Long time readers of this blog will know that I’m in favor of gay marriage. But then they also know that I’m in favor of it for hard-headed, realistic reasons. Marriage confers various financial benefits that shouldn’t be exclusive to heterosexual couples.
Unfortunately, many people want to talk about “rights” when it comes to marriage, gay or otherwise. This is self-defeating, since marriage and the benefits attached to the institution are hardly rights as we understand them. If they were, then every unmarried person could demand that someone marry them. After all, if marriage is a right then being single when you don’t want to be is a violation of those rights.
The voters are smart enough to understand that marriage isn’t a right. That’s one of the reasons why they’re completely put off by the heated rhetoric being flung about by the people who support gay marriage.
Just about every credible opinion poll I’ve read shows a very strong opposition to gay marriage. The number of people who oppose civil unions aren’t as high, and some polls actually show that a majority of people support some sort of way to insure the same legal advantages to gay couples just as long as it’s not called marriage. (I’m talking about civil unions.) This is understandable to me, even if I don’t agree with it.
Jeff at Alphecca has a post where he discusses the major issues that were in play during the recent election. He briefly mentions gay marriage.
Several states have just passed bans on “gay marriage”. A long time ago I had said that if the “gay lobby” as it were, were to take small steps — start with simple equal rights, win over the hearts of their opponents by showing that they are just normal hardworking people, they would get them. Then another step towards “domestic partnerships” or civil-unions or what-have-you. They would get them: Two-thirds of Americans — including many who oppose gay “marriage” — support the legal rights (wills, visitations, taxes) of gays and lesbians. Exit polls suggest that they WOULD go for something “not called marriage”. If they had followed that strategy, I’d be willing to bet good money that within twenty years they would actually have gay marriage in name.
But activists wanted it all at once and whenever you introduce such a sudden social change, especially via the courts, well, “every action causes an opposite and equal reaction”. Or something like that. It doesn’t help when hundreds of thousands of gays march in parades every June dressed in nothing but thongs, or S&M paraphernalia, or as giant condoms, and then wonder in amazement that “middle America” doesn’t rush to embrace them. I get embarrassed over such antics and I’m gay.
I have to say that I agree with this. It would appear that a goodly portion of the opposition to gay marriage is due to the liberal elite trying to force it down America’s throat. It certainly doesn’t help when they claim that anyone who is opposed to GM is slime under the feet of a reasonable person’s feet. Bitter name calling is certain to rally people to the other side, not cause them to slink off in shame.
Persnickety at Ordinary Galoot decided to blog about some post-election issues while drunk. This means that her prose is somewhat sharp, but she has a point that those who support gay marriage are putting the cart before the horse.
You say you want gay marriage made legal, and you don’t even know what gay marriage is. You won’t sit down and figure it out, you just whine and look for judges willing to piss on the constitution and the concept of balance of power. Are you really so stupid that you don’t see the potential consequences? Because if you are truly that DUMB STUPID BLIND, you deserve to be locked in a room with sun-emus forever and ever and ever, with nothing to eat but 3-day old fish and nothing to drink but Coors light. It would serve you right.
Quit fucking up the English language. Marriage means the union of a man and a woman, always has, always will. Deal with it.
If you want marriage, grab yourself someone of the opposite sex and go to it.
If you want something other – work towards it in a logical manner, within the framework of the laws in place. What you actually want, although you are apparently too daft or too whiney to realize it, is a shortcut way to contract for a union between two members of the same sex. You’ve no business calling this contract ‘marriage.’ Have a contest, come up with a different name. I like ‘homonogomy’ myself – to me, it has a cozy, homey sound, as opposed to civil union (too cold) or carnal union (too decadent). But it’s your union, up to you. Have a contest, take a poll. Whatever. But don’t steal a word that doesn’t belong to you.
And decide, among yourselves, exactly what you want that word to mean. Does a homonogomous union mean that each partner is the other’s next of kin? Fine. Automatic step-parent in the case of kids? Fine. Domestic partner, for those companies that provide for such things? Fine. Whatever. But dammit, decide. Come to consensus amongst yourselves, work out the legal paperwork, then present a bill to your state legislature. Ask for homonogamy to be considered a contract, similar to but not the same as, marriage or whatever. Don’t forget to deal with divorce while you’re at it, suckers.
This is also something that I agree with. Marriage never did include same sex couples, so we’re talking about a fundamental change in one of the most emotionally laden traditions in our society. (Or any society that ever existed, for that matter.) It’s astounding how inept those who are trying to effect this change have been.
Mindless Dreck at Asymmetrical Information was inspired to write this post in rebuttal to something that Andrew Sullivan wrote. He suggests that the quickest way to get support for gay marriage is to abolish the benefits that traditional marriages bestow.
This is, obviously, completely unworkable. You’d never be able to get any support from the voters for something like this, and anyone who suggested it in order to generate support for gay marriage would be run out of office so fast that they’d be lucky to leave town in front of the impeachment proceedings.
In my lifetime I’ve seen civil liberties advance light years. It appears to me that the recent attempts to secure legal recognition of same sex marriage has done nothing but damage the cause. The main reason for this is due to the arrogance of the people at the forefront of the movement to bring about this change. Considering the rhetoric that I’ve heard since the election, they haven’t learned a thing by their defeat at the polls. It’s now extremely unlikely that we’ll see any meaningful improvement for the next ten years.
This is a pity.