Institution of marriage gathers strength in NY

With Friday night’s vote in the New York Senate, the Empire State is set to become the sixth state, in addition to the District of Columbia, in which gay marriage is legal. And because New York will be by far the largest state to take that step, the number of Americans able to marry others of the same gender will effectively double.

This is, of course, the end of Western civilization and of the foundation on which it is built, which is the institution of marriage. Or not.

Kathryn Jean Lopez, writing at the National Review’s “The Corner,” has likened the vote by elected representatives in New York to the brutal repression exercised in North Korea, bizarrely claiming that we Americans are “witnessing tyranny today that is fostered by a false sense of freedom, a tyranny that faux tolerance ferments.”

John Guardiano, writing in the American Spectator, also laments the decline of marriage:

“…. the institution of marriage is [under threat] — so much so that marriage rates in America have plummeted and out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed.

National Review’s Rich Lowry notes, for instance, that the number of Americans in intact first marriages has dropped from 73 percent in the 1970s to as little as 39 percent today, depending on socioeconomic status. And the poorer and less educated you are, the more likely you are to suffer from the political and cultural degradation of marriage.

Just 45 percent of moderately educated, middle-income Americans are in intact first marriages. For the poorest and least-educated Americans, the corresponding figure is 39 percent.”

Personally, I’m a strong believer in marriage, both as a living arrangement for adults and as the best possible setting in which to raise children. (”Best possible,” however, should not be confused with “only;” the unpredictability of human beings and the realities of life do not allow such blanket statements.)

However, I’ve never seen even a vaguely convincing argument that gay marriage has any affect whatsoever on the status of marriage among heterosexual couples.

Guardiano, for example, tries to suggest that gay marriage has “everything” to do with some ill-defined campaign by ill-defined forces to undercut marriage and bring the country down around our ears.

“Sure, this breakdown in the family has occurred independent of the push for ‘marriage equality’,” he writes. “But it is still part and parcel of an overarching effort to undermine and deprecate traditional marriage and the traditional family. It is still part of a broader political and cultural movement to decouple marriage from its principal purpose, which is the care and raising of children.”

What nonsense.

The care and raising of children is certainly “A” purpose of marriage, and is in fact one reason that gay couples seek that right. However, it is not THE purpose of marriage.

The existence of millions of loving couples who are childless either by choice or by nature refute that claim. Marriages of older couples beyond their child-bearing years refute that claim. Guardiano and others who make such an argument actually belittle marriage by stripping it down to a crude, single-purpose functionality — the raising of children — that seeks to deny its deep emotional rewards and challenges.

The suggestion that gay marriage is part of a guerrilla effort to undercut marriage itself is further undercut by hard data. In general, gay marriage has gained a foothold in those states in which marriage is already strongest, and it is rejected in states where marriage is more threatened.

Massachusetts, the first state to make gay marriage legal, has by far the lowest annual divorce rate in the country, at a mere 1.8 percent. New York has an annual divorce rate of 2.5 percent.

Georgia, in contrast, has an annual divorce rate of 3.2 percent.

In fact, the seven jurisdictions in which gay marriage is now legal, including the District of Columbia, have an average annual divorce rate of 2.7 percent. The average annual divorce rate in the 28 states in which recognition of gay marriage is explicitly banned, including Georgia, is 3.9 percent.

For the record, the New York bill contains explicit protections to ensure that religious organizations cannot be forced to recognize gay marriage or be forced to host marriages, receptions or similar ceremonies. While such protections are probably unnecessary, I think they’re also entirely appropriate. The histrionics of Lopez and others about tyranny aside, this is not an attempt to use government to impose something; it is an attempt to convince government to allow all of its citizens, not just some, to share in the benefits, rights and obligations of a critically important human institution.

– Jay Bookman

834 comments Add your comment

Left wing management

June 27th, 2011
9:42 am

It’s all liberals fault

USinUK

June 27th, 2011
9:43 am

well, all I can say is that my mister and I were shaken to our core by Friday’s vote. yep, we woke up feeling like less than a couple Saturday morning. In fact, we barely even knew each other, vows fading in the distance.

oh, wait.

nevermind – woke up Saturday and nothing at all was different.

Kamchak

June 27th, 2011
9:43 am

Cue the zoophilia comparisons in 3…2…1….

USinUK

June 27th, 2011
9:44 am

btw, Jay – Paul and I saluted you with a toast on Saturday when we hosted the first Bookman get-together.

you should have been there!

and, yes, he is just as FAB in person as he is on the blog.

arnold

June 27th, 2011
9:44 am

I’ve been married 44 years and so far same sex marriages hasn’t affected my marriage. And won’t.

Brosephus

June 27th, 2011
9:47 am

John Guardiano needs to get a friggin’ grip. The decline in marriage has absolutely nothing to do with two men or two women getting married. Heterosexual couples have pretty much decimated the idea of “the perfect marriage” long before gay couples started demanding equal rights.

It would be funny as hell to see the stats on marriage reverse their decline with the increase of gay couples being allowed to get married. Personally, I think we should all go to civil unions in regards to legal aspects. If you want to go through a ceremonial Church wedding, then do that also if you choose. Then, churches could “marry” whomever they choose with no legal bearing whatsoever.

Doggone/GA

June 27th, 2011
9:48 am

I’ve long thought that THE biggest problem with this issue is that we didn’t stick to our principles of a secular government…by giving religious leaders the power to conduct legal marriages. We should have kept legal marriage a function of the legal world and kept it out of the realm of religion.

Granny Godzilla

June 27th, 2011
9:49 am

USinUK

June 27th, 2011
9:50 am

Brocephus – 9:47 – TESTIFY!

Left wing management

June 27th, 2011
9:51 am

“…. the institution of marriage is [under threat] — so much so that marriage rates in America have plummeted and out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed.”

The thing that’s so pathetic about the pseud-intellectualism that is contemporary conservativism — can I ever tire of berating it? No — is the way it assumes that if the modern institution of marriage is in decline — it is — that therefore there must be one single political faction that’s responsible for it: liberals, of course. Did it ever occur to these Einsteins that perhaps there are deeper forces at work?

I would have more admiration of conservativism if they showed some intellectual honesty — not to mention, courage — and faced up to the fact that some of the decline might just have to do with the rising prosperity of the post World War II, combined with the individualism of liberal democracy and consumer society on a mass scale, developments which are probably unprecedented in human history. Such a view might — just might — lead them to ask some tough questions about their much beloved free market capitalism, the primary motor of these developments.

But that would require them to look inward and give up some of their total reliance on the bogeyman of “liberalism”. And that they won’t do of course.

gadem

June 27th, 2011
9:51 am

homosexuality is not normal.

Granny Godzilla

June 27th, 2011
9:52 am

Homosexuality is perfectly normal…..for normal people.

Brad Steel

June 27th, 2011
9:53 am

If gay marriage is a headline news-worthy issue, we are in great shape.

Brosephus

June 27th, 2011
9:53 am

homosexuality is not normal.

Normal is not normal. Who even gets to determine what IS “normal”?

Doggone/GA

June 27th, 2011
9:54 am

“If gay marriage is a headline news-worthy issue, we are in great shape.”

It will stop being headline news when it’s universal

USinUK

June 27th, 2011
9:54 am

right gadem, which is why it’s always been and is in every species.

cuz it’s “not normal”

Granny Godzilla

June 27th, 2011
9:54 am

Homosexuals are created by God…..Homphobes are created by men.

Brosephus

June 27th, 2011
9:55 am

House Speaker David Ralston last week paid about $1,300 in overdue property taxes on land his wife owns in Dawson County, after The Atlanta Journal-Constitution contacted the speaker to inquire about the debt.

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/house-speaker-scrambles-to-989198.html

I guess when you’re too busy wining and dining with lobbyists and taking trips to see trains run, you can forget to pay that property tax bill that’s sitting there on the nightstand. :)

Left wing management

June 27th, 2011
9:57 am

gadem wrote: “homosexuality is not normal.”

But what this fine citizen overlooks is the simple fact that human sexuality as such is not ‘normal’.

Adam

June 27th, 2011
9:57 am

I love it. The headline is sure to be incendiary against those who believe the opposite. Don’t get your panties in a twist, zealots!

religious organizations cannot be forced to recognize gay marriage or be forced to host marriages, receptions or similar ceremonies. While such protections are probably unnecessary, I think they’re also entirely appropriate.

Of course it’s not necessary! The government (local, state, and federal) cannot force a religious organization to recognize or host anything. Likewise, the church can’t force the government to recognize them or host their doctrines in public schools or on public walls either.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

June 27th, 2011
9:58 am

A lifetime commitment is not normal for most animals….

Uncle Jed

June 27th, 2011
9:58 am

It’s The Economy, Stupid.

Doggone/GA

June 27th, 2011
9:59 am

“Of course it’s not necessary! The government (local, state, and federal) cannot force a religious organization to recognize or host anything”

Wellll….but the government DOES deputize religious leaders to perform LEGAL marriages.

Doggone/GA

June 27th, 2011
9:59 am

“A lifetime commitment is not normal for most animals”

But it IS normal for those animals for which it is a working survival tactic

NIght Train

June 27th, 2011
10:00 am

Same sex …. Same problems

Adam

June 27th, 2011
10:00 am

Keep Up: Monogamous species have earlier death rates :D

Adam

June 27th, 2011
10:01 am

Doggone: Mutual arrangement, so far. No one side forces the other on that issue.

Peadawg

June 27th, 2011
10:03 am

I still don’t understand why they want to be miserable like the rest of us….

Doggone/GA

June 27th, 2011
10:03 am

“Mutual arrangement, so far. No one side forces the other on that issue.”

No, they don’t…but it’s almost certainly the background reason for writing that protection for religious institutions into that law.

USinUK

June 27th, 2011
10:03 am

all’s I can say is that the biggest threat to marriage in OUR household is housework

Left wing management

June 27th, 2011
10:04 am

Doggone: “But it IS normal for those animals for which it is a working survival tactic”

But I would insist that there is nothing whatsoever that is even the slightest bit ADAPTIVE about the institution of monogamous marriage, hetero or otherwise.

BADA BING

June 27th, 2011
10:04 am

Are gay marriages going to be the Norm? Should just any Tom, Dick, or Harry get married? We need a Frank and Ernest dicussion in this country about gay marriage, so that John Q Public and any average Joe can undersand it.

Steve P.

June 27th, 2011
10:05 am

If they really want to protect the sanctity of marriage lets ban divorce!
And criminalize adultery. Newt should be in prison.

Oh wait its much easier to throw stones at gay people than look in the mirror.

Interesting Observation

June 27th, 2011
10:05 am

If child rearing is the sole reason for marriage then after children are reared and grown government should have couples who want to remain married prove they should stay married.

Normal

June 27th, 2011
10:05 am

“Normal is not normal. Who even gets to determine what IS “normal”?”

I resemble the first and declare I determine the last…After all, I AM “The Norm!” :D

Doggone/GA

June 27th, 2011
10:06 am

“But I would insist that there is nothing whatsoever that is even the slightest bit ADAPTIVE about the institution of monogamous marriage, hetero or otherwise”

It’s a working solution to a difficult problem: the length of time that a child is solely dependent on the Mother. It ensures the Mother a reliable source of support while her child occupies the majority of her time.

Adam

June 27th, 2011
10:06 am

Doggone: I think of it more like when they put language into the health care law that no federal funding would go to abortion – again. It’s redundant, but makes certain politicians feel “protected” when they vote yes.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

June 27th, 2011
10:07 am

If Normal is normal… then perhaps its time to consider Abby Normal. :P

jewcowboy

June 27th, 2011
10:07 am

Next stop DOMA, and then the Supreme Court ala Loving v Virginia…

gadem

June 27th, 2011
10:07 am

Granny I respectfully disagree with your statement,
Homosexuals are created by God…..Homphobes are created by men. GOD is not a GOD of confusion. At some point we have to stop accepting EVERYTHING. GOD also created animals, should we allow man to marry animals as well? I respect a individuals right, but I believe it is wrong.

GOD created man…man creates homosexuality…

USinUK

June 27th, 2011
10:07 am

Interesting – what about those of us who don’t want kids?

Misty Fyed

June 27th, 2011
10:07 am

How do you know if a liberal will support an issue?

Read the Bible. If it’s condemned in the Bible; they’ll be for it.

SOUTHERN ATL

June 27th, 2011
10:08 am

Jay, this is a very thought provoking article with a lot of valid points. Time always brings about a change…sometimes good…. sometimes bad!! The world’s perception will never be defined on the same level as to what is morally right and wrong!!

Doggone/GA

June 27th, 2011
10:08 am

“GOD is not a GOD of confusion”

It is not God who is confused

USinUK

June 27th, 2011
10:08 am

“If it’s condemned in the Bible; they’ll be for it.”

you got that right! I love me some pulled pork barbecue … and cheesy shrimp grits … and today I’m wearing cotton trousers with a silk top … and I love to work in my garden BOTH days on the weekend …

Aquagirl

June 27th, 2011
10:09 am

Monogamous species have earlier death rates

One of Nature’s small mercies.

Adam

June 27th, 2011
10:09 am

A better working solution would be multiple people in a large household, each sharing responsibility and taking “shifts.” That requires a lot of cooperation between multiple people. though, and to get that many people agreeing on something as volatile as parenting, and as precarious as taking shifts? That’s where the downfall is. It’s difficult enough to get a marriage to work without one person calling all the shots and the other deferring authority.

Normal

June 27th, 2011
10:10 am

BADA BING

June 27th, 2011
10:04 am

What needs to be understood? Love is hard enough to find and those who were made by The Creator a little differently should have the right for that happiness too.

The main problem is that the Religious cults don’t want to admit that being Gay is not a choice. That defeats their belief that man was made in God’s image…after all, how can a person be born gay if God made them…makes ‘em wonder if God’s gay…

USinUK

June 27th, 2011
10:11 am

Adam

June 27th, 2011
10:11 am

Aquagirl: OMG that made me laugh so hard.

Left wing management

June 27th, 2011
10:11 am

Peadawg: “I still don’t understand why they want to be miserable like the rest of us….”

This was the great Maher joke that I was tempted to tell my fellow leftists, but I didn’t want to spoil their sense of triumph.

Maher said in one of his monologues years ago “Sure I favor gay marriage. Why shouldn’t gays be able to be miserable just like the rest of us?” Which, joking aside, is exactly the right answer. Though leftists seem to have forgotten it, there’s a sense of a paradox in opening gays up to access to what is in effect an institution in crisis.

Don’t get me wrong. I support gay marriage absolutely and wholeheartedly. But I think the left — in their righteous jubilation — sometimes tends to smooth over the quasi-pyrrhic nature of victories like these, necessary thought they may be.

Once gay marriage is fully legalized in this society — and it will be, of that there can be NO question — we’ll see divorce rates among gays almost perfectly mirror those of heteros, down to the tenth of a percentage point. Which is what data already shows from places in Europe where this things are already somewhat ahead of us.

RedEye

June 27th, 2011
10:12 am

you tell that mean ocean, NY

Adam

June 27th, 2011
10:12 am

Normal: That defeats their belief that man was made in God’s image

God was made in man’s image. You can tell because according to the believers, God hates everyoen they hate.

TwoCountryBoys

June 27th, 2011
10:12 am

National Review’s Rich Lowry notes, for instance, that the number of Americans in intact first marriages has dropped from 73 percent in the 1970s to as little as 39 percent today, depending on socioeconomic status. And the poorer and less educated you are, the more likely you are to suffer from the political and cultural degradation of marriage.

Just 45 percent of moderately educated, middle-income Americans are in intact first marriages. For the poorest and least-educated Americans, the corresponding figure is 39 percent.

Crack me up – Maybe “socioeconomics” has more to do with the decline than anything else. Two biggest reasons cited for divorce are money and adultery. And all the while lawyers who are fixed high on the socioeconomic ladder are every day facilitating the dissolution of traditional marriages of which the process leaves budding socioeconomic risers in that 39 percent. Hmmmm…. yep, it’s the gays fault.

Normal

June 27th, 2011
10:12 am

Keep Up the Good Fight!

June 27th, 2011
10:07 am

Back in the day when I did maintenence reports, I always signed them…A.B. Norm… ;)

Mighty Righty

June 27th, 2011
10:13 am

I could care less who marries who. Seems weird that that the loonie left wants to make a big deal out of nothing.

Granny Godzilla

June 27th, 2011
10:14 am

gadem

when you bring marrying animals into the discussion we wonder if
we need to call the ASPCA to check on your pets….

Doggone/GA

June 27th, 2011
10:15 am

“Once gay marriage is fully legalized in this society — and it will be, of that there can be NO question — we’ll see divorce rates among gays almost perfectly mirror those of heteros, down to the tenth of a percentage point. Which is what data already shows from places in Europe where this things are already somewhat ahead of us”

And that matters not one bit. It’s not the “miserable like the rest of us” that’s important…it’s the legal protections of marriage that are important.

USinUK

June 27th, 2011
10:16 am

LWM – hey, miserable / happy / whatever – that’s not my issue.

I just think that homosexual couples should have the same legal rights that my hubby and I do – no one should have to liquidate everything when the person who SHOULD be their spouse dies to pay the taxes that they wouldn’t have to pay if they were married.

Brosephus

June 27th, 2011
10:16 am

Bosch

June 27th, 2011
10:17 am

Same sex marriage has absolutely no effect on anyone’s marriage except the couple getting married. And if you feel that it somehow demeans your own marriage, then that is a personal problem, and makes me wonder just how strong your marriage is to begin with. If you allow others to influence your own personal life, then that’s not saying so much about you as a person to begin with. So says Bosch.

Left wing management

June 27th, 2011
10:17 am

Doggone: “It’s a working solution to a difficult problem: the length of time that a child is solely dependent on the Mother. It ensures the Mother a reliable source of support while her child occupies the majority of her time.”

But that has nothing to do with the conjugal bond between a male, progenitor or otherwise, and the begetting mother. The major problem of course is the need to track kinship ties, partly in order to avoid inbreeding (or too much inbreeding). You’re right monogamy is a ‘working solution’, but I would just say the stress there has to be on the word ‘working’. The precariousness of the model of the monogamous conjugal bond cannot be overestimated.

USinUK

June 27th, 2011
10:18 am

Bosch – 10:17 – preach it!

Normal

June 27th, 2011
10:18 am

Adam

June 27th, 2011
10:12 am

I can’t say you are wrong…
————————————-

Doggone/GA

June 27th, 2011
10:15 am

Your last paragraph is totally correct.

jewcowboy

June 27th, 2011
10:18 am

gadem,

“GOD created man…man creates homosexuality…”

Who gives a crap if you think your Spéir Faerie created gay people or not? Your religion isn’t US Code.

USinUK

June 27th, 2011
10:19 am

okay, Bosch, now that you’re here … and Normal and Brocephus and Doggone …

PAUL SAYS HELLO!!!

we had a fantastic meet-up on Saturday and, yes, he is just as wonderfully FAB in person as he is online

Left wing management

June 27th, 2011
10:20 am

Doggone: “it’s the legal protections of marriage that are important”

I’m not following you. In which sense do yo mean “protections”? Do you mean the protections of individuals afforded by marriage, or do you mean protection OF marriage qua institution?

Bosch

June 27th, 2011
10:20 am

Peadawg

June 27th, 2011
10:03 am
I still don’t understand why they want to be miserable like the rest of us….

Speak for yourself. Getting married and having children were the best thing that ever happened to me. I stand in amazement every single day that I was blessed with such happiness.

Doggone/GA

June 27th, 2011
10:21 am

“But that has nothing to do with the conjugal bond between a male, progenitor or otherwise, and the begetting mother”

Quite right, biologically it doesn’t…but as a matter of culture, it does. It’s a cultures way of ensuring that biological imperative to support the Mother, who bore the children. If, as a society, we decided that supporting Mothers was a SOCIETAL responsibility we would have no need for monogomy.

Fletch

June 27th, 2011
10:22 am

Still love Dennis Miller in “What happens in Vegas” – “Gay people aren’t destroying the sanctity of marriage, you people are.” :)

Doggone/GA

June 27th, 2011
10:22 am

“Do you mean the protections of individuals afforded by marriage, or do you mean protection OF marriage qua institution?”

The legal protections granted based on a legal marriage.

Normal

June 27th, 2011
10:23 am

USinUK,
I always figured Paul would be , as you put it, Fab. His posts are alway insightful, respectful, and most of all, knowledgeable.

Jay

June 27th, 2011
10:24 am

That’s very cool, USinUK. Very cool. I thought about your rendezvous over the weekend and wondered how it was going.

BTW, regarding the Beatles, this weekend my wife the movie expert (she volunteers at Sundance every year) also introduced me to “Nowhere Boy,” an indie film about John Lennon’s teen years that was very well acted and written. Any Beatles fan would enjoy it, I think.

USinUK

June 27th, 2011
10:25 am

Norm – he’s a great guy – also met his wife who was just lovely

Aquagirl

June 27th, 2011
10:25 am

Aquagirl: OMG that made me laugh so hard.

Don’t blame me Adam, you started it, lol.

Bosch

June 27th, 2011
10:25 am

USinUK,

:-)

So, what did y’all do? Did he have on his Battlestar Galactica t-shirt?

Bosch

June 27th, 2011
10:27 am

Oh USinUK,

Did you get to meet Mrs. Paul too? I’ve always thought that our spouses were people to be admired…you know, for continuing to “spouse” us.

USinUK

June 27th, 2011
10:28 am

Jay – what does your wife do a Sundance? one of my best friends has volunteered there for hte last 4 years and is press director/media manager/something like that! (small world)

yeah – it was a good time – very nice to get to know someone in a more personal setting – he’s as funny and as kind and as smart in person as I expected –

next up … BOOKMANIA 2011!

Jay

June 27th, 2011
10:28 am

Also, I see where actor Neil Patrick Harris says that he and his longtime partner — parents of eight-month-old twins — will now be getting married.

I guess it’s only fair that we heteros agree to let gay Americans get married, now that they’ve agreed to let we straights enjoy Broadway theater:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6S5caRGpK4

Kamchak

June 27th, 2011
10:29 am

…should we allow man to marry animals as well?

Teh stoopid, how it burns!

Oi!

Moderate Line

June 27th, 2011
10:29 am

I have no problem with any state defining marriage as they see fit. However, some of those decisions should be based on some truths.
Massachusetts, the first state to make gay marriage legal, has by far the lowest annual divorce rate in the country, at a mere 1.8 percent. New York has an annual divorce rate of 2.5 percent.

Georgia, in contrast, has an annual divorce rate of 3.2 percent
These statistics need to be adjusted for income levels. One of the biggest factors affecting divorce rates is income levels. Also, they need to be adjusted for demographics. This can also apply to all the states Jay mention. With no adjustment for income and demographics these statistics don’t really mean anything to me.

Until all other factors are removed the statistics don’t mean much.

NIght Train

June 27th, 2011
10:29 am

You do know why married men die before their wives do?

Because they want too!

Normal

June 27th, 2011
10:30 am

Off topic, but…sinnce this IS Georgia…a little War of Northern Agression history…

Jun 27, 1864:
Confederate and Union forces clash at the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain

On this day in 1864, Union General William T. Sherman launches a major attack on Confederate General Joseph Johnston’s army at the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain in Georgia.

Beginning in early May, Sherman began a slow advance down the 100-mile corridor from Chattanooga, Tennessee, to Atlanta, refraining from making any large-scale assaults. The campaign was marked by many smaller battles and constant skirmishes but no decisive encounters. Johnston was losing ground, but he was also buying time for the Confederates. With Sherman frustrated in Georgia, and Ulysses S. Grant unable to knock out Robert E. Lee’s army in Virginia, the Union war effort was stalled, casualty rates were high, and the re-election of President Abraham Lincoln appeared unlikely.

In the days leading up to the assault at Kennesaw Mountain, Sherman tried to flank Johnston. Since one of Johnston’s generals, John Bell Hood, attacked at Kolb’s Farm, Georgia, and lost 1,500 precious Confederate soldiers, Sherman believed that Johnston’s line was stretched thin and that an assault would break the Rebels. So he changed his tactics and planned a move against the center of the Confederate lines around Kennesaw Mountain. He feigned attacks on both of Johnston’s flanks, then hurled 8,000 men at the Confederate center. It was a disaster. Entrenched Southerners bombarded the Yankees, who were attacking uphill. Three thousand Union troops fell, compared with just 500 Confederates.

The battle was only a marginal Confederate victory. Sherman remained in place for four more days, but one of the decoy attacks on the Confederate flanks did, in fact, place the Union troops in a position to cut into Johnston’s rear. On July 2, Johnston had to vacate his Kennesaw Mountain lines and retreat toward Atlanta. Sherman followed, and the slow campaign lurched on into the Georgia summer.

Left wing management

June 27th, 2011
10:30 am

Mighty Righty writes: “I could care less who marries who. Seems weird that that the loonie left wants to make a big deal out of nothing.”

Never ceases to amaze me what logical pretzels people can position themselves in just to accuse the “left” of something untoward. There are people out there walking around, evidently, whose entire mental structure is predicated on the existence of the bogeyman “the left” (hey, what else if not that does Limbaugh make his fortunes off of?). If you remove the left from the equation, their whole world would apparently come crashing down.

Bosch

June 27th, 2011
10:30 am

Speaking of like being gay and all, I was talking to a friend of mine who happens to be that, and they were telling me that in the Bible, it really doesn’t say that gay people are wrong/doomed to hell/insert whatever negative thing you want here.

And to be honest, I’ve really never cared to look this up — but that the Bible uses the phrase “natural” or “what is natural” and to me, a person who is gay is loving the person they love according to what is natural to them.

jewcowboy

June 27th, 2011
10:31 am

Left wing management,

“Do you mean the protections of individuals afforded by marriage”

1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits,

How about these just to start:
-joint parenting;
-joint adoption;
-joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
-status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
-joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
-dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
-immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
-inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
-joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
-inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
-benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
-spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
-veterans’ discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
-joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
-wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
-bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
-decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
-crime victims’ recovery benefits;
-loss of consortium tort benefits;
-domestic violence protection orders;
-judicial protections and evidentiary immunity

Jay

June 27th, 2011
10:31 am

USinUK, she runs seating/audience control at one of the main venues. She has some great stories about which of the stars/producers/directors are decent, and which …. aren’t.

Brosephus

June 27th, 2011
10:31 am

If you allow others to influence your own personal life, then that’s not saying so much about you as a person to begin with. So says Bosch.

So shall it be written. So shall it be done…

USinUK

June 27th, 2011
10:31 am

Bosch – well, we had arranged to meet at Harrods since his hotel was just down the street – so, I’m standing there at the front entrance when I hear my name yelled out – I look up in time to see a guy leaning out of a black cab, zooming down the street …

I thought they were just looking for a place to pull over and dump everyone out (he was there with his wife and in-laws), but it turned out they needed to check in to the hotel, so I was standing there … and standing there … and standing there …

was afraid I was going to have to report that the first Bookman Meetup was actually just a drive-by!

at any rate, we all went down the street to a pub, had lunch and just a fantastic time talking about ourselves, our histories, current events, healthcare, etc … really great time!

Bosch

June 27th, 2011
10:31 am

“…should we allow man to marry animals as well?”

Yes. We should. If someone can get their dog/goat/sheep/cat/elephant/lizard/fish/or any other animal to give informed consent to marry and they both have a loving relationship, then who are we to judge.

USinUK

June 27th, 2011
10:33 am

Jay – my friend manages the media and also has great stories to tell about which Hollywood reporters are decent and which … aren’t ;-)

actually, the most interesting thing she told me is that the movie comes first – before the media – before the celebrities. the movies will ALWAYS start on time, even if famous folks are late. I don’t know why, but I thought that was kind of cool

Bosch

June 27th, 2011
10:34 am

“now that they’ve agreed to let we straights enjoy Broadway theater”

Damn you Jay Bookman.

RB from Gwinnett

June 27th, 2011
10:34 am

“Homosexuals are created by God”

So are pedophiles and rapists, but that doeesn’t make it right now does it?

God gives us the ability to freely choose to do right and to sin and the ability to tell the difference.

USinUK

June 27th, 2011
10:35 am

““…should we allow man to marry animals as well?””

ohsweetjeebus.

the last desperate argument of a person without a leg to stand on.

Bill Orvis White

June 27th, 2011
10:35 am

I love the Gays like anyone else, but I’m sorry Liberal Jay, you’re wrong on this one. This ruling goes against the Lord Almighty’s vision for human beings.
Love,
Bill

USinUK

June 27th, 2011
10:36 am

RB – you’re honestly comparing acts of violence to people who are in a loving, committed relationship?

pretty effing pathetic, that.

Bosch

June 27th, 2011
10:36 am

RB,

That’s the lame ass assumption that homosexuality is a choice. And when you bring in the pedophile/rapist thing, that just goes to show you have nothing.

josef

June 27th, 2011
10:37 am

Okay, here I am and as usual not happy with it no matter what. New York didn’t legalize “gay marriage.” It extended the marriage laws to cover everybody. I don’t want “gay” marriage. I want “marriage.” Same piece of paper for us all. Legal contract with the fact that Unmentionalble and I are both male not at issue.

gadem
You’re funny, both funny ha-ha and funny strange…

aquagirl…

:-)

ty webb

June 27th, 2011
10:37 am

“Oh wait its much easier to throw stones at gay people than look in the mirror.”

come on…no need to bring islam into it.

Aquagirl

June 27th, 2011
10:37 am

One of the biggest factors affecting divorce rates is income levels.

Then why all the shrieking and moaning about how gay marriage is the end of Civilization As We Know It?

My guess is that kind of study hasn’t been done because wingnuts know it would disprove their reason for shrieking and moaning. It was the main “reason” in their legal argument of Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Not coincidentally, that legal argument was shot full of holes because it had no support besides “I said so.”