centuries, forming a political alliance based on maintaining traditions and enforcing societal norms and community standards.

The prospects are fascinating.

about calling Nature supreme, and laws a sideshow.

If we followed Nature in all its glory, the way so-called primitives do,

1. boys and girls would be getting married at puberty.
   
   
2. Men would have multiple wives, like most mammals and like most primitive peoples.
   
   
3. The biggest, most muscular man could take as much as he wants and from whomever he wants.
   
   
4. The disabled and otherwise helpless would be left to die.

The laws of God, the laws of Nature, and the laws of Men are very different things indeed.  And in fact, most primitive cultures have some homosexual practices.

Gay marriage is anathema to the laws of Judeo-Christian God, to most people.  It is somewhat distasteful to the laws of Nature.  As for the laws of Man, if you want to champion Nature, be prepared to let it lead you to some uncomfortable places.

We wouldn't live in houses

We wouldn't eat cooked food

We wouldn't bathe frequently

We'd die of disease vastly more often

I like nature just fine but I really don't want to life a natural life.  I like my air conditioning and my comfortable chair far too much.

How are God's laws different from nature's laws when God created nature?

You have expressed the "contract," or New Englanders' view of marriag

Prompted by your comments, I've re-read the original post, and I think you're correct.  My argument is based on a view of marriage as an agreement entered into by two people, which among other things confers on them certain rights, privileges, and responsibilities.

What the article is trying to tell you is that your argument will fall on deaf ears in large parts of the country

Once again, I find your comment correct.  What you have said here is, manifestly, true.

The pragmatic improvement that could be provided is that the debate on the subject might move beyond the "talking past each other" stage if more people understood that not everyone holds their fundamental assumptions

Well said, and noted.

You've given good advice here for anyone who wants to win hearts and minds on the gay marriage issue.  Since I posted here on the topic, I suppose that includes me.  I am, however, not that optimistic that all that many hearts and minds can be won.  Looking at it from the point of view of the "folkways" discussed in the original post, there may really be no fruitful argument available to be made to some demographics.

So, I'll settle for having articulated the "New England", so to say, point of view, in case anyone is interested in broadening their understanding to include that perspective.

Also, in areas broader than just marriage, I think my comments regarding "what gays want" is reasonably accurate.  It would be more than presumptious of me to claim to speak for American homosexuals, but in the limited community of gay people I do know, as far as I can tell what they want from other folks is simply to be treated like everyone else is treated.  They'd like not to be hated or viewed with scorn or disgust, but they will settle for simply being treated like other folks.

Thanks again for your comments, I always find your posts thoughtful, intelligent, and insightful.

Cheers -

Loving doesn't apply because, regardless of the motivations that were behind "miscegenation" laws, the US Constitution forbids racial discrimination within the law. A black man is to have every right before the law as a white man.

A gay man has every right to marry as a straight man as long as the partner he is marrying is female.

If one wants to change the family law statutes covering this, then one must convince The People and through them, their Representatives to change the law.

I understand where you are coming from emotionally. From my own friends and through my daughters' friends, I know many fine gay people. I wish for them to find and make a binding commitments for their own sakes as well as for society. That's me in the micro, in the emotional realm.

In the macro realm, I want that change ONLY through the legislature. To declare it a "right" of "loving people" is to open a Pandora's Box of mischief.

How in heaven's name with that kind of rationale could you ever legally deny polygamy? Polyandry? Group marriage?

Not everyone can marry, no matter how much they "want" to, for a variety of reasons. I know a couple...who have been together for over 15 years. Both are mentally challenged and he is also physically challenged. They cannot marry despite their desire, but they did have a commitment ceremony, in a church, with friends and family attending and happy for them.

The government is not going to interfer in their private relationship, just as the government will not/should not interfer in the private relationships of any adult couple. As it should be.

If the government tomorrow, threw up its hands and said "enough! we are striking all family law statutes from the books. you are all on your own" ... "marriages" and families would not stop "being." Everyone would then, for their own protection, have to privately draw up the contracts to govern the more mundane rights/obigations/responsibilities of a partnership.

And, IMHO, that would be preferable than a judicial fiat that "marriage is a right."

A gay man has every right to marry as a straight man as long as the partner he is marrying is female.

I think this a weak position to argue from.

A fair paraphrase, IMO, of this statement is to say "We aren't withholding rights of gays to marry because gays inherently cannot marry".

To stretch it back to the Loving comparison, would be to say, "There is nothing wrong with preventing blacks from marrying whites because interracial marriage is not a real marriage anyway".

Such declarations, which are more grammatical than moral, are not compelling to me.

Who says what marriage is and by whom it is to be defined? Those who are already married? Those who are "marriable"?

It seems to me that justice demands that if the people cannot show a compelling reason to  deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied.

How in heaven's name with that kind of rationale could you ever legally deny polygamy? Polyandry? Group marriage?

There are compelling reasons and arguments to deny those marriages and they are laws against them.

There is no such case, as far as I'm aware, against gay marriages.

It is worth noting that as of 1883, the Supreme Court believed that miscegenation laws were constitutional: see the Pace v. Alabama decision.  Essentially, as the law applied equally to both black and white offenders, it didn't violate the Equal Protection clause. This is Plessy v. Ferguson-style reasoning, I suppose.  Were Loving (and Brown) examples of changing community standards overriding the original intent of the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment, or did the 1880s-1890s Court get it wrong on "separate but equal" in marriage and in public facilities?

... and by whom it is to be defined?

Are you talking private relationships or a public institution?

Obviously, anyone can define for themselves what is a marriage or not. IE for a long time if a Catholic married a non-Catholic outside of the Catholic church, it was not defined as "marriage" in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

No skin off MY nose as a Presbyterian.

But The People have the right to define institutions that the Law sanctions.

It is up to same-sex marriage advocates to persuade their fellow citizens to extend the definition of marriage to them, not vice versa.

There is not one argument today I have heard demanding a JUDICIAL declaration of same-sex marriage that is not immediately applicable to polygamy. In fact, same-sex marriage arguments are at the cornerstone of suits BY polygamists against the laws that forbid polygamy.

There is no family law statute that requires "love" to apply for marriage so my statement of a gay man and a straight man have the exact same right to marry was neither weak nor facetious. The law already recognizes gender as a legitimate limiting factor. The genders are NOT interchangable.

Again, this is democracy vs judicial fiat. As much as I hope that same-sex couples WILL be allowed to marry, and the move towards civil unions or domestic partnerships (ca family code 297) work in that direction, I will resist any move to accomplish this goal through judicial fiat.

Why have legislatures at all? Why not just look at judges as a new kind of Western Mullah who knows "best" for us all?

you have mentioned are physical constructs of mankind.

I was speaking of social constructs--much like marriage itself.

Mankind can create physical constructs in the same way spiders build webs--but it doesn't detract from the artificiality of the social constructs we have created, from Nature's point of view.

If you don't want to live a Natural life, one shouldn't appeal to Nature in the gay marriage issue.  Appeal to God instead.

"The natural man is an enemy to God." QED

One can follow the laws of Nature.  One can follow the laws of God.  One can follow the laws of Man.

Your stance on gay marriage will depend heavily on which laws you choose to live by.

incest between consenting adults to that list as well.  If a brother and sister love each other, what reason can you have to deny them the right to marry?

Repeating whats been said elsewhere by people who say it much better than I can, but I thought I'd set down my feelings on the whole issue.



On the view of marriage as a contract:  This is probably the one that I fit in with most.  As with any contract, the terms are set out beforehand, and who can enter into it are also stated.  If it is decided to open the contract to two people of the same sex, fine.  But I can see no reason not to open it up completely if that is the route taken.
 Example: Any 2 (or heck, why not allow more parties to be involved, class action, YEAH!) people (or depending on the wording of the contract, non-people) over the age of consent (or not, see above ramblings) can become married, fine.


In the end, the contract must be completely open, or it will 'discriminate'(using the current term of same sex marriage proponents) against someone, somewhere.  So, for the sake of not having my head explode, I prefer to keep the contract limited as is.



On the view of marriage as a benefit to society: I am sympathetic to this view too.  I believe it is a good thing to have a family unit of 1 man, 1 woman, X kids (I'll refer to this as Family Unit).  Specifically for the benefit of the children.  Secondly, it is a benefit to human kind.  Procreation is neccessary for our survival, and a stable Family Unit help continue this.  In the sense of same sex marriage, incest, polygamy et al. in two of the cases procreation is either an impossibility (with the other partner anyway), or just genetically a bad idea.  In the case of multiple partners, I must say this isn't a healthy thing (and illegal in some places).  So, in this case, keeping marriage as man and woman again is the best choice.



Ok, I'm done.  Hope that made some sense to someone.</rant off&gt
-bro

As a gay, male, I guess I take the Yankee Contract view, even though I live in Indiana.

I do see marriage as a contract between two people. I think any two people should be allowed to enter into any kind of contract they desire and the government should stay out of it until there is a breach of contract by one or both parties.

You may believe that I, as a gay man have the same rights to marry a woman as a straight man, but that, I think misses the point.

I can marry a woman and pretend to be happy. I can pretend to love her while at the same time I might be sexually promiscious w/men. At which time, my mental health issues (caused by living a lie) might manifest themselves through heavy drinking or spousal abuse.

Or you can let me enter into contracts w/whom I chose and leave a happy monogomous life.

I choose the latter and it upsets me that many would prefer that I either die or make some woman terribly unhappy.

A contract that I enter w/another man threatens no one's family.

Collectivism is going too far, but community feeling, yes. And yet, when you say "enforcing societal norms and community standards," that doesn't feel like Yankees to me. It feels more like the Puritans who settled Boston. Even today, social behavior in Boston is more, well, tied down and controlled than in New York. Back then, many thought it too oppressive and escaped. When they escaped to the west and met the Dutch, that's when the Yankees were born.

The Dutch were hard drinkers and hard fighters, and they didn't put up with a lot of crap from their leaders. To them, community meant they had to support each other if they were going to survive and prosper, even as they fought and bickered amongst themselves. (I offer this story about the wedding of a couple of my ancestors -- the fourth and fifth paragraphs.) It wasn't about enforcing societal norms and community standards on a wildly diverse and multicultural population.

I can strongly recommend The Island at the Center of the World by Russell Shorto, ISBN 0-385-50349-0. From the dust jacket:

In fact, it was Amsterdam—Europe's most liberal city, with an unusual policy of tolerance and a polyglot society dedicated to free trade—that became the model for the city of New Amsterdam on Manhattan. While the Puritans of New England were founding a society based on intolerance, on Manhattan the Dutch created a free-trade, upwardly mobile melting pot that would help shape not only New York but America.

and I have used that same example.

If two adults are consenting and "in love", then according to the "I have a RIGHT to marry whomever I love and the government MUST legally sanction it" philosophy, there is NO logical argument against incestuous couples having the right to marry ... brother/sister, father/daughter, etc.

You could argue against incest by stating the fact that a brother and sister have too many genes in common and that their offspring could easily be a genetic mutant.

Since gay people are unable to have kids, the mutant children thing is not an issue.

But what if it's gay turtles, and they met at the dojo?

Stats: gay male (conservative, btw, so hopefully not banworthy. I am new to RedState and getting my bearings)

This was my analysis too, for awhile. Even though I am gay, I fully agreed that for a judge to decide that same-sex marriage was a "right" infuriated me, and I agree with the poster above completely: if a state decides it, great; if a judge imposes it, attack; if the Feds ban it from Washington: attack.

Now, here is the other way to argue the issue.

Instead of viewing the opposite sex/same sex issue (i.e, a gay man can get married the same as a straight man--to any woman he chooses), let's look at the marriage law itself.

I, a man, can choose a woman to marry, right?  My sister, also, can choose a man to marry. We both have these rights regardless of orientation.  But--that means that the law is discrimating against me on the basis of gender--if my sister can choose a man to marry, why can't I? Conversely, if I can choose a woman to marry, why can't my sister?

So if you look at the marriage law itself, it is treating men and women differently: a woman has options that men don't, and men have options women don't.  This does unfortunately lead to a constitutional or judicial (shudder) issue, and one that the courts may choose to get involved in.  This is a bad place for a showdown; I would prefer to see the issue dealt with in the legislature, which is where I feel the debate belongs.

Our social constructs are just as artificial as our physical constructs.  You don't see too many lions involved in corporations, do you?

Humans aren't animals, we do things no animal species is even capiable of.  You can argue that homosexuality is unnatural if you want [1], and you can argue that gay marriage is unnatural.  But then, so is streight marriage (in nature the most common pattern is for one strong male to mate with scores of females), and democracy (where, again, the most common social pattern is a despotism ruled by a single strong male).

Humans are unnatural, and I think that's an excellent thing.

[1] Though you'd be incorrect, at least for species that have recreational sex.  See the Bonobo apes as an example.

You are absolutely correct that the same arguments used to justify same sex marriage could be used to justify polygamy.

They CANNOT be used to justify incest.  Incest is against the law.  Period.  Having sex with multiple partners is not.

Marriage implies consummation through sex.  If that sex itself is illegal, there can be no marriage de facto.  If that sex is legal, then the marriage may be legal all else being equal

Thus, if gay marriage passes as legal, all forms of polygamy must eventually be ruled legal by extension.  But incest and bestiality will not be.

in nature the most common pattern is for one strong male to mate with scores of females

This is why the Nineteenth Amendment was a fundamentally bad idea. By oppressing women and giving them anorexia and bulimia, we men had finally tricked the women into going for this one-man/one-woman deal where only the real losers among us had to go without. The women didn't have the vote five minutes before they started work on creating the One Strong Male system again, in the form of government.

You don't see too many lions involved in corporations, do you?

I notice you didn't mention weasels.

I'll have you know I have been an Animal Control Officer in a corporation, and I can tell you that the biggest problem is the weasels. Them and the snakes.

There is no "one size fits all" rule in nature, but an incredible variability in social arrangements and behavior. So I'm not sure there's any point at all to arguing about what is or is not "natural". And taking the "natural" behavior of one species, whether lions, horses, penguins or whatever, and then using it as a measuring rod for human behavior strieks me as absurd, on either side of this argument.

You've touched on a question that plagued me as I read Albion's Seed--what about New York?  "Yankee," in his usage, refers to 'greater' New England and traditions from the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

Towards the end of the book, Fischer explains that he did not count a number of important folkways in America among the 'major' ones because of their limited geographic influence.  While the earliest settlers, indeed the current local elites of cities across the US can usually trace their history directly to one of the four folkways above, few are as closely tied to New York (note the linguistic map of the US lists NYC and the Hudson Valley as a distinct area, but the Yankee dialect spreads from NE across upstate NY to northern Ohio, then to the West Coast.)  While enormously influential in many ways, NYC is not a society that large swaths of the country have modeled themselves after.

Other less widespread folkways included the original Plymouth colony and the first wave of English settlers to VA.

The pragmatic improvement that could be provided is that the debate on the subject might move beyond the "talking past each other" stage

How in the world can this be accomplished?  Imagine how efficient our country could be if this could be done on any issue.  Open-minded discussion seems in short supply.  Especially among opposing sects.  It would be great to see it, but I wouldn't hold my breathe.

Where you see Judges imposing gay marriage, I see judges saying everyone should get the same deal from the state.  Frames do make a big difference.

If you look in nature you do find what appears to be homosexual behavior and pairings.  Evidently Bonobos swing in many, many ways.

Homosexuals happier than they would be in hetero relationships?   Yes.  The gays I know vary from miserable with their partners to very satisfied and happy.  Just like straights.  The ones that I know that tried to fake it, were miserable and are happier with same sex partners.  I've no hard data just my anecdotal experience having grown up in the deep South and then moving to SF for first real job.  Kinda eye opening.

Children in same sex partnerships -- I've no idea.  The data is very thin and usually deadly partisan on the subject.  I suspect kids that are loved and nutured are happier than those that get scraps and left on latchkey.  After that, it's just guesswork with the little data in hand.  What is true is that gays are no more likely to molest their kids than straights.  

Nature telling us anything??  Doubt we have an answer yet.  Gays haven't really been out all that long and are still heavily discriminated against.  It's hard to damn them for being bruised while you beat them with a stick.  Even knowing as many gays and I have (some close friends) I still squint a bit at same sex PDA more than opposite sex PDA.  But I view that as my problem.

IE for a long time if a Catholic married a non-Catholic outside of the Catholic church, it was not defined as "marriage" in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

I think the Catholic church still does not recognize civil/other religious ceremonies as being Catholic.  A friend of mine who married her first husband in a civil ceremony did not have to get that marriage annulled and recently married her second husband in the Catholic church.

But you make a good point-there is a lot of melding between what is the personal instutition, religoius instutition, government recognized instutition, and to some degree cultural instutituion.  That is whay this issue really and truly does belong in the legislatures where it can be debated and discussed and not in the hands of the men and women in black robes.

Re: I think the Catholic church still does not recognize civil/other religious ceremonies as being Catholic.

A Catholic is expected to marry in a Roman Catholic sacramental wedding and can be excomunnicated for failing to do so, absent extenuating circumstances. The RC does recognize the marriages of non-Catholics as valid: it does not think all of us are living in sin! But the only marriages it recognizes as sacramentally (as opposed to just legally) valid are thise of the Orthodox churches.

I am not a Catholic-so I don't know all the workings regarding marriage/remarriage/annulments, I just know that my friend who got married recently has had a sort of spiritual reawakening, and it was important to her and her fiance (now husband) to get married in the church, and she checked to see if she had to get an annulment for her first marriage, and because the marriage was not in the church or with a Catholic priest, she did not need one.

I assume that a priest or somebody has to actually do something to get a person excommunicated, since she apparantly wasn't excommunicated for her first marriage (but at that point she was mostly a Christmas/Easter/Wedding/Funeral Catholic).

"They CANNOT be used to justify incest.  Incest is against the law.  Period.  Having sex with multiple partners is not."

I'd remind you that homosexual behavior has been against the law in all states (as best as I can recollect) at some point in the states' histories.  Certainly there have been laws on the books of the various states that were hostile to sex that was outside the concept of heterosexual marriage, irrespective of today's laws.  If we're going to legitimize gay marriage, what moral right do we have then to say there's a problem with poligomy or adult concensual incect?

Consider also, that if you have a moral problem with incest (ie. brothers and sisters or first cousins shouldn't be allowed to have sex with each other, even if consenting adults) ask yourself why  this behavior troubles you.  To simply say that "Its against the law" is a real cop-out.  To say that "their offspring would have real genetic problems" is still a pretty weak arguement, especially if one or the other agreed to be "fixed" to prevent an "accident."  Why deny them, as consenting adults their sexual freedom?  Why is it wrong?  If our sexual behavior is relative or subjective what right do you have to interfere with these consenting adults?

I'm not saying that there isn't a right to restrict behavior like incest (I emphatically believe there is), but I want to know why (given that previously illegal behavior is now legal) you would defend gay marriage yet attack incest, when consenting adults.

What if they were over 50 and she was past menopause?

See those opposed to gay marriage argue-"well the institution is really about children and their security and protection of the family"

Then those in favor say "well it isn't really about children, after all there are hetero couples that can't have children should we deny them the right to marry, when they love each other?"

Then we bring up the incest issue-and those in favor of gay marriage all the sudden want to use the issue of children.

If the issue of children is to be denied as reason to restrict who gets to marry regarding the homo/hetero sexual issue, than it is now moot for the incestuous couple.

Re: If we're going to legitimize gay marriage, what moral right do we have then to say there's a problem with poligomy or adult concensual incect?

The problem is that you do not see that there are entirely practical reasons to reject both incest and polygamy and so you assume that these laws rest on nothing more than "morality".

Apart from the genetic issues of brother-sister marriages there also the exogamy issue: One of the great benefits that marriage brings a society is that it creates deep personal bonds across family lineages. Incest flat out eliminates that benefit, thrreby contributing the weakening of a society's cohesiveness. This is not a trivial point. In the Arab world most people marry cousins with the result that Arab society consists of a lot of closed clans suspcious of and hostile to each other. The effects on society as a whole are disastrous.

"The problem is that you do not see that there are entirely practical reasons to reject both incest and polygamy and so you assume that these laws rest on nothing more than "morality"."

Your statement infers that our great debate over homosexual behavior is nothing more than a morality issue.  Could it be that our laws against homosexual behavior may have rest upon more than just morality?

Subjective reasoning may very well become our society's Pandora's Box.

I have never seen an argument against homosexuality that was not based on morality either explicitly ("It's against God") or implicitly ("It's unnatural") or on personal taste ("Eew!") or on erroneous "facts" ("Gays life expectancy is only 40!")

Show me an argument that is not based on sectarian morality or on erroneous facts coupled with dubious premises and maybe we'll talk.

I appreciate your time to respond but am still not clear. God created man and nature. Man was given freewill so I can see how man's laws may differ from God's laws. But there is no freewill in nature so how can nature have created their own set of laws?

Please feel free to clear up any mistakes, I think you are better versed in the bible than I am.

Thanks.

Re: But there is no freewill in nature so how can nature have created their own set of laws?

How can human beings have free will if there is none in nature? We too are in nature.

Yes, I can trace my father's ancestors, who include a signer of the Declaration, from New Hampshire and Massachusetts to western New York state to Kalamazoo Michigan and Toledo OH. The Erie Canal was in effect a sort of drainage sluice down which New Englanders flowed west to Buffalo and then on to Cleveland, Detroit, Toledo and finally Chicago. Beyond that I think the Yankee migration must peter out in a flood of immigrants since Wisconsin, Minnesota an the Dakotas are more Scandinavian in background than Yankee.

It is worth noting that some of New York's Dutch population also bled off in this migration, since western Michigan ended up with lost of Dutch people. Or were these later immigrants? Anyone know?

Example: Any 2 (or heck, why not allow more parties to be involved, class action, YEAH!) people (or depending on the wording of the contract, non-people) over the age of consent (or not, see above ramblings) can become married, fine.

Neither non-people nor minors under the age of consent possess the power to enter into contract.  The idea that same-sex marriage will lead to bestial marriage and child marriage doesn't seem plausible.

that liberals use to decry hypocrisy in relgion.  The fact that the laws of God are contrary to natural impulses, created by God, is one of the great conundrums of religion, and different religions answer the conundrum differently.

I think I understand now what you meant when you said: "One can follow the laws of Nature.  One can follow the laws of God.  One can follow the laws of Man."

There is God's law and Nature's law, which man is a part of. Man is influenced not only by nature's laws (biology) but is also influenced by their own laws (society), due to freewill. Neither nature's laws nor man's laws are inherently God's laws - but there may be some overlap.

So, in relation to same-sex marriage (where this discussion began), nature and man may allow for homosexuality, but under God's law it is a sin.

Did I get it?

That it would lead to bestial marriages, the comments in () were as I said just ramblings.  But, on the minors point, yeah they can, parental consent and all.  In two states you don't have to be 18 anyway, and if theres a pregnancy involved all that can change too.
-bro

in some quarters to lower the age of consent-some think it should be as low as 12, and that could become a problem.

But in general I do not think there would be a push for changes in marriage defintions for groups that are presumed incapable of consent (minors, animals, and severly disabled people).  

I do think that if a constitutional right to gay marriage is found in the constitution, then you have pretty much opened the barn door to permit any type of marriage that involves consenting adults.

is the wrong path for legitimizing same-sex marriage.

I've addressed this elsewhere -- maybe the Christopher Hitchens thread? -- but in brief:

1. Race is a suspect classification by virtue of the post-Civil War Amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th).  Sexual preference is simply not, no matter how much you want to stretch the purpose of the 14th Amendment.
   
2. If you choose to extend the logic of Loving v. Virginia to same-sex marriage, depending primarily upon the dictum of the Court that "marriage is a basic civil right of Man", then you really cannot prohibit most of the other marriage-sexuality related laws.

The argument that there are compelling reasons and arguments to deny polygamy, incest, and minor marriages fails because under the Loving approach, marriage becomes a Constitutional right, and laws cannot abridge those without some serious showing of necessity.

Now, if as some have argued, you want to convince your legislature to pass laws legalizing same-sex marriage... well, power to you.  My state may be passing exactly that law sometime soon -- we'll see.  But to impose it as constitutional doctrine from the courts, sorry, no thanks and no legitimate basis for such a decision.

-TS

to where incest is no longer against the law, then this applies as well.

But such a thing will never take place.