State: Gay marriage to begin June 17 in California

[Odysseus]

Why should it sadden you? This is the way the world works. The youth in america aren't really all that weirded out by gay people. It's only a matter of time before gays get the same rights that straights have. New ideas about social policies only rarely revert backwards in America.

Gays already have the same rights as straights. No one is saying that a gay man cannot marry a woman, or that a lesbian cannot marry a man. What the law did not recognize was a relationship between two people of the same sex, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Gay marriage doesn't make straight marriage any different. It should mean fewer gays with AIDS since fewer partners equals fewer STD infections. It should be good for the economy to have people sharing their resources, saving for retirement, etc. Gays tend to be better educated and commit less crime, and I think married gays will be decent citizens.
I guess I just don't see how it affects me negatively. I am open to suggestions.

First, judges who unilaterally overturn the law through creative reinterpretations of the constitution, either state or federal, are a menace to the liberty of all citizens. The same judicial hubris that permits judges to create new rights allows them to take them away.

Second, the radical redefinition of marriage to encompass "alternative" lifestyles has led to fewer marriages in those countries in which it has been implemented. Dutch marriage rates, for example, have dropped steadily since gay marriage was legalized.

Third, the function of marriage is to provide a stable family structure in which to raise children. Gay couples are, by definition, incapable of reproduction without the intrusion of extraordinary practices. This is not to say that marriages that do not produce children should be dissolved (although one of the constant threads throughout most cultures is that a marriage may be dissolved or annulled due to the inability to produce children). Adoption, surrogates and turkey basters are not a substitute for fathers and mothers, and those who claim that they are lack an understanding of the critical roles that parents play in the raising of children.

Ultimately, this is not about marriage, but about elevating the immediate desires of an influential pressure group above the longterm stability of society. If you consider that harmless, then take a look at the European states where these "new ideas about social policy" have been implemented, with imploding birthrates, disintegrating culture and collapsing societies. Perhaps that does not seem very menacing to you, but it scares the hell out of me.

[wilbur]

You're right, it is. I agree with rights based not on skin color, or on sex, or on alienage, or on religious beliefs, etc. But how far are you willing to go? If homosexuals can successfully argue that man-man love is socially equivalent to man-woman love, then how far are we from pedophiles arguing the equivalence of man-boy love?

The first irreconcilable difference that renders this other non-sequiter completely silly, is the fact that a minor is involved, recognized by law as too young to offer consent. How often do we let a 30 year old skeezy guy marry a 12 year old girl, and vice versa? Apples to oranges here in a major way.

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman in marriage. The theory of eliminating the "man and woman" requirement, and rewriting it as "two persons" is no stronger than eliminating the requirement of "one" (of each sex) or "two" (without specifying sex). In fact the terms "man and woman" themselves imply the term "adult," which could easily be removed. By redefining marriage to "two persons" then you're eliminating the implicit modifier "adult."

As above, utterly silly. Who is saying we have to use the verbage "two persons" anyhow? Two adults is fine with me. Straw-man

Want more? With a sweep of the pen I can allow a man to marry a corporation and sell shares of his wife if you'd like.

Argument against gay marriage on its own? How about utilizing the legislative and republican form of government to enact change, rather than judicial activisim? Were women granted the right to vote by judicial interpretation, or was it through the systems incorporated into our system of government? How about equal rights in voting and representation?

By this logic we cant ever evaluate or modify portions laws because someone might make an argument for an even more extreme and silly situation. Even if you grant the slippery slope argument, who cares? Just about every thing in this world is a slippery slope, we have much expertise in walking them. Polygamy, bestiality, marring a corperation have enough issues themselves, they can be easily quashed and dismissed with or without gay marriage, by their own right.

Can you give a coherent argument, in light of Amendments 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 23, and 26 to the US Constitution, for gay marriage?

Yes, we are denying a minority fundamental rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness based on tenuous unsupportable myths and misgivings of a homophobic majority. All because the homesexual way of life makes them feel icky.

You know what a country with gay marriage is going to look like? Pretty much like the USA as it is right now.

[wilbur]

...

[b]Second, the radical redefinition of marriage to encompass "alternative" lifestyles has led to fewer marriages in those countries in which it has been implemented. Dutch marriage rates, for example, have dropped steadily since gay marriage was legalized.

...

Ultimately, this is not about marriage, but about elevating the immediate desires of an influential pressure group above the longterm stability of society. If you consider that harmless, then take a look at the European states where these "new ideas about social policy" have been implemented, with imploding birthrates, disintegrating culture and collapsing societies. Perhaps that does not seem very menacing to you, but it scares the hell out of me.

OK, this is the third or fourth time these types of facts have been presented in this thread. I just gotta say.. put your thinking caps on people. What possible mechanism for causation is gay marriage going to have on marriage rates and childbirth? There is none, unless you start invoking irrational religious dogma about God punishing us (ala Westboro Baptist) or completely speculative sermons and platitudes about the "sanctity of marriage". No facts though..

These are bogus facts, despite what despot idiots like O'Reilley say. If you read studies on the matter, you will find that gay marriage has had little or no impact on the countries in which they are allowed, and some have even met with moderate improvements in childbirth out of wedlock rates, and heterosexual marriage rates. I don't really buy that gay marriage can claim any credit for this increase, but it certainly shows it has negligible effect. In short.. no wrath of God, no society in chaos, no moral degradation.. just a few (very few) people getting to partake in the same institution most of us have the luxury to take for granted.

The countries where you see "declining rates" of marriages had steady rates of decline and "recognized cohabitation" before gay marriage was enacted! It's a gross misrepresentation to suggest gay marriage was the cause of an already steadily declining marriage rate, along with an increasing divorce rate. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop Christian press, and right wing extremist press from preaching the opposite. Go figure.

[du freeper]

What a class act.

You have a right to visit your partner in the hospital. In some places, homosexuals do not, even though some may have a level of commitment not even present in the 50%+ of straight marriages that fail. They are being denied their rights in those places, period.

It makes you wonder though, if allowing gay marriage might improve the overall marriage failure statistics? Would that be "harming the institution" of marriage?

But hey.. Support social conservatism! It puts the "homo" back in homophobia!

If you're not a "pillow biter" it shouldn't offend you. :p

Thanks for a new word to add to my vocabulary Biccat!! :D

[Odysseus]

The countries where you see "declining rates" of marriages had steady rates of decline and "recognized cohabitation" before gay marriage was enacted! It's a gross misrepresentation to suggest gay marriage was the cause of an already steadily declining marriage rate, along with an increasing divorce rate. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop Christian press, and right wing extremist press from preaching the opposite. Go figure.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Is the implementation of gay marriage a symptom of a culture that erodes the value and importance of marriage, or is it a cause? The cultures that allow gay marriage do so as part of an overall attack on the institution. The European states that have enacted gay marriage are states in which the dominant ethos is immediate gratification, rather than investment in the future. It's reflected in ruinous welfare benefits and social programs that benefit the current generation at the expense of future ones, collapsing birthrates and a supine posture in the face of aggression.

Once again, my point is that this is an elevation of the immediate desires of members of a pressure group over societal stability through an attack on one of the fundamental building blocks of society, by a small group of elitist judges. A nation that doesn't care about its future can afford to experiment with its primary institutions. A nation that wants to have a future has to be more careful, but since those who express concern about the longterm consequences are dismissed as bigots, superstitious rubes or troglodytes by elite opinion makers (and in the case of the courts, decision-makers), that debate will either not be held, or will be so acrimonious as to make rational discourse impossible.

[wilbur]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Is the implementation of gay marriage a symptom of a culture that erodes the value and importance of marriage, or is it a cause?

It is neither a symptom nor a cause. If anything it seems to offer a very slight relief from other symptoms of a culture that lost some of the "sanctity of marriage".

The cultures that allow gay marriage do so as part of an overall attack on the institution. The European states that have enacted gay marriage are states in which the dominant ethos is immediate gratification, rather than investment in the future. It's reflected in ruinous welfare benefits and social programs that benefit the current generation at the expense of future ones, collapsing birthrates and a supine posture in the face of aggression.

Well, if you think there is a strong correlation between birthrates and gay marriage, they seem to be the opposite of what you envision here. The cultures that, as you put it, "erode the value and importance of marriage" have actually seen both birthrates and marriages in a slight upswing.

I also have to take issue with the attempt to tether gay marriage to all kinds of unrelated social positions. Gay marriage has nothing to do with welfare, social programs or the people who support them, conservative agenda, liberal agenda etc. It has nothing to do with 'ethos of immediate gratification'.

Once again, my point is that this is an elevation of the immediate desires of members of a pressure group over societal stability through an attack on one of the fundamental building blocks of society, by a small group of elitist judges.

Maybe the way the judges in CA have handled it was right, maybe wrong, I haven't really followed it closely. I am arguing for the position of gay marriage itself, not what these judges have done.

A nation that doesn't care about its future can afford to experiment with its primary institutions. A nation that wants to have a future has to be more careful, but since those who express concern about the longterm consequences...

Fortunately, we now are in a position to look at empirical data from other countries who have modified that institution and are able to measure the affects. Some have had gay marriage for over 20 years now.

are dismissed as bigots, superstitious rubes or troglodytes by elite opinion makers (and in the case of the courts, decision-makers), that debate will either not be held, or will be so acrimonious as to make rational discourse impossible.

To be blunt, a large portion of gay marriage opposition is just that: bigoted and superstitious. Thats not exactly a good foundation for rational discourse either. Some are well meaning bigots, but bigots all the same. There just isn't any credible data to suggest gay marriage has negative consequences on the institution of marriage or a society's well being.

Ultimately the arguments against gay marriage rely on trying to transpose all the problems of polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, and any other unrelated social ills one could possibly dream up as characteristics of gay marriage. There are no arguments against gay marriage itself, based on anything rational, or empirical.

[LogansPapa]

To be blunt, a large portion of gay marriage opposition is just that: bigoted and superstitious. Thats not exactly a good foundation for rational discourse either. Some are well meaning bigots, but bigots all the same. There just isn't any credible data to suggest gay marriage has negative consequences on the institution of marriage or a society's well being.

Ultimately the arguments against gay marriage rely on trying to transpose all the problems of polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, and any other unrelated social ills one could possibly dream up as characteristics of gay marriage. There are no arguments against gay marriage itself, based on anything rational, or empirical.

Best retort so far in the new forum! Outstanding.

[Odysseus]

There are no arguments against gay marriage itself, based on anything rational, or empirical.

Then there's really no point talking to you about it, is there?

[wilbur]

Then there's really no point talking to you about it, is there?

Not necessarily... I'm open to listen to real arguments against it.. I just haven't seen any.

The hard data suggests that it has little or no effect on any overall marriage statistics in the nations where it has been implemented, so thats out.

The whole argument that suggests it will lead to polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia etc is just silly. All these other things have plenty of unique underlying problems in their own right, none of which could be ignored just because we legalize gay marriage. If you asked anyone for reasons pedophilia should remain illegal, I'm sure they would give you a whole host of good solid reasons without ever finding it necessary to connect it to gay marriage. Same for polygamy, and for goodness sake bestiality. So why do we have to connect gay marriage to these other things, when asked why it should remain illegal?

Then most of the other remaining arguments, aside from above two, are usually nothing more than superstitious pontifications about the nations 'favor with God' or 'moral decay' or whatever. Those can be dismissed out of hand because they are nothing but rhetoric.

I really haven't seen any arguments that arent one or some combination of the above tactics. They all fail.

[Perilloux]

Initiative to ban gay marriage qualifies for California ballot
Associated Press
Article Launched: 06/02/2008 05:43:10 PM PDT

SAN FRANCISCO - The Secretary of State says an initiative that would again outlaw gay marriage in California has qualified for the November ballot. California Secretary of State Debra Bowen says a random check of signatures submitted by the measure's sponsors showed that they had gathered enough for it to be put to voters.

The measure would amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union "between a man and a woman."If it is approved by a majority of voters on Nov. 4, it would overturn the recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state.

California public health officials already have amended marriage license applications and told local officials to start issuing them to same-sex couples on June 17.

So who gets the final say? Voters or Judges?