But I’m still sitting this out for a year.

I want to make this very clear upfront! By pointing out that specifically included in my message of 5/21, 12:32am, was the direct, legal and irrefutable connection I made, between interracial marriage and gay marriage. That being the 1967 decision and the Mass. Supreme Court decision were based on the same Constitutionial restriction of creating a ‘second-class status’.

You have deftly attempted to ignore this central premise to my argument, wanting instead to engage me in arguing this matter in the court of public opinion.

If citing legal precedents and judicial decisions strikes you as ‘bullying’, then you are ill prepared for this argument.

You in turn, will not win the hearts and minds to your position by ‘dodging’ your opponents with disengenious arguments based on partisan social attitudes and opinions.

Reminds me of the fact that unlike CNN and MSNBC, Fox News Channel does not provide transcripts of its broadcasts!

I highly recommend this study:

http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Stonewall/3018/samesex.html

I suspect you’re unduly bewitched by the idea that quotes against gay marriage sound like quotes against interracial marriage. The light bulb went off for you on that, and now you can’t think about the issue from any other point of view.

But think up any sort of consensual marriage you wouldn’t like to see legalized (polygamy?), and you’ll find your arguments sound remarkably like those against interracial marriage too: “harmful… morally repugnant… not real marriage…” Whatever.

Majorities decide things over time on a case by case basis. We’ve decided skin color shouldn’t matter. Homosexual behavior is a separate issue being debated now.

True believers on all sides tend to see what they’re doing in terms of flattering analogies to past struggles.

Pro-lifers see us as finally recognizing fetal rights. “But a fetus is not the same as a baby!” opponents say.

Anyone who accepts the fetal rights analogy has already decided he is pro-life.

Anyone who accepts your interracial marriage analogy has already decided he’s in favor of gay marriage.

We must win hearts and minds to gay marriage by arguing it on its own merits, not by bullying opponents with analogies to separate struggles.

See this Jonathan Rauch essay for an excellent example of how this is done: Can This Marriage be Saved?

If you truly think gay marriage so similar to interracial marriage that no decent person could require any additional reasons for legalizing it…well, as Samuel Johnson said, “I have found you can argument, I am not obligated to find you an understanding.”

re: interracial marriage: Human pigmentation has no moral component; human sexuality is rife with them. That’s where the analogy falls apart.

Noel, the flaw in your statement is that your ‘moral component’ was not written into the Constitution, thus that whole seperation of church and state business hindering laws based on your beliefs.

Many segregationists in the South insisted it was ordained right there in the bible: Genesis 9:27. Familiar with it?

It’s not a technical matter of ‘education’; education will not change what is, and is held to be, a moral fact. Yes; people should be treated decently. But things like recruitment in the public schools, special voting districts, hiring quotas, suppression of dissent and coerced compliance are quite another matter.

Education is what triggered the removal of homosexuality from the DMS, as a psychological disorder. Education is what triggered over 95% of Fortune 500 companies to ban discrimination based on sexual preference. Education is at the source of a recent poll of Americans agreeing gays and lesbians can be ‘positive role models’.

Your argument above should be very familiar to those who know their history. A Google search of quotes by Gov. George Wallace and Bull Connor during the Civil Rights era, should match up very closely.

Michael. I did not ask you for your biography. I have no interest in the reasons you ended up where you are. I’m simply trying to get you to focus logically. Instead, I get a rant about the enlightenment, the American Revolution, the divine right of kings, etc. etc. etc.

I really don’t expect to get a reasoned answer from you, but for others participating in this discussion: if we re-define purpose of marriage as the legal union two of people that love each other, what is the LOGICAL reason for stopping there – other than residual bias based on a racist patriarchal and religion besotted history? (See, I can reason from the viewpoint of the “Enlightened”)

I repeat the questions:

Where is the quantifiable harm to society by allowing siblings to marry so that they can enjoy the tax and estate benefits now enjoyed by married couples? Or, for that matter parent and child? (If the argument against is that offspring from such unions are likely to be defective, I answer that your outdated views of marriage as involving sex and reproduction are obviously Neanderthal).

Where is the harm to society by allowing me to marry my dog? Who does this injure? Does this make the marriage of homosexuals any less valid?

Where is the harm to society by removing the limitation to the number of persons that can inhabit the same “marriage?” Why limit the marriage contract to two? Many societies allow plural marriages. Why can’t we learn from these?

re: interracial marriage: Human pigmentation has no moral component; human sexuality is rife with them. That’s where the analogy falls apart.

It’s not a technical matter of ‘education’; education will not change what is, and is held to be, a moral fact. Yes; people should be treated decently. But things like recruitment in the public schools, special voting districts, hiring quotas, suppression of dissent and coerced compliance are quite another matter.

You say those who disagree are judgemental, blind, lying, ignorant, paranoid, intolerant, homophobic, uneducated, ungrounded human beings fighting their own latent tendencies–oh, and by the way; Stop the Hate! Please.

And this ‘latent tendencies’ meme must be addressed. I’ve seen Sullivan use this rhetorical trick as well; it is a merely a way to quash debate. The dissenter is supposed to think “Gee, if I support marriage as it has always existed, it means I must be secretly gay–I’d better be quiet.” If I weren’t so uneducated and ignorant, I’d swear that was gay-baiting. And, frankly, more than a little bitchy.

It also says your opponent is dishonest with himself (therefore with others)…and, secretly, he even agrees with me! Debate over; I win!

And by that logic, any homosexual who advocates for same-sex marriage is secretly straight. Now there’s a ‘latent tendency’.

When a bad law or amendment is adopted by the Consent of the Governed, most of We, the People can live with it. But when our judicial umpires openly side with one team and make up the rules as they go to ensure their team’s victory, expect some resistance.

In my case, you may expect nothing else.

2. But one crucial group is somewhat against it: 18-29 year olds.

3. Whatever they think today will inevitably become majority opinion.

So Matt, in spite of everything I said about the Constitution and the Mass. Supreme Court decision, this is what you believe is my sole reasoning for accepting Gay Marriage?

By your omission, I assume I was correct in this part of my argument. My remark about ‘getting it over with’ was flippant, thus not worthy of you seizing upon it. It was merely an acknowledgment of the moderating views on homosexuality.

That’s the problem with your invocation of decisions regarding interracial marriage: it’s just an analogy, persuasive only to those who already see things as you do.

Its pretty strong for ‘just an analogy’. Tell me specifically why it would not be persuasive to those not already in agreement with me?

And the key point for our opponents is that gay marriage is not the same as interracial marriage, and that it’s undesirable in their view.

So, for what other acceptable reason was Interracial Marriage banned in at least 16 states before 1967?

Central to the fact that, as you said, we’ve made enormous progress over the 30 years, is the education about homosexuality our society has been taught. The stigmatism, mis-perceptions, lies, ignorance, paranoia, intolerance and homophobia surrounding our community, continues to fade – at least among educated, grounded human beings not fighting latent sexual tendencies. We will continue to progress thru education and facts, while opposed by those offering only hate and ignorance.

One last item from the Zogby poll, 43% of NASCAR dads oppose a Constitutional Amendment ban on Gay Marriage!

In California, prospective foster parents must now swear fealty to the radical homsexual agenda in order to participate. Boy Scouts are being hounded from public property. Planned Parenthood ‘facilitators’ go into a classroom, identify the children who beleieve homosexuality is wrong and then place them in a circle and have the other children glare at them, to teach them “how it feels”. This doesn’t teach about bigotry—it IS bigotry. State-promulgated, state-sanctioned bigotry.

The SJCMass ostensibly based its ruling on the state’s Equal Rights Amendment, passed in the mid-70′s. It says no ‘discrimination based on sex’. Their fundamentally dishonest diktat twists the plain meaning and intent of the law. Our system is based on the Consent of the Governed. We did not consent.

They also conspired to quash a constitutional convention on the issue several years ago–also in violation of the state constitution. And ordered the Legislature to write a law–another violation.

In short, they are no longer a court of law, but an organized criminal conspiracy of tyranny, a Nietzschean Super-court, its own will-to-power the only law it recognizes.

If they get away with this, there will be NO stopping them.

1. Gay marriage WILL NOT lead to bestiality or pedophilia. Reason? The later two invlove VICTIMS, parties who cannot make rational decisions about a relationship or sex. No gay group (and I mean gay group, not the freaks at NAMBLA)advocates bestiality or pedophilia. In fact, the VAST majority of gay people oppose legalizing these two. It’s simply a tool used by anti-gay people to stir things up. I’d bet if you took a poll among gay people, you wouldn’t even get 3% approving of either.

2. How does gay marriage lead down the road to make Chrisianity illegal? Who among us is saying we should outlaw private religious beliefs? Gay marriage advocates are not pushing to force churches, synagogues or mosques to marry gay couples. Where is this coming from? Once again, end-of-world scenarios to stir opposition to gay marriage, without much logic. In fact, I’d suspect the “Illegal Christianity” argument is simply flipping the viewpoint of the author: he wants to force his religious beliefs on gay people (i.e. outlaw anything “gay”), and sees any group or person standing up for gay equality as part of a plan to force everyone everywhere to accept (or even “convert” to) everything gay. Far from it. We’re simply saying, give us the right to marry in a civil ceremony.

Oh, and by the way, when’s the last time you heard of a gay group or person suing a church because that institution would not marry a gay couple?

3. Don’t lump me into the far-left gay activists who wish to dump any reference of god or religion in our society. Gay people are a cross section of America. I grew up in a church (fundamentalist) and believe very strongly that religion can bring stability and happiness to a great numbe of people. I don’t expect the church I grew up in to accept me as a gay person, but I’m sure as hell not going to expend a great amount of effort trying to destroy that church.

Stop, take a breath and think logically. Demons did not rise out of the depths of hell and begin eating babies on May 17th.

Further, you go on to say things in “support” of your point that you have apparently given very little thought to or the issue is simply beyond your intellect. You suggest this is being “jammed down our thoats” with no “democratic accountability”; there are a host of significant issues that have changed the course of American history that were ordered by courts – are these equally as wrong? Much to your apparent dismay, this country does determine every issue by “majority rule.” This fallacy is rampant and you have apparently fallen victim to it. We are a REPUBLIC. You profess you are Jacksonian. Try reading some Hamilton and perhaps you will understand the point better.

As for your “predictions”…please tell me what your predictions are on economic issues – at least there I can make a monetary wager and reap the profits of your poor reasoning and logic.

You laid out a chain of reasoning that gave me heart attacks on each of its last three links. Let me flip the issue to see if you feel any palpitations.

Pat Robertson reasons as follows:

1. Americans favor gay marriage by a solid majority, and so it remains the law of the land.

2. But one crucial group is somewhat against it: 18-29 year olds.

3. Whatever they think today will inevitably become majority opinion.

4. So let’s jump ahead to that fine state of affairs by having the court outlaw gay marriage nationwide, today.

5. That will put the issue behind us so we can get on with more pressing matters.

As the Church Lady might say: “Now isn’t that special, Pat!”

Do I need to shoot the fish in that barrel for you, having flipped their colors?

Part of living in a democracy is not using procedures our opponents would rightly consider to be outrageously unfair if the tables were turned.

If my Pat Robertson scenario played out in real life, you know the Castro would be boiling over with talk of revolution. And could you blame them?

Has Roe v. Wade allowed us to move past the issue onto other more pressing things? And remember a majority of Americans agreed with the court. If you impose gay marriage against a hostile majority, I do not think they will go any more quietly into that good night than the Roe v. Wade minority has.

You are reasoning by analogy from gay civil rights to black civil rights. But our opponents do not accept that. They make a distinction, and we may not like that distinction but it is not obviously insane and nonsensical. Sexual practice is not skin color.

That’s the problem with your invocation of decisions regarding interracial marriage: it’s just an analogy, persuasive only to those who already see things as you do.

I could argue the Court should flip Roe v. Wade and ban abortion everywhere, because the fetus should no longer be a “second-class citizen” by analogy of fetus rights to black civil rights. But that’s not the least bit persuasive to those who disagree. The key point for them is that the fetus is not a life or a citizen.

And the key point for our opponents is that gay marriage is not the same as interracial marriage, and that it’s undesirable in their view.

We need to argue gay marriage on its merits, and not merely by bludgeoning people with tenuous analogies. And unless the Founding Fathers inserted a lot more about gay marriage into the Constitution than I’ve noticed, we need to win our victories at the ballot box, not through the courts.

We’ve made enormous progress in the last 30 years. Let’s win this final battle in the right way, and not in a way that will indefinitely enrage and energize our opponents.

More power to the devout Catholics in your coalition. However, the hard truth is that homosexual couples cannot physically reproduce.

Michael,

I think extreme liberalism has taken the place of religion in the minds of its followers. If you look at the Soviets, there are many parallels. For example, the state took the place of religion.

You are correct Matt, that the Constitution does not say anything about Gay Marriage. But, it does forbid laws that create ‘second-class citizen’ status. This is what the Mass. Supreme Court decision was based on, and also the end to segregation laws in the South, in the 1960s’.

Though I’m a gay Christian who favors gay marriage, I agree with you that imposing it by judicial fiat would be appalling. I’ve asked gay friends to imagine how they’d feel if a solid majority of Americans favored gay marriage but were denied it by the supreme court of a conservative state like Alabama, and then denied it nationally by the US Supreme Court.

Yes, we need an election on this. And yes I realize I’m in the minority on the gay marriage issue and may not get my way soon, or ever.

In 1967, when the US Supreme Court struck down state laws banning interracial marriage, it was on the books in 16 states. Matt, how sure are you that put to a nationwide vote, Americans would vote to end this type of discrimination and creation of second-class citizens?

What percentage of Americans at that time, do you think considered the Supreme Court’s actions ‘judicial fiat’, ‘appalling’ and ‘tyrannical’?

In the recent Zogby Poll, the only age group with a majority support for Gay Marriage was 18-29 year olds (58%). There is a definite consensus that Gay Marriage is inevitable (yet, maybe not soon.) Why don’t we take care of this now, and get on to more pressing matters facing our country.

Finally Matt, I find it disappointing that a young gay man is not better informed, educated, engaged and aware, thus being prepared when such adversities will impact your life.

And if they vote for it. That would be a bummer, wouldn’t it ?

In defending your religious beliefs, you accuse your opponents of being ‘religious’ and ‘fanatics’, implying those thing are undesirable qualities.

Interesting. Do your own beliefs have a religious, fanatical fervor? Or only other peoples?

Hmmm. Seems I’m the one who keeps applying logic, and you keep blathering on about tradition. I think tradition has its place. I just don’t worship at its altar.

Once you decide to remove the guardrails of tradition based on thousands of years of experience you are now adrift in the brave new world of political force.

I take it you also have a problem with The Enlightenment? After all, that changed thousands of years of political and social thought. Who do those upstarts think they were, anyway? Messing with tradition that way! Damn Europeans.

And what about the American revolution? What, no king? Letting the unwashed masses vote??? Do they not understand the concept of Divine Right? What an absurdity! The Founding Fathers clearly had no respect for traditional monarchies. And then, to make matters worse, they separated church from state. Blasphemers. Pagans. Devil’s spawn. Doesn’t the Bible enjoin thus, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s…”? Where’s Caesar?

And then, radicals that we Yankees are, we give women a right to vote. Whatever happened to “Love, Honor and Obey”? What sort of society is this? No respect for tradition, I tell ya. Just no respect. Allowing men to make all decisions has served the human race since time immemorial. Just look at those paragons of moral virtue, the Arabs….oh, wait…bad analogy. Hmmmmmm.

Yes, Money, we’ve not only taken the “guardrails of tradition” off, we’ve thrown ‘em in the creek!

Have you gotten the point on how weak I think your ‘tradition’ argument is yet?

From your comments I sense a certain amount of hostility to Christianity when you dismiss “…a particular book two thousand years ago…” That little slip did expose to me a motivation that is repellent.

Again, sorry to hear that. I’m Catholic. I attended Catholic school. I took religion class every day. In fourth grade I was writing papers decoding the symbology of parables and making analogies to the modern world. I got A’s in religion. We had mass three times a week. I sang in the choir.

Guess what? I’m not religious. I don’t believe the dinosaurs were killed in the flood. I believe Darwin. I believe in radio-carbon dating. I believe in the big bang, not seven days. I don’t believe that the ‘word of god’ was ‘revealed’ to the Christian prophets any more than I believe it was ‘revealed’ to Mohammed.

I believe ethics can be deduced rationally. I’m a very ethical person. I don’t steal from people, hurt people except in self defense, etc.

If religion helps you live your life, I applaud that. Honestly. I’m not being snarky here. I have brothers and sisters who are quite religious. I’m not. I respect your right to be.

I do oppose the concept of theocracy. For information on this topic, see: A) Inquisition, the. B) Iran, Islamic Republic of. C) Galilei, Galileo. D) The Middle Ages, aka The Dark Ages.

Appeals to a “reasonable limit” are not allowed since they are strictly your personal opinions as to what constitute reason or limits.

This is why I suspect religion is a good thing for you, personally. You are clearly one of those who are rationally incapable of limiting your own behavior. You need to see it in writing as the word of god. Otherwise, you can’t think through situational ethics in a ‘logical’ way. My brother is that way. Without religion in his life, he’s unable to control himself. He becomes selfish, violent, completely without moral compunction. As long as he’s attending church regularly, he’s fine. I suspect you’re projecting your own behavioral shortcomings on society as a whole. I don’t think it’s justified. I believe western civilization is immeasurably more just than it was in the Middle Ages.

In addition, I’m not afraid of experiments. Maybe that comes from a technical education (post Catholic) where testing and experimentation are how one determines actual results. I also see the value in thought experiments, so I think it’s useful to debate things, explore potential benefits and costs, ahead of time. I think we should go slowly with this. I agree with that point. But I think we should go.

Finally, I oppose any attempt to classify criticisms of something based on religious beliefs as hate speech. That’s ridiculus and un-American. It also flies in the face of the First Ammendament. As my father likes to say, I may not agree with your opinion, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to have it.

Outrageous! As if the Constitution says anything about gay marriage either way.

Yes, we need an election on this. And yes I realize I’m in the minority on the gay marriage issue and may not get my way soon, or ever.

I do hope over time that a majority (including you) will be persuaded by the case for gay marriage.

Meanwhile I’m broadly sympathetic to your sense that imposing gay marriage through the courts would be tyrannical.

But you do damage your case with what seems like exasperated venting. Legalizing gay marriage would not “make Christianity illegal” any more than has legalizing divorce, porn, or extramarital sex.

And unlike divorce, porn, and extramarital sex, which are all examples of greater license, gay marriage is at least partly an impulse toward an ennoblement and an imposition of restraint, as the sex itself is already legal. I do think it’s different in kind from divorce, porn, and extramarital sex.