Poll Position: Should gay marriage be left up to the states?
Rick Perry, the three-term Texas governor and somewhere-between-rumored-and-announced GOP presidential candidate, raised some social conservatives’ eyebrows last week with this comment about New York’s new gay marriage law:
Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That’s New York, and that’s their business and that’s fine with me. That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.
The remark to a gathering of Republican donors came as a surprise to many social conservatives because Perry is regarded as one of their own. Asked about the comment in a radio interview with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Perry drew a distinction between it and his personal beliefs: “It’s fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue. Obviously, gay marriage is not fine with me. My stance hasn’t changed.” He also said he favored a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage:
I have long supported the appointment of judges who respect the constitution and the passage of a federal marriage amendment. That amendment defines marriage between one man and one woman, and it protects the states from being told otherwise. It respects the rights of the state by requiring three quarters of a states vote to ratify. It’s really strong medicine but is again our founding fathers had such great wisdom and their wisdom is just as clear and profound today as it was back in the late eighteenth century.
Michele Bachmann, another social conservative who’s officially running for president, has spoken in favor of the same approach.
Back to Perry: The Texas governor also reiterated his 10th Amendment stance this week by saying the legality of abortion should be up to the states if the Supreme Court were ever to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Should gay marriage be decided state by state?
- No (104 Votes)
- Yes (103 Votes)
Total Voters: 207
Loading ...Perry is being consistent on the states’ rights issue. But is that a principled position or a cop-out? Should the issue of gay marriage — we’ll leave out abortion for today, since Roe is still very much in force — be decided on a state-by-state basis until/unless there’s a constitutional amendment on the issue? Or would there be too many problems caused by gay marriages that are recognized in some states but not others (which the Defense of Marriage Act, now in legal limbo, was passed in part to address)?
That’s this week’s Poll Position. Answer in the poll and in the comments thread — and know that I will be keeping a close eye on comments to make sure they are substantive and in good taste.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
125 comments Add your comment
ByteMe
July 29th, 2011
6:18 am
Marriage is a state issue.
However, the “full faith and credit” clause means that a marriage in one state is valid in all states. That’s basic “contract law” and that’s where DOMA fails and will be struck down if it’s not repealed first.
The whole “let’s have a constitutional amendment” argument is the cop-out by people who aren’t getting their way. We can’t get a constitutional amendment to codify women’s rights, but we need one to prevent two people from marrying each other in New England? That’s just a “dog whistle” to the social conservatives without having to waste any real effort on promising them anything he’s going to regret later.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 29th, 2011
6:20 am
It’s unfortunate that it has to be “left up to” any government entity. Normal Americans know and understand what marriage is, and it has nothing to do with government. Unfortunately we have too many folks with not much to do other than deconstruct the institutions that made America great. Their efforts are the root cause of most of our social ills–illegitimacy, poverty, the breakup of families, the prevention of family formation, drug use, etc.
Joel Edge
July 29th, 2011
6:50 am
Defense of Marriage should stay in place. Then let the states decide. That’s a good plan. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen, some people can’t let a majority decision stand. You can’t compromise with people when they’re not willing to compromise. I remember when it was about legal protection in “civil unions”. Now that’s not good enough. What’s next.
Ayn Rant
July 29th, 2011
7:01 am
The choice of a marriage partner is personal; it is not a state or federal matter. It is a right protected by the opening paragraph of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment.
The federal and state governments should enact no laws regarding marriage, and citizens should not vote or participate in polls about it. In this as in all other matters, governments and individuals should mind their own business.
Same sex marriage is appropriate for homosexuals, and is a compliment to the institution of marriage. Anyone who puts same sex marriage above divorce as a threat to the institution of marriage is a hypocrite, or worse, probably a right-wing Republican bent on destroying our constitutional rights and our economy!
Cobb Teacher
July 29th, 2011
8:00 am
If you are against gay marriage, don’t marry a gay person. Or in the case of Michelle Bachmann’s husband, rail against gay marriage while all the while pretending that you’re straight.
Aquagirl
July 29th, 2011
8:11 am
What’s next.
Gay Marriage. Didn’t you notice the HUGE change in the World As We Know It when it was legalized in Vermont? Remember the riots, panic, mass divorces and collapse of Western Civilization?
Better start digging that bomb shelter, Joel. The 21st century is not a safe place for you.
John
July 29th, 2011
8:23 am
ByteMe is correct…it is a state issue as far as having their own laws when it comes to marriage but a marriage legally entered into in 1 state is valid in all states. This is currently how heterosexual marriage is handled…such as age restrictions.
What I find curious, Kyle, can you explain how you think Perry is being consistent. He’s really talking out of both sides of his mouth. First he says it’s a state’s right…”That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business” and “It’s fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue” but then says he supports a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. That would mean up to 12 states would loose their their sovereign rights to decide the issue. Isn’t that double speak?
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 29th, 2011
8:27 am
If it’s made part of the Constitution, then by definition it wouldn’t be a states rights issue.
Red
July 29th, 2011
8:29 am
Interracial marriage was a decision best left to the states until 1967 and so will be the course of gay marriage I believe.
For a party whose rhetoric enshrines the sanctity of the document that is our constitution, the Repubs sure do want to change it a lot.
Maybe I’m just cynical (I really am) but I think the balance budget amendment and marriage amendment is a long run up to a long sought abortion ban amendment.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 29th, 2011
8:30 am
“If you are against gay marriage, don’t marry a gay person.”
——-
Marriage is between one man and one woman. If you don’t want to get married, don’t.
Sean Smith
July 29th, 2011
8:36 am
If you want to protect the sanctity of marriage lets ban divorce.
The world would be a lot better place if people would mind their own business and quit telling others how to live their lives. If you don’t believe in gay marriage than don’t marry someone your sex, but don’t tell me how to live my life based on your beliefs in mythology.
retiredds
July 29th, 2011
8:42 am
Lil Barry: If you subscribe (and don’t selectively use for one argument and not another) to the 10th Amendment and “States Rights” then there is a fallacy to your argument. It should read, if you are against gay marriage don’t go live in New York, Vermont, Sweden, Denmark, or wherever gay marriage is legal. I don’t like to gamble so I don’t go to Nevada because it’s legal there.
Pizzaman
July 29th, 2011
8:46 am
I don’t understand how anyone can support “a constitutional amendment” for anything and “states rights”. Guess that’s why I don’t understand right wing conservatives.
Stonethrower
July 29th, 2011
8:47 am
I agree with Sean Smith. If we want to save the institution of marraige then let’s make it difficult to get a divorce. Better yet, make it illegal to cohabitate outside the bonds of matrimony. Naw…….that won’t work.
Bart Abel
July 29th, 2011
8:51 am
Gay marriage shouldn’t be left up to the states any more than any other question of discrimination or civil rights should be left up to the states. In other words, no state should have the discretion to ban gay marriage in their state (and I’d support a constitutional amendment saying that, if necessary).
Gay or straight, nobody chooses their sexual orientation, because we can’t any more than we can choose our skin color. I look forward to the day when we grow up and put this issue behind us forever.
that's goofy
July 29th, 2011
8:55 am
if you really want to “defend marriage” make divorce illegal.
It is discriminatory to deny consenting homosexual adults the same legal rights and responsibilities as heterosexuals.
Aquagirl
July 29th, 2011
8:56 am
Guess that’s why I don’t understand right wing conservatives.
Me either. Democrats tell you they’re in favor of welfare and they vote the same way. Republicans, however, talk about how deeply they cherish something before they run it down like a possum on 285.
Richard
July 29th, 2011
9:01 am
Why not just get rid of government marriage licenses and the ability to file taxes jointly. Let the religious institutions set the parameters over who they allow people to marry.
Like the true conservatives say: keep the government out!
midtownguy
July 29th, 2011
9:03 am
If we let the majority rule in Georgia, we would still have segregated schools. Some people have to be brought forward kicking and screaming.
The social conservatives can rant and rave about gay marriage all they want but it is inevitable. Just look at any poll on the issue and the major determinant is age group. For those under 35 (referred to as the Will and Grace generation) sexual orientation is a non-issue. You can’t win this one.
John
July 29th, 2011
9:09 am
“I don’t understand how anyone can support “a constitutional amendment” for anything and “states rights”. Guess that’s why I don’t understand right wing conservatives.”
They’re easy to understand…they believe in states rights only when the states believe the same way they do; otherwise, they believe in Constitutional amendments to force the states into their beliefs.
retiredds
July 29th, 2011
9:16 am
John, couldn’t agree with you more. The right will yell, “holler, jump up and down about states rights and the 10th Amendment until they disagree with the issue and then they all of a sudden become “federalists”. It’s the same way they approach “activist judges”, the definition of which is a judge who disagrees with my conservative view of the world.
midtownguy
July 29th, 2011
9:17 am
John: My example is related to education. For years the conservative ranted and raved about “interference” from the Department of Education and the NEA and pronounced that the local school boards should be in total control (including allowing prayer in public schools).
Then, a handful of local school boards kicked out the Boy Scouts of America (Atlanta being one of them) over their refusal to let a gay man be a scout master and they went ballistic. The result was the Defense of Scouting Act. They only support local control when the locals are conservatives.
quick work break
July 29th, 2011
9:19 am
“Should biracial marriage permission be decided state by state?”
carlosgvv
July 29th, 2011
9:19 am
I think abortions, the death penality and gay marriage are issues that should be decided by the States. Opinions are so diverse and divided on these issues that the only way to approach fairness is to let the States decide.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 29th, 2011
9:21 am
That’s right, midtown–the Boy Scouts right to free association was violated.
retiredds
July 29th, 2011
9:24 am
As an aside, have you seen the picture of John Boehner on the front page of the AJC this morning. As it is said, “he don’t look none too happy”. Also the great GA Representative Tom Graves made a statement about a US default that the Truth-O-Meter rated as false. My guess is he’ll probably say the Truth-O-Meter is a left-wing cabal.
retiredds
July 29th, 2011
9:26 am
correction, that should be Tom Price not, Graves. I just can’t keep my names straight these days. I’ll have to go back to the asylum I guess.
David B.
July 29th, 2011
9:28 am
This must be the medieval column of the week. Slave ownership, as well as race determination, were covered under state laws. You people, especially Kyle, are the scum of the earth. The hubris you demonstrate here is unconscionable.
JF McNamara
July 29th, 2011
9:31 am
I voted No, because it gay marriage is a basic freedom. States don’t get to pick and choose on freedoms. DOMA is nothing more than Jim Crow for gays.
If you are a homophobe, get over it. People will be gay whether they are married or not. The only difference is insurance and hospital visits.
midtownguy
July 29th, 2011
9:37 am
I will be waiting on the Republican controlled house to draft the “Defense of Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs” act because their right to free association is being violated in conservative, suburban school districts every day.
jconservative
July 29th, 2011
9:38 am
From the 14th Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Notice the “…the equal protection of the laws.” clause. The Supreme Court has ruled several times that marriage is a basic fundamental right guaranteed by the US Constitution. If you say that two people cannot marry because of different skin color, that is unconstitutional. If you say that two people cannot marry because of different religions, that is unconstitutional.
So, is preventing two people from marrying because of being the same sex Constitutional? That is the question on the table, and will be the question before the Court.
This is the basic argument of Ted Olsen and David Boies in their challenge to the California Prop 8 vote. The case is in the pipeline headed for the Supreme Court.
The Court has ruled many times that a fundamental Constitutional right cannot be taken away from the people by State action. The latest was the McDonald gun case from Chicago where the Court ruled that Chicago could not take away a person’s right to keep a firearm in his house for protection.
The issue will be decided there.
And on Amending the Constitution: that will work if you can get 287 votes in the House and 67 votes in the Senate to send the proposed Amendment to the States. Then you will need to get 38 of the 50 States to ratify the Amendment. Or you can get the legislatures of 38 States to call for a convention. Good luck!
Edward
July 29th, 2011
9:39 am
What is funny is that the states with the LOWEST divorce rates are those that recognize same-gender unions. The states with the HIGHEST divorce rates are right here in the “bible belt”. Last time I checked, in both the old and new testaments, divorce was severely limited and frowned upon in those texts, but that fact is conveniently dismissed by most “bible believing” people. And remarriage? That is adultery in most all cases, according to that same bible. I do believe adultery made the Top Ten list of No-Nos. But, I don’t see people marching to the capitals demanding divorce and remarriage to be prohibited. Why is that?
Stevie Ray
July 29th, 2011
9:44 am
I’m in the process of a divorce and have decided if I want to commit the balance of my life again, I will have a civil union instead of marriage license. Why are people so insecure about this? An “institution” boasting a 50% failure rate? Are those with “imaginary friends” (aka evangelical religion) primarily the ones generating the fervor? If so, it’s simply another example of same trying to sidetrack (see physics, evolution, sex) progress and human rights.
tiredofIT
July 29th, 2011
9:55 am
“Marriage is between one man and one woman. If you don’t want to get married, don’t.”
Says who, the invisible man in the sky?
midtownguy
July 29th, 2011
9:55 am
jconservative is spot on correct. Any time someone starts telling me what the “bible says” about abortion, homosexuality or anything else in regard to cases before the court I just reply “what the Bible says is irrelevant except in regard to your personal choices and beliefs, the only thing that matters in regard to the law is what the constitution says.”
And whey they come back with “but this is a Christian country” I reply “no it isn’t, it is a religiously neutral country in which most of the citizens are Christians. That’s not the same thing”
Point/Counterpoint
July 29th, 2011
10:00 am
Why is it no one ever invokes the bible when ordering a ham sandwhich, or deciding whether or not to stone a woman for disrespecting her husband, or cutting off peoples hands for stealing? Seems to me that the bible should be an all or nothing proposition. I just wish people would stop being so selective when throwing it out there.
Stevie Ray
July 29th, 2011
10:10 am
Fear and untold misery to the human race characterize religion to me but I could be wrong. I have identified two meaningful contributions…it helped fix the calendar and drove the Egyptians to to chronicle eclipses. Seems there exist much fear that another tenet will be diluted…how many more are left? Let gays marry, divorce, adopt, and argue like the rest of us…
Steve
July 29th, 2011
10:20 am
“State’s Rights” when it comes to civil issues has always been code for racism or prejudice. Just let gay people marry. Gays pay taxes, spend money, work in normal jobs, even raise kids. They clean up the neighborhoods…they are PEOPLE. Stop the insanity. We have bigger fish to fry than worrying about gays marrying. Why aren’t people worrying about the sky high hetero marriage divorce rate??
kitty
July 29th, 2011
10:20 am
midtownguy, both of your comments are spot on. The Bible is not mentioned in our Constitution and this is not a Christian country. It is a country whre most say they are christian. These same folks love their porn, alcohol and divorce so this is nowhere a christian country based on how Christ defined it.
Kyle Wingfield
July 29th, 2011
10:25 am
I don’t understand why so many of you think there’s a conflict between believing the 10th Amendment means what it says and wanting to amend the Constitution.
Take the 26th Amendment (setting the voting age at 18). Was it not possible before 1971, when the amendment was ratified, for someone to believe both that there should be a uniform voting age across the country and that, until such an amendment passed, the authority to set voting ages lay with the states?
Kyle Wingfield
July 29th, 2011
10:26 am
That said, I do tend to agree with the argument that a politician who says he’s in favor of a constitutional amendment as the answer to a problem — but who does virtually nothing to try to get said amendment passed and ratified — is usually just pandering.
Intown
July 29th, 2011
10:32 am
The 10th Amendment is meaningless. But, I don’t care how silly Repubs get there as long as they legalize same sex marriage.
semyon_suslov
July 29th, 2011
10:33 am
What would you think if the government decided to extend legal recognition and financial incentives to people, who smoke, drink to excess, gamble uncontrollably, engage in illicit drug use, or sexual relations with dozens of people of the opposite sex on a consistent basis? Further, what would you think if those people engaged in these behaviors because they had an uncontrollable urge that they couldn’t control and never chose to have? Further, what would you think if these people claimed that these behavioral urges – and the behaviors that resulted from them – were unchangeable and were, therefore, deserving of civil rights normally reserved for immutable traits, like race and gender – rights that no one could remove by vote or legislation? Finally, what would you think if the government agreed with these people and ended up encouraging these behaviors by extending to those, who engaged in them, the legal and financial incentives they demanded?
The vast majority would no doubt be rightfully outraged. How could government control behavior for the common good, if all people had to do was to claim an “uncontrollable urge” as a means of doing whatever they want, no matter the damage it would cause? Further, what about people, who are struggling with these urges and don’t want to succumb to them or others in whom the urge to engage in these behaviors would be triggered, because society was encouraging them through government recognition and incentives?
Well, guess what? That’s exactly what gay activists and proponents of same-sex marriage want the government do for them and, in a few states, has done. Yet, as the examples above show, this demand not only flies in the face of common sense and human health, but it completely violates the basis for law.
the Constitution clearly permits us to pass laws governing human behavior for the benefit of individuals and society. (1) Because some behaviors are beneficial, we pass laws to encourage them. Examples include buying a home, going to college, or starting a business. (2) Other behaviors have the potential for harm but prohibiting them would be undue burden on liberty. So for these behaviors we pass laws limiting them to consenting adults. Examples in this category are smoking, gambling, or drinking to excess. (3) Finally some behaviors are so egregiously harmful that we pass laws banning them and instituting harsh penalties if they’re broken. Examples in this category would be the taking of life or property.
Marriage between one man and one woman has consistently shown that it belongs in the first category of human behavior. In comparison, same-sex behavior, whether it occurs in a committed setting or not, clearly falls in the second behavioral category and, therefore, should not be encouraged with government-recognized marriage. The reasons are as follows:
1. Unlike race or gender, homosexuality can be triggered though social and cultural influences.
2. In comparison to heterosexuals, homosexuals are far more prone to bodily damage and disease, much of which is serious and life threatening.
3. Even in “committed” relationships, homosexuals, primarily men, are notoriously non-monogamous.
4. In areas that permit SSM, homosexuals are far more likely to divorce than heterosexuals.
5. Homosexuals experience more emotional and mental illness, than heterorsexuals.
6. Domestic violence is much more prevalent in male same-sex relationships than in heterosexual ones.
I would urge you and your readers to read the essay on which this post is based. Entitled “The Case for Limiting Government Recognition to Traditional Relationships,” it consists of an essay that I placed at,
http://marriage-onemanandonewoman.blogspot.com/
Here, besides finding a more detailed discussion of the list, above, readers will also find citations to the scientific references at the end of the essay. After considering what I’ve written here and/or in the essay, I would urge supporters of same-sex marriage to reconsider their views. If they can’t offer a fact-based rebuttal to what I’ve written, then neither they nor any other proponent of same-sex marriage has a right to demand that our government recognize same-sex marriage and subsidize it with tax and legal incentives, like it rightfully does for heterosexual marriage.
For those, who agree with what’s written herein, please help in sending this post and the essay link (in whatever form you like or rewrite it to your satisfaction) to as many as you know and ask that they do the same. Additionally, email it to your legislators and demand that they vote against any law permitting government recognition of same-sex marriage or put forth bills overturning it, if gay marriage exists in your state. In this way, we can bypass a very biased and dishonest media that’s only interested in broadcasting the propaganda generated by proponents of same-sex marriage and reach the public with the facts showing why same-sex behavior, whether it’s in a committed relationship or not, is a harmful and unhealthy behavior that shouldn’t be encouraged by the government through marriage.
The reason, of course, is because all good law is based on facts – not on the whims of one individual or even a few. Clearly, as I’ve shown here, the facts clearly oppose government-recognition of same-sex marriage.
Joel Edge
July 29th, 2011
10:34 am
Aquagirl@8:11
The 21 century isn’t looking like a safe place for anybody right now. The constant carping and complaining is meant to divide us. It seems to be working. I ask what’s next because there will always be a ‘next’. There will always be someone who is complaining, even do the determent of society as a whole. As I’ve posted elsewhere: self correcting.
Kitty Conrad
July 29th, 2011
10:48 am
Marriage should not be a state-by-state decision because of significant federal tax issues (joint income tax returns and estate and gift tax exemptions), unless DOMA is repealed or found unconstitutional.
There’s lots of debate about marriage being a religious thing, or being a legal thing. It’s really more about economics. Why would straight people want to prevent gay people from spending their money on expensive weddings, honeymoons and divorces?
Halftrack
July 29th, 2011
10:50 am
Limited Federal Government is the basis of our Constitution. The rights not granted to the Federal government is retained by the States. States rights is our heritage until some activist judge(s) wants to stick their nose in the wrong directions. Let’s get back to our ‘Founding principles”.
Vince Lombardi
July 29th, 2011
10:59 am
Basic human rights should not be a state-by-state decision invoked by the 10th Amendment. Check out Ted Olsen’s arguments before the 9th Circuit in Swarzenegger v. Perry. He cited plenty of constitutional clauses that California’s anti-gay marriage law violated that supercedes the 10th Amendment.
Mike south atlanta
July 29th, 2011
10:59 am
I don’t understand the Gay marriage issue. You have the conservatives and Christians arguing that it will destroy the institute of marriage. However we see all the time celebrity divorce, congress affairs, all sorts of cheating and divorce. But that’s not a problem. Its only if two people of the same sex want to marry where the problem is. I feel so out of the main stream on this, I have been married to the same woman for 20 years. Let adults marry other adults.
kitty
July 29th, 2011
11:08 am
samyon suslov, try posting from some non-self serving blog with real facts and get back to us. You said a whole bunch of nothing but your own opinion. How in the world does gay marriage really hurt you and your marriage? And people won’t be allowed to marry goats, there is something in all this about consenting ADULTS. Do you actually know any gay people? I kind of doubt it.
John
July 29th, 2011
11:14 am
Kyle, to be adamant and say you are for states’ rights but then support a constitutional amendment to force all states is really not for states’ rights. It’s forcing your beliefs on all states.
If conservatives want a constitutional amendment to define marriage at the federal level, then lets do it. Let’s set the full definition…including age requirements, religious requirements, no divorce, etc. Could even add no interracial or inter-religious marriage. Let’s come up with a single complete definition of marriage that all states must follow.
DawgDad
July 29th, 2011
11:15 am
I’m a conservative with a libertarian streak. I’m firmly convinced the left supports gay marriage ONLY for the following reasons: (1) it sticks a needle to social conservatives, whom they hate, (2) it snags a voting block, and (3) it will be a boon for lawyers and bureaucrats. Otherwise, I’m sure the vast majority of them couldn’t care less.
I’ve thought this through from my perspective, and the MAJOR objection I have to “gay marriage” is the slipperly slope it unfolds in legal terms for all sorts of unsavory behavior, of which the unintended consequences will be massively destructive to this country and completely irreversable (legally). So, I would support gay marriage under ONE condition: One partner must legally declare themselves to be the “male” role in the marriage, and the other must legally declare themselves to be the “female” role in the marriage. From that point forward, all existing marital, inheritance, and child support law (etc.) would apply AS IT CURRENTLY DOES. Absent that condition, I am steadfastly committed to opposing it.
It’s so simple: If the gay marriage partners are unwilling to make this declaration, then they aren’t really seeking marriage as it is defined. My contention has always been they don’t really want to be married, they want special privileges.
Jefferson
July 29th, 2011
11:16 am
Sure if you want to cause problems for gay couples. Just think if they are transfered on their jobs to different states how much fun that would be. The answer simply should be the same as non gay couples, but if you want trouble, its there to be caused.
Least of my worries, way down the line.
Logical Dude
July 29th, 2011
11:18 am
Kitty says: Marriage should not be a state-by-state decision because of significant federal tax issues
And since there are so many Federal forms that need people to clarify if they are married or not, then this is NOT a state issue. This is a Federal Issue.
midtownguy: For those under 35 (referred to as the Will and Grace generation) sexual orientation is a non-issue.
And that is why the .. . errr. . old conservatives. . are on the losing side on this one, the EXACT SAME WAY they were on the losing side in interracial marriage.
Logical Dude
July 29th, 2011
11:21 am
DawgDad: If the gay marriage partners are unwilling to make this declaration, then they aren’t really seeking marriage as it is defined. My contention has always been they don’t really want to be married, they want special privileges.
And what do YOU mean by “marriage as it is defined”?
Did you get married because you wanted special privileges or did you get married because you found that special someone that you wanted to spend the rest of your life with?
kitty
July 29th, 2011
11:23 am
DawgDad….oh the drama.
I’ve thought this through from my perspective, and the MAJOR objection I have to “gay marriage” is the slipperly slope it unfolds in legal terms for all sorts of unsavory behavior, of which the unintended consequences will be massively destructive to this country and completely irreversable (legally).
==========================
Unsavory behavior can include hetereo divorce. Those can be quite unsavory especially to the children. You for outlawing that? Divorce is much more of a problem for society than gay marriage.
Also you have no libertarian streak if you don’t see the individual rights issue in all this; much less actually reading through the comments as to why gay marriage should be legalized. You just went all right wing parisan. You are no libertarian.
kitty
July 29th, 2011
11:26 am
and…So, I would support gay marriage under ONE condition: One partner must legally declare themselves to be the “male” role in the marriage, and the other must legally declare themselves to be the “female” role in the marriage. From that point forward, all existing marital, inheritance, and child support law (etc.) would apply AS IT CURRENTLY DOES.
=====================
Currently inheritance, child support and all those things you listed do not require one to be male or female to apply. They apply equally to both sexes. Women can be liable for child support if they are not the custodial parent and that happens more and more. Just because men tend to die before female spouses does not mean inheritance laws don’t apply to women as well if the wife should die first.
John
July 29th, 2011
11:26 am
“One partner must legally declare themselves to be the “male” role in the marriage, and the other must legally declare themselves to be the “female” role in the marriage. ”
DawgDad, can you define the “male” role versus the “female” role?
Another Cynic
July 29th, 2011
11:33 am
@DawgDad…. How interesting!
So…please help me understand your line of thought. Is it safe to assume the “male” is responsible for being the breadwinner, and occasionally fixing things around the house while the “female” is supposed to stay home, take care of the kids, clean up the house, and have dinner ready when the “male” comes home from work? Is this your line of thought? LOL!!! Only in “Dawgland” I guess.
DBCOOPER
July 29th, 2011
11:34 am
NO . NO. NO That would be a states rights issue. AND we all know “States Rights” is code for RACISM!!!
zeke
July 29th, 2011
11:45 am
As long as the actions of one state are not forced on other states if the perverts decide to move! For instance, if two perverts marry in NY then later move to Georgia, then the fact that they are married in NY can have no legal validity in Georgia!!! We CANNOT ALLOW ONE STATE TO DECIDE THE LAWS OF ANOTHER AND FORCE THEM TO ACCEPT THE IMMORAP PERVERTS THEY CREATED!!!
DawgDad
July 29th, 2011
11:46 am
To all of you questioning me on the “male” role vs. “female” role distinction, if this really does not matter as you claim PLEASE explain why it is on virtually every legal document, government form, and insurance form I fill out? Just what compelling interest does it serve to know if I’m male or female if it makes no difference legally? The easy answer is, it does matter.
My father fought and won legal custody of me following divorce. Don’t for a minute try to say male vs. female does not matter, that’s a complete crock and still is today, though today there are more exceptions made.
There have already been well-publicized child custody and divorce cases among same-sex partners. Why do we want to entertain more of this?
As for not being “libertarian”, you know not of what you speak. I couldn’t care less if two same-sex partners cohabitate, or multiple partners for that matter as long as under-age people aren’t involved. The ONLY reason I care is because they are ASKING FOR SPECIAL PRIVILEGES.
DawgDad
July 29th, 2011
11:47 am
And yes, it should be a State decision, not a Federal decision.
Jack McFarland
July 29th, 2011
11:50 am
One of the things that I always liked about Republicans is that they want less government. By making rules that force government to enact certain laws, does not create less government, but does the opposite.
John
July 29th, 2011
11:57 am
“if this really does not matter as you claim PLEASE explain why it is on virtually every legal document, government form, and insurance form I fill out? ”
DawgDad, it’s a classification not a role distinction, just as race is on most forms as well. You have still not answered my question, what are the “male” and “female” roles? While you’re at it, since you think classification is a role distinction, just what are the various “race” roles?
Chuck
July 29th, 2011
12:01 pm
I say ban all marriage, it is un-natural to settle with one mate for life, straight or gay. I used to consider myself as a Republician, back when they mainly concerned theirselves with getting the government to quit spending so much of my money. The modern day Republican loves spending money as much as Democrats, and they have been taken over by loud bible thumping morons that want to control everyones life, so that you have to live by the narrow standards that that their closed minedness decides is right. Nothing should be against the law, if I am not violating anyone else’s rights or safety.
John
July 29th, 2011
12:01 pm
“As long as the actions of one state are not forced on other states if the perverts decide to move! ”
Zeke, so are you saying contracts, any contract, entered into should only be valid in that state and no other states? Does that mean a heterosexual couple legally married in one state could potentially not be recognized in all states? What about business contracts? Loan contracts, etc.?
Linda
July 29th, 2011
12:10 pm
The definition of marriage is very simple. There’s many marriages that have already been banned. Gays & lesbians have no more “rights” than do men wanting to marry multiple wives, wives wanting to marry multiple husbands, relatives wanting to marry relatives, parents wanting to marry their children & people wanting to marry their pets. Where will the line being changed end up in the sand?
There are many reasons people want to change the definition of marriage. The main one that I see is for the sake of legitimacy. Their lift up to legitimacy takes legitimacy down.
Marriage is a civil union. It is a legal union. For some of us, it is a union of sanctity. The sanctity of MY marriage is MY right & it is MY right to preserve.
Swede Atlanta
July 29th, 2011
12:10 pm
Can you tell me what special privileges two gay men or two lesbians are asking for by requesting the right to marry one another?
I hear that argument all the time and no one can ever give me an answer? All they want are the same rights AND responsibilities of marriage as a man and a woman in a marriage.
Hopefully you can clear this matter up for me once and for all.
John
July 29th, 2011
12:11 pm
“There have already been well-publicized child custody and divorce cases among same-sex partners. Why do we want to entertain more of this?”
Just as there are well-publicized child custody and divorce cases among opposite-sex partners. You just mentioned your parents are divorced and your father fought and won custody of you (sounds like it may have been ugly).Why do we want to entertain more of this? Let’s just ban all marriages.
Swede Atlanta
July 29th, 2011
12:13 pm
So Linda,
The sanctity of your marriage is threatened when two men or two women marry? Can you please describe?
If it can be threatened by the mere fact two men or two women enter into a marriage then I don’t think you have much of a marriage to begin with.
Marriage is not YOURS. It doesn’t belong to ANYONE.
John
July 29th, 2011
12:13 pm
“The ONLY reason I care is because they are ASKING FOR SPECIAL PRIVILEGES.”
No…conservatives only want to PRESERVE THEIR SPECIAL PRIVILEGES.
John
July 29th, 2011
12:17 pm
“people wanting to marry their pets”
Linda, when their pets can consent to marriage by understanding what they are getting into, being able to say I DO and signing the contract…then let them marry their pet.
midtownguy
July 29th, 2011
12:22 pm
Dawgdad: I just read your post to my partner of many, many years and he is still laughing. We are trying to imagine the knock-down-drag-out that would occur at our house if we had to determine which one of us is the “husband” and which one of us is the “wife” (he is in the kitchen making lunch right now and I am playing on the computer, so maybe the husband nod goes to me for today).
John
July 29th, 2011
12:22 pm
“The sanctity of MY marriage is MY right & it is MY right to preserve.”
No one is trying to take away or dissolve your marriage. How would your marriage, in any way, be affected? Sounds like you have a weak marriage is gay couples getting married would affect yours. Are you or your husband a closet case where your marriage would end in divorce so that you or your husband would marry someone of the same sex?
Logical Dude
July 29th, 2011
12:23 pm
Zeke says: For instance, if two perverts marry in NY then later move to Georgia,
What about straight (non-homosexual) perverts?
John
July 29th, 2011
12:36 pm
“My father fought and won legal custody of me following divorce.”
Dawgdad, does that mean your father took on the “female” role? Did he check “female” on all those forms you mentioned? Did you mother check “male” on those forms?
Linda
July 29th, 2011
12:52 pm
People who have great credit, great driving records & no criminal records receive preferential treatment. We live in a society that discriminates. When those who have bad credit, poor driving records & criminal records demand the same rights, standards are lowered for all. Their credit, driving records & criminal records do not improve nor disappear. Advantages & incentives disappear & society as a whole declines.
I have been married once & for 35 1/2 years.
Swede Atlanta
July 29th, 2011
12:54 pm
Linda, so you are equating two gay men or lesbians who you don’t know to people with bad credit, poor driving records and criminal records?
Please explain your logic because I do not understand your rationale.
Another Cynic
July 29th, 2011
12:56 pm
@Linda…. You nailed it! Nothing else needs to be said.
“We live in a society that discriminates”
Swede Atlanta
July 29th, 2011
1:06 pm
Another cynic, I agree there is discrimination but discrimination is not justified, especially when it comes to fundamental rights. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that marriage is a fundamental right.
But the discrimination Linda refers to isn’t discrimination based on anyone’s rights.
Poor credit – those individuals are discriminated with, if you want to call it that, because of the credit risk they pose to potential creditors.
Poor driving record – they are discriminated against by insurance companies because of the increased risk they present
Criminals – they are discriminated against because they committed a crime and were convicted.
What does that have to do with marriage?
amy
July 29th, 2011
1:14 pm
midtownguy
Same hilarious argument going on downtown.
kitty
July 29th, 2011
1:17 pm
@ linda and another cynic….we live in a society that discriminates? Does that make it right? So under your standards it is okay to discriminate based on race? Do you people EVER stop to think about what you are writing? EVER????
Another Cynic
July 29th, 2011
1:18 pm
I agree with you Swede… my point is that our society has always discriminated against others (typically minority groups) until protections were put in place to help minimize/eliminate them. Most of it is usually rooted out of fear and ignorance.
kitty
July 29th, 2011
1:18 pm
@swede atlanta What does that have to do with marriage?
I suspect it is the best they can do intellectually because there is no logic to that argument at all. Good grief!!!
kitty
July 29th, 2011
1:19 pm
Phew, another cynic, you had me going there for a minute. It was sarcasm, got it. Hard to show that in a blog isn’t it?
John
July 29th, 2011
1:24 pm
Linda, you admit it is discrimination and has nothing to do about “special privileges”
Swede Atlanta
July 29th, 2011
1:31 pm
Cynic, thanks for clarifying as I thought you were agreeing.
Chuck
July 29th, 2011
1:38 pm
Why can’t someone marry multiple partners? If they can afford the expense who is it hurting? If 2 cousins want to get married, who’s business is it anyways. If you look at the sceince and not the myths, it takes generations of incest, before you start getting 2 headed babies. As long as all partners are consenting adults, go for it. the biggest problem we have in the country today is nobody knows how to “MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS”. Everyone says that they believe in freedom as long as the freedoms that a person chooses fall in to beliefs system that you hold, and that IS NOT freedom.
Ayn Rant
July 29th, 2011
1:39 pm
semyon_suslov … Your allegations about homosexual behavior don’t apply at all to female homosexuals, i. e. lesbians. They have far lower rates of infectious disease and promiscuity than heterosexuals. There is virtually no lesbian pornography, although sex between two women is a common feature of pornographic sites for males.
Actually, all your allegations apply equally to heterosexual and homosexual men. Perhaps we should ban males; it would solve the crime problem as well since 92% of the 2 million or more residents of American prisons are male.
Better yet, why don’t you do a mental reset to clear your mind of outdated prejudices.
Chuck
July 29th, 2011
1:40 pm
forgive my bad spelling, my fat finger are having a hard time on this tiny keyboard
Linda
July 29th, 2011
1:41 pm
We live in a society that discriminates. We discriminate against people with bad credit, poor driving records & criminal records. Do those people have less rights than homosexuals? Do homosexuals have more rights than polygamists?
What will the new definition of marriage be? Who will be allowed to marry whom? Who will be denied the right to marry? When lifting the ban on sex, will you also lift the ban on age, number & consent?
Conservative Voice
July 29th, 2011
1:42 pm
I want the government to stay out of my life.
But I want it to ban everything I disagree with.
Seems reasonable to me.
Chuck
July 29th, 2011
1:47 pm
Linda I am not sure that I am getting your point, do you really believe that if 2 adult consenting men or 2 adult consenting women are allow to legally marry, that that opens the door to adult/infant marriages or human/animal. I find it hard to believe that a reason person would make that leap.
Chuck
July 29th, 2011
1:48 pm
that should be reasonable
John
July 29th, 2011
2:03 pm
“What will the new definition of marriage be? Who will be allowed to marry whom? Who will be denied the right to marry? When lifting the ban on sex, will you also lift the ban on age, number & consent?”
Linda, none of these questions shouldn’t matter to you. As a conservative, it’s ya’ll mantra “less government”. If that’s the case, these questions are irrelevant. But as Conservative Voice points out, conservatives don’t really want less government…they just want the government to stay out of their lives but ban everything conservatives disagree with.
TGT
July 29th, 2011
3:09 pm
This is not an issue that can be dealt with appropriately using the “states’ rights” argument. As if the militants driving the pro-homosexual agenda would be satisfied with legal same-sex marriage in only a handful of states.
An Outside the Beltway pro-same-sex marriage blog post (State’s Rights Is Not The Answer To The Same-Sex Marriage Debate) notes that, “[the "states' rights" argument] ignores the issues of how the law ought to handle American citizens who are legally married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage and then move (or travel) to a state where same-sex marriage is illegal. Under current law, specially Section Two of the Defense of Marriage Act, their marriage is invalid as soon as they cross the state line, and whatever rights they might have as a marriage couple (including rights related to hospital visitation, or the right to make medical decisions when the other partner is incapacitated) no longer exist…Even if one agrees that the 10th Amendment means that a state does not have to license same-sex marriages, that should not mean that it would be permitted to refuse to recognize a validly performed marriage from a sister state.”
The blog also noted that the entire concept of “states rights” is “a concept with a checkered history, mostly associated with racial segregation and secession. It has little support in the law. And, as Stephen Green noted in a post last year, its an idea that is entirely incompatible with individual liberty: ‘States don’t have rights. Individuals do. It’s time we went about the business of restoring those rights, without alienating a huge constituency which suffered too long without them.’”
The blog continues: “More importantly, we fought a war that pretty much resolved the issue of state’s rights, and afterwords passed an amendment that significantly altered the relationship between the states and the federal government. Whatever the “rights” of the states may have been before the ratification of the 14th Amendment, they were significantly cut back by it’s adoption. So it is pointless to talk about the 10th Amendment in a vacuum as if the 14th Amendment doesn’t exist.”
Kev
July 29th, 2011
4:33 pm
“The ONLY reason I care is because they are ASKING FOR SPECIAL PRIVILEGES.”
No, we just want the same SPECIAL PRIVILEGES straight married couples share.
Atlantarama
July 29th, 2011
4:44 pm
There are still people who think being gay is only about sex. It’s not; it’s about love, and two people who love each other should be able to get married. Unfortunately, too many people don’t understand this, which is why some rules shouldn’t be left up to the majority.
Aquagirl
July 29th, 2011
4:50 pm
Many, gay marriage posts really bring out the inner crazy thoughts of some conservatives. Paperwork with “male” and “female” roles everywhere? Whooo-weee.
Of course the basic canards about special rights and marrying your dog get dragged out, but Dawgdad deserves special kudos for taking it to a whole new level.
JamieNAtlanta
July 29th, 2011
4:51 pm
I’m a 15 generation gay American and I should be allowed to get married. semyon_suslov should be deported back to whatever 3rd world country he came from.
MB
July 29th, 2011
4:51 pm
Marriage, gay or straight, should be a personal decision. The state and federal governments should both be out of the marriage business altogether.
ND
July 29th, 2011
6:11 pm
Marriage is a social institution and shouldn’t be a political one. Let any two consenting adults regardless of sex get a civil union, and leave the definition of marriage to religious bodies.
Dave
July 29th, 2011
6:12 pm
So Kyle, be honest, the agin’ gay marriage folks are losing the debate so far aren’t they? At least admit that most of them need a remedial junior high English class.
Bobby
July 29th, 2011
6:27 pm
Remember that segregation was at one a “state” decision. Not practical. If a Georgia gay couple get married in NY, there is no valid reason for Georgia to not recognize the marriage other than good old fashioned bigotry.
TruthBe
July 29th, 2011
6:36 pm
Homosexuality is anbomination to the LORD thy GOD. JESUS CHRIST the LORD said to “love the sinner and hate the sin”. JESUS never said to embrace sin. Homosexuality is a sin just like any other sin period. GOD will not be mocked. Gays need to stop forcing this sinful behavior on others. We are all sinners but that doesn’t give us the right to force one’s sin upon another.
Songbird
July 29th, 2011
6:52 pm
TruthBe – please tell me what Bible Verse says that homosexuality is an abonimation to the Lord. There is no such text in the Bible.
Do you eat pork or shellfish, because that is forbidden in Leviticus?
Candylicious
July 29th, 2011
7:11 pm
My personal belief is that sodomy is unnatural and disgusting. But I agree with Perry that the gay marriage question should be decided state by state rather than a one size fits all approach for the entire nation.
John
July 29th, 2011
7:35 pm
Here’s what conservative Charles Krauthammer had to say today…
“Under our constitutional system, you cannot govern from one house alone. Today’s resurgent conservatism, with its fidelity to constitutionalism, should be particularly attuned to this constraint, imposed as it is by a system of deliberately separated — and mutually limiting — powers.
Given this reality, trying to force the issue — turn a blocking minority into a governing authority — is not just counter-constitutional in spirit but self-destructive in practice.”
TGT
July 29th, 2011
10:11 pm
So opponents of same-sex marriage are “homophobes,” dunces, etc. Nevermind that in every state where the electorate has voted on it, same-sex marriage has been rejected. 31 for 31. With Maine voters rejecting same-sex marriage barely a year-and-a-half ago, every state that has put gay marriage before its electorate—31 states now—has seen it rejected. At an average rate of 67.5%, voters in the 31 states have, at the very least, banned same-sex marriage. (Nineteen states have banned not only same-sex marriage, but also civil unions.)
The rejection of gay marriage has occurred not only in conservative states, but in very liberal ones as well: Maine, California, Oregon, and Hawaii. Purple states such as Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada have also soundly rejected gay marriage. Across the U.S., from the Deep South to the Northeast to the Midwest to the West coast, Americans have united behind biblical marriage. Yet the tide is turning?!
Same-sex marriage supporters tell us that “nobody chooses their sexual orientation,” because homosexuality is genetic and unchangeable, right? Yet nothing in science supports this. And the traditional (biblical) marriage supporters are the backward Neanderthals?! Noted psychiatrist, physicist, and author (Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth) Jeffrey Satinover notes that “The notion that ‘homosexuals’ are in effect a ‘different species’ (different genes) is ludicrous beyond belief. There is not the slightest evidence for that as anyone who actually reads the studies (not reports on the studies) knows.”
Songbird
July 29th, 2011
10:43 pm
TGT, these votes should never have taken place. They are exactly what the founding fathers were trying to protect against when they set up our government the way they did. Tyranny of the majority against a minority. This is exactly what these votes are! Tyranny of the majority to take rights away from people because you don’t like something about them. It’s bigotry, plain and simple.
TGT
July 29th, 2011
11:42 pm
“It’s bigotry, plain and simple.”
Ah, I see that you’ve come to a moral conclusion. Why is it bigotry? Upon whose morality do you come to such a conclusion? Many Americans see homosexual behavior as immoral, and most (significantly most) Americans, when given an opportunity to have their say in same-sex marriage, have rejected it. I would say that the vast majority of these Americans have reached their conclusions based upon their morals. We’re all governed by morals, it’s just a matter of whose morality one wants to be governed by.
And I see that you’ve resorted to the old “tyranny of the majority” argument to discredit the electoral results of 31 states. Never mind that, as David Barton notes, “In every case where a constitutional protection has been established for any minority, whether by race, gender, social status, or age, each protection was conferred by the consent of the majority of eligible enfranchisees at that time. For example…slaves received their rights from the majority consent of non-slaves in three-fourths of the states….In other words, all minority rights in the Constitution, and all explicit protections for minorities, have in all cases been established by the majority.”
What the pro-same-sex marriage movement has done (or aims to do) is replace alleged “tyranny of the majority” with actual “tyranny of the minority.”
John
July 29th, 2011
11:45 pm
“Same-sex marriage supporters tell us that “nobody chooses their sexual orientation,” because homosexuality is genetic and unchangeable, right?”
TGT, when did you choose your sexual orientation? What age were you when you choose? Were you attracted to both sexes and then decided to choose one? What was the process you went through in making your decision?
Jones-Munoz
July 30th, 2011
12:01 am
As the right of women to vote is not a states rights issue, as inter-racial marriage is not a states rights issue, as blacks civil rights were not a states rights issues, Gays and Lesbians right to enter into marriage is not a states rights issue. With so many rights and liabilities exersized on a federal level, ie: taxes, immigration, & even intra state commerse, those issues are superseded by the Feds over the states. So it is a primarily a federal issue. Those opposed to marriage like the states rights issue because it allows regional battles in which misinformation is easier to produce. NOM is a perfect example at how this is done. In California and Maine, they did just that. On a Federal Level it will have to be delt with on the CONSTITUTIONALITY issue which opponents know they will sincerely loose.
John
July 30th, 2011
12:06 am
“Never mind that, as David Barton notes, “In every case where a constitutional protection has been established for any minority, whether by race, gender, social status, or age, each protection was conferred by the consent of the majority of eligible enfranchisees at that time. For example…slaves received their rights from the majority consent of non-slaves in three-fourths of the states….”
Really, TGT? Slaves received their rights from the majority consent of non-slaves in three-fourths of the states? Don’t you recall something about a civil war in this country? Are you suggesting some stated did not succeed from the union and instead just voted to end slavery? Laws banning interracial marriage were ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court…they were struck down by voters in same race marriages. Desegregation of schools…you guessed it the courts, not majority of white voters.
We also have something called the US Constitution which trumps the electorate and offers some protection to the minority. We can vote laws in but they can be challenged an ruled unconstitutional by the courts…this was the case in interracial marriages, school desecration and in the case of CA’s law prohibiting same sex marriage.
TGT
July 30th, 2011
12:06 am
John: I never said that sexual attraction was simply a matter of “choice,” but neither is homosexuality genetic an unchangeable. Many have left the homosexual lifestyle.
John
July 30th, 2011
12:15 am
“John: I never said that sexual attraction was simply a matter of “choice,” but neither is homosexuality genetic an unchangeable. Many have left the homosexual lifestyle.”
Yeah…really?
The American Psychological Association published a comprehensive report reputing the effectiveness of ex-gay (or reparative therapy) ministries. The governing body of the mental health organization examined 83 studies on sexual orientation dating back to 1960 and found no substantial evidence that homosexuality can be cured through therapy or any other means as many ex-gay ministries claim. The report urged mental health professionals not to advise clients that they can become straight through therapy or other treatments.
Perhaps the most well known ex-gay leader and founder of Exodus, John Paulk once described his “transition” to a heterosexual lifestyle: “I accepted Christ into my life and realized I could leave homosexuality. I learned that homosexuality was reversible. Through faith in Christ and counseling and support, over a four-year period, my homosexuality is greatly subsided.” Shortly after, Paulk was spotted and photographed in a D.C. gay bar. He was later removed from his post at Exodus
TGT
July 30th, 2011
12:22 am
And just how were the items placed in the Constitution that the courts must (or at least are supposed to) rely upon to reach their conclusions? (Hence Barton’s statement: “all minority rights in the Constitution.”) THROUGH A MAJORITY.
Likewise, it may be that the issue of the definition of marriage will be settled by an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Of course, this requires significant MAJORITIES in congress and among the states. If the Constitution is amended, then the courts must rule based on an amendment that was decided by MAJORITIES.
John
July 30th, 2011
12:33 am
“And just how were the items placed in the Constitution that the courts must (or at least are supposed to) rely upon to reach their conclusions? (Hence Barton’s statement: “all minority rights in the Constitution.”) THROUGH A MAJORITY. ”
Not all items are placed in the Constitution. What amendment specifically says the states cannot ban interracial marriage or that schools must be desegregated”
“If the Constitution is amended, then the courts must rule based on an amendment that was decided by MAJORITIES.”
If the Constitution is not amended, the courts must rule based on the Constitution as it is today…where in the Constitution is the MAJORITIES opinion on gay marriage?
TGT
July 30th, 2011
12:57 am
You mean the APA that, in 1973, with a vote (of 5,834 to 3,810) removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual?
In 1963, only ten years prior to the APA vote, the New York Academy of Medicine, prompted by a concern that homosexual activity was on the increase, charged its Committee on Public Health to report on the subject of homosexuality. It concluded that:
homosexuality is indeed an illness. The homosexual is an emotionally disturbed individual who has not acquired the normal capacity to develop satisfying heterosexual relations…some homosexuals have gone beyond the plane of defensiveness and now argue that deviancy is a “desirable, noble, preferable way of life.”
Yet only ten years later, with no significant new scientific evidence, the APA, led by liberals, vote to decide to tell us what homosexuality is and isn’t? As Satinover notes, “The APA vote to normalize homosexuality was driven by politics, not science.”
As Satinover also notes, according to a 1994 University of Chicago study, “…it is patently false that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, that it is stable over time, and that it can be easily measured.” Dr. Satinover adds that, “Studies across the globe that have now sampled over 100,000 individuals have found the same. We now know that in the majority of both men and women, ‘homosexuality,’ as defined by any scientifically rigorous criteria, spontaneously tends to ‘mutate’ into heterosexuality over the course of a lifetime.”
John
July 30th, 2011
2:55 am
And who is Satinover? A Christian psychiatrist who is a member of NARTH, an organization that believes in reparative therapy. Interesting about NARTH’s 2009 study.
By NARTH’s own admission, it is merely a survey of 100 years of literature.
That it is a survey means that, second, it is not a study. Jones-Yarhouse, for all its flaws, was a scientific study. NARTH’s paper, written by James Phelan, Neil Whitehead, and Philip Sutton, simply collates a century’s worth of material that (they think) supports the pro-reparative therapy position. It contains no new or original research whatsoever.
Jim Phelan confirmed both of these things directly when XGW spoke to him last year. Phelan said clearly the report was “a literature review – no new science. The data is presented more comprehensively than before.”
Third, that it is peer-reviewed is a sadly risible claim. It appears in Volume I of the Journal of Human Sexuality, a publication produced by NARTH. In other words, NARTH has reviewed its own paper for inclusion in a volume that appears to have been created specifically as a vehicle for NARTH’s views. The “peer review” therefore means next to nothing. In theory, I could rehash a few bits of other people’s work, get my XGW chums to look it over, and then publish it in a new magazine I’ve called the Journal of Ex-Gay Studies and claim it as a peer-reviewed milestone study. The problem is glaring.
Again, on this point, Phelan told XGW that the paper was “to be reviewed by members,” confirming that the peer review was nothing more than an internal review by like-minded NARTH members.
What’s also interesting, NARTH’s 2009 “study” doesn’t mention anything about Kirk Murphy or George Rekers.
Chuck Anziulewicz
July 30th, 2011
8:49 am
It is tempting to say that marriage should be left up to the states, but it’s the federal government which, through its own actions has made marriage a FEDERAL issue. Most of the legal benefits and protections of marriage come from the federal government. Much of this has to do with tax law and Social Security.
Complicating this issue even further is the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). That this clearly unconstitutional law has been on the books for 15 years now is appalling. The reason DOMA is unconstitutional is that is sets up differing legal standards for legally married Gay and Straight couples. For instance, a Gay couple that is legally married in New York is unrecognized as such by the federal government, and that couple is ineligible for the tax breaks and Social Security benefits that a similarly married Straight couple takes for granted.
Consider, also, the “Full Faith & Credit” clause of the Constitution. Because of this, any Straight couple can fly off to Las Vegas for a drunken weekend, get married by an Elvis impersonator, and that marriage is automatically honored in all 50 states. But because of DOMA, a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa becomes “UN-married” once they move south to Missouri.
The only way marriage can be a “States’ Rights” issue is for the federal government to get out of the marriage business completely, and put an end to the 1,138 legal benefits that it bestows on legally married couples. I wonder how many Straight married couples would be happy with THAT!
ATF
July 30th, 2011
3:34 pm
Civil benefits are just that, civil benefits. And we have had to learn that those benefits should be given not just to white males, but also and equally to all citizens, including women, blacks, latinos, Irish, Catholics, Orientals, and, yes, even Muslims. We are learning that denying equal benefits to gays is just another example of an blindness we have to supposing the status quo is always right, will always be.
If religious organizations feel it is necessary to reserve bestowing the blessing or sacrament of marriage only to those who meet that religions criteria, that is fine with me. No one wants to coerce a faith to perform a ceremony that is anathama to that faith. But, the civil benefits in the laws of this country should be availabe to all, equally.
So, no, I don’t think that individual states should be able to decide if they will recognize gay marriage. That would be like letting States decide if Catholics or women should be allowed to vote.
Carl G. Oehling
August 1st, 2011
11:31 am
This is a personal issue. Each one of us must always vote for their moral position I think mine must give Jehovah the glory or I am rejecting Him. Read God’s answer to Elijah when he complained the people were not following him in rejecting Baal as God. Read the results of North Israel following Ahab. Apply the principle.
Jezel
August 2nd, 2011
10:32 am
Discrimination of any kind violates the U.S. Constitution.
Proud Democrat
August 2nd, 2011
4:04 pm
I think the whole state’s rights arguments is a bunch of BS. How is that any different than when slavery and jim crow laws were left up to the states to decide? Even as a straight man, I see a problem with these anti-gay marriage proponents. How can it possibly be constitutional for one state to not recognize a legal marriage from another state? How is it that two men or two women wanting to get married harms my life or anyone elses life? As I read somewhere else, if you have a problem with gay marriage than you should also have a problem with straight divorce. How about we all just mind our own businesses and let grown, consenting adults live their life as they see fit?