Dear Matt,
I read with interest your piece entitled “All My Fault...I’m Bringin’ Down Society” in which you respond to Charles Davenport's references to you in his article in the News and Record.
Your awe-shucks, “small, poor little gay boy” thing reminds me a little of Sam Ervin at the Watergate hearings!
But Matt, Charles Davenport is right about you. You are a force to be reckoned with and your awe-shucks humility will not change that fact.
You are dogged, persistent, relentless, focused, and determined to do what you believe to be right. I’d like to see a day or two go by without some new LGBT cause on the front page of greensboro101, but no, there you go again. Do you sleep?
And many small poor little boys like you, gay or not, have changed the world. Charles Davenport knows that.
In the culture war that is upon us you, my friend, are a formidable adversary, a worthy enemy, and a determined foe. You cannot be ignored or forgotten. You do not and will not go away. You will press the issue and press it again until you cause those who oppose your agenda to rise up and exert the same energy back that you are exerting, or else lose the war.
Matt, you remind me a bit of, well, me, thirty years ago, minus the gay part. When I was an older teen I was also dogged and determined and focused on issues that mattered much to me. I wonder sometimes where the fire, the passion went. I once was going to save the world from.....well, let me just leave it at that.
And I wonder...will you keep it up? Will you retain the passion? Will you stay on fire? I don’t know. I guess I hope not ;). But I think you will.
In the current culture war you are my enemy. Jesus says that I am to love my enemies, which means that I am to love you. I already respect you. And I already admire you. We will in the months ahead do battle in word and phrase as we find ourselves on opposing sides of one aspect of this present battle. But if we meet on the street, or in a coffee house, I hope we can meet as friends.
And as to this young skinny white gay boy awe-shucks thing, well, we both know that’s just a set up for a really good sucker punch.
Joel
Friday, November 10, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
38 comments:
"In the current culture war you are my enemy."
Matt is no threat to anybody who knows how to live and let live. It is only to those who want to control how other people live their lives that Matt is an obstacle.
Roch,
There are some things you just don't seem to get. You can't seem to see or even acknowledge that the gay/lesbian agenda is a serious matter, not just to busy body, stupid hyper religious nutheads, but great numbers of educated normal even compassionate citzens. There seems either to be a respect issue or an ignorance issue there. The cultural normalization of homosexuality and the redefinition of marriage impacts everyone, and everyone's children. The arguments that will eventually allow for gay marriage will open the door to a pandora's box of marriage options even homosexuals may not like. And the arguments themselves (primarily the argument based on "desire") lessens us as human beings - and even dehumanizes homosexuals. Now it would take me days and weeks to unpack all that so when you come back at me with your twenty follow questions/comments give me time, OK? By the way, I hope you see in my post respect for Matt, and I would hope that the respect I have shown for him you and others could show back towads us "Christian conservatives."
Joel, no disrespect in my observations, but go ahead, explain to me the reasons to fight Matt that do not entail wanting to control the lives of other people.
Hi Joel,
Thanks for the letter. I do understand, although I will not agree, with your thoughts and position. I did grow up with that kind of thinking and belief system, after all. I know it well.
Thanks for your kind words and, yes, I agree: the letter was very respectful. We've always been respectful and kind with each other and we've still been able to make sure that we each got our points across. Sometime the debates got heated, but even still the debates stayed pretty much respectful.
I also understand Roch's point, because it is something with which I agree. I see the movement of the Religious Right as one wanting to control my life, take my rights away, prevent me from receiving civil rights and glorifying, institutionalizing and Constitutionalizing discrimination against me and people like me in governments from the local and state levels to the national level.
I also see the movement of the Religious Right as a hateful one sometimes. You don't see me going around focusing on the sex lives of other people only to use that information against them, twisting it, mis-representing scientific studies and then making up lies to proclaim their lives as comparable to pedophilia, incest or bestiality (Don't misunderstand - I'm not saying you do this... Just some people, especially the leaders, of the "Religious Right" and "Christian Conservatives" and, I guess at one time, the "moral," "family values"-loving Republican Party).
BUT... I still respect you. And always will. Despite our disagreements, we are both believers of God (a.k.a. "Brothers in Christ" See I told ya' I grew up that way... I still know the lingo).
By the way... You do know that the whole "Sam Ervin at the Watergate hearings" thing is like so way before my time and I had to Google it to know what it meant, right? lol I guess it is a good thing to be compared to such a powerful man? On the other hand, he was a racist; a man of his time I guess.
Talk to ya later,
Matt
P.S. - The power you attribute to me (again, thanks) still doesn't change the fact that I'm a "young skinny white gay boy" lol. ;)
Matt,
Thanks for the kind words. Really, I truly respect and admire you. I hope you know that. I am replying to Roch, as well as to you. The tone changes a little.
You may have grown up with something, but I don't think you grew up with MY thoughts...so please, don't assume you did, OK?
And as you know I don't stand with those who spew out dehumanizing and hateful anti gay rhetoric. At a personal level, I don't like or dislike people who are gay any more or less than people who are not gay.
And you know, maybe in answer to Roch, I don't really care what you do or don't do in private. I am not snooping into the sex lives of anybody or trying to control them. I am not trying to control your private life in that sense. But marriage is a different matter altogether. Marriage is a public matter. Marriage is a community matter. Marriage and how it is defined involves everyone to some degree. Everyone has a stake in it. It is not a matter of me trying to control how other people live any more than the speed limit law is, or any other public law. All law, tax law, work safety law, whatever -- all law infringes on the freedom of people. All laws "control" people. Any new definition of marriage is still going to control people - it is going to exclude some people and some arrangements from being defined as legal marriage. Do you want to see for example a grown daughter free to marry her mother? Or two sisters marry? Or a brother and sister marry (assuming perhaps they are sterilized). What about threesomes - three women, or two women and a man, or vice versa? Are you going to limit marriage to two people? On what basis? Are you going to exclude incestuous marriage? On what basis? There is a point where you yourself are going to say, "no" that should not be included, and when you say that you will be controlling how other people live their lives. And we cannot use the current law as some rigid starting point, and from that law argue toward gay marriage using equal protection ideas, because who said that the current law has a valid moral, legal, or public policy basis? If it does then maybe the man-women part means something inherently significant. if it does not then maybe the "2" part has no meaning. And maybe the "incest" part has no meaning. If we throw out the man-woman thing there is no reason not to throw out the "2" thing. So, at what point will you say "no." At what point will you choose to control the lives of others. If there is no point at which you will say "no" then God help us all.
Fascinating post...thanks.
I wonder what percentage of the folks in church each Sunday are gay?
I see this topic as it relates to Christianity as being not very different than folks in church each Sunday that are having affairs...or breaking commandments.
I guess guys...break out the big guns and lets get everyone thinking.
thanks again to both,
"You don't see me going around focusing on the sex lives of other people..."
Matt, that's because you are too obsessed and focused on your own. That's what turns people off- your obsession with your sexuality.
It doesn't seem normal that somebody would view the whole world through the lense of who they choose to sleep with. Most people really don't care and don't understand why this is so compelling to you, so they just tune you out and wonder you can't find a different hobby.
It's sad that you have chosen to define yourself and your personality by such a weird thing.
Excellent post, Joel.
Two more points: first, marriage is about the interests of children to a greater extent than the desires of adults; and second, Stanley Kurtz has been demonstrating well that gay marriage in the Netherlands was followed by the decreasing frequency of heterosexual marriage in that nation.
And you are right, Joel. The gay activists are very determined, and will keep pressing until they prevail. That is why it is so critical to pay attention to the nomination and election of judges; and to get state constitutional amendements banning gay marriage passed.
I have to jump in here with my ultra liberal two cents.
I have to say I think its a VERY big jump to go from two committed people of the same sex getting married to the kind of incestuous nightmare scenario suggested here. This kind of rhetoric is pretty typical of the anti gay marriage movement, and in all honesty I think it's pretty ridiculous. Thats not to say that it might not someday happen, but I think if it does you can no more blame it on gay marriage that you can on inter-racial marriage or second marriages after divorce or any other cultural "milestone" that has been made in the past century.
As to why gay and lesbian activists are so focused on their sexuality, I might venture a guess. In the history of the civil rights movement, the first thing that a group of minorities tended to do was create a group identity. Its a very powerful and necessary component to being able to stand up to the discrimination you face as a group. It is no different than me identifying with a group of women in our quest to gain equal rights. It's only disturbing to those who seek to prevent those equal rights from being obtained.
As to the effects that gay marriage will have on society and children, I don't know. I can only imagine that it would be a good thing for the children involved. It seems to me that with the staggering numbers of children in need of families and the gains made in in vitro technology, gay couples with children will soon be the norm. Those children deserve to have the same protections and assurances (survivor benefits, insurance, a stable home environment) that children in straight couple homes have. In fact, I see this battle as ultimately becoming about protecting children in gay families more that any other argument.
There is an excellent book by Jonathan Rauch that puts forth a very rational argument for gay marriage that I suggest everyone take a look at.
Vada,
This is not "rhetoric" as in "mere rhetoric" nor as in "speech meant to inflame." This is cold hard argument and it is deadly serious. It is hardly a big logical jump from homosexual marriage to incestuous marriage or to multi partner marriage. Saying that is not meant as a scare tactic. It is to point out the inevitable consequence of this line of thought. The arguments for gay marriage are all also arguments for these other things as well. The arguments for the legitmacy of homosexual behavior based on desire or genetics are ultimately dehumanizing to the gay person, indeed, to the human person, making us no different than the beasts. Perhaps the almost historically universal definition of marriage as a public and legal contract and covenant between a man and a woman is not the same thing as those other expressions of human evil and fallenness and sin - such as racial and ethnic bigotry - that gay marriage advocates love to talk about. Perhaps the fact that there is no argument for gay marriage that is not also an argument for all this other stuff (incestuous marriage, multi partner marrriage, etc) suggests that the line belongs back before gay marriage - protecting marriage as being between a man and a woman. There is no legitimate equal protection right either, no good equal protection argument that I have read or heard, because equal protection requires not merely an existing legitimate law and practice to compare to, but a legitmate existing law or practice to compare to. And if the ground under the male-female aspect of present marriage statutes slides away, so also slides away the grounds for the other aspects of the present marriage statutes. Indeed, so slides away the grounds for marriage itself. So, at the end of the day, there is really no fundamental right one is equally protected and enabled to enjoy. The right that one is protected to enjoy is itself gone, swept away. There exists no real principle (or consequent practice), according to the gay marriage argument, to share equality with at the end of the day. So goes equal protection. And, so, therefore, all is permissable.
Meblogin, you brought up Christians and church and implied we're picking on gay people. Well, first one has to distinguish between desires and actions. Thus one has to distinguish between practicing and non practicing gay people. The biblical ideal is chastity, sexual expression within biblical boundaries. We would treat a praticing heterosexual adulterer or practicing heterosexual fornicator no differently than a practicing homosexual. Same with a practicing thief. Same with a practicing embezzler. Everyone in our church is a sinner and sins. Everyone falls short, misses the mark, is twisted from the norm, etc. We must forbear and forgive much in each other, and we do. We encourage one another toward holiness of life. We encourage one another toward obedience to the commandments of Jesus and the Apostles. But we are also to exhort one another each day that we will not fall prey to the deceitful nature of sin.
As to church, anyone can visit - no matter what. Our arms are open. Anyone can come and worship. We are normal folk. You'd probably like us. But, eventually, membership is open to people with a credible profession of faith in Christ, faith defined biblical sense as "repentant trust." Such practices as have been described above, continued without repentance and change, would undermine the credibility of such profession. It would be, well, a problem. We have dealt with many many issues over time, many things, but usually practicing gay people kind of know where to find acceptance and legitimization of their lifestyle. Usually churches with "United" at the beginning of the name will work for that.
Nice post Joel - very thoughtful. Now, to address some comments:
Joe G.:
"first, marriage is about the interests of children to a greater extent than the desires of adults"
Ok, so what do you say to the hundreds of thousands of children who are currently being raised by a gay parent or parents? Do they not deserve the stability that comes from marriage? Like it or not, there are many children with gay parents, so if it is really about the interests of the children, why don't you wan to give them as stable of an environment as possible?
"Stanley Kurtz has been demonstrating well that gay marriage in the Netherlands was followed by the decreasing frequency of heterosexual marriage in that nation."
It was also preceeded by a decrease for a long time before gay unions were legalized. In other words, the trend was occuring long before the supposed cause. Additionally, there is evidence of a correlation between gay unions and stronger heterosecual marriages.
Joel,
Regarding the idea of homosexual marriages leading to other forms of marriage: What are some reasons that you think incestuous marriages (for example) should not be allowed? What are the arguments against that sort of relationship? Or polygamy? Is the only reason not to allow them because you feel they are immoral, or are there other arguments against them?
Joel,
None of your explanations above refute my original observation, that your objections to Matt's activities arise from a desire to control how other people live their lives. You attempt to justify and rationalize, yet the underlying constant is that you are arguing for controlling how other people live their lives.
As you note however, we do enact laws that control how other people live their lives. Let's look at those kinds of laws. I see them breaking down into three types. First are restrictions that are imposed because the outlawed actions have the potential, or likelihood, of causing harm to another. With this intent, it is illegal to speed, to drive after drinking or to marry a child--all actions having the real likelihood of causing harm to another: a victim. It doesn't appear as if you are saying that restricting the actions of people based on their sexuality is necessary because their actions create consequences for third-party victims. You don't say that you, for example, would personally suffer if gays had equal rights.
The second are laws that are imposed to protect people from themselves. Laws that require motorcyclists to wear helmets, seatbelt laws, and prohibitions against driving an all terrain vehicle under the age of twelve are all laws that protect people from doing harm to themselves. It doesn't appear as if your arguments against "the gay agenda" fall into this category either.
The third type of legal restriction is against actions that we, as a society, determine would be detrimental to societal order. Such laws include prohibitions against using certain drugs These are the kinds of laws that we have a history of rejecting as our society fulfils the promise, over time, of our Constitutional freedoms. Laws of this type that we have since rejected used to include prohibitions against interracial marriage, prohibition of alcohol, sodomy laws and restrictions on access to contraceptives. This seems to be where you vest the weight of your arguments. You are right though, that we accept these kinds of laws as legitimate.
Even though we accept these kinds of laws, your justification for why societal order is at risk in this particular case is based on straw men and red herrings. Despite your assertion that you are engaged in "cold hard argument" you are, in fact, arguing against things that nobody is proposing. Rather than explain why extending the same rights of union now available to straight couples to gay couples would be bad for society, you substitute an examination of the issue at hand with boogie men examples of other things that society would find objectionable.
We are not discussing whether or not to allow a mother to marry her daughter or marriage to multiple partners. By definition, you are arguing against a straw man. Instead of tackling the question of why allowing gay people to form unions would be bad for society, you argue against things that nobody is proposing. Without creating imagined scenarios to argue against, do you have an argument against allowing gay people to marry? Let me put it another way: you wonder at what point to we say no to certain unions. Suppose we continue to say no to multiple partners, to inter-species unions, to adult-child unions--suppose we continue to say no to all those hypothetical and simple say yes to allowing an adult person to form a legal union with one other adult by mutual consent. Do you have any objection to that in and of itself--any objection to the question at hand and not the hypotheticals?
Anthony, a couple of points.
First, the initial link you provide is a gay marriage advocacy site.
Second, it is true that temporal relationships do not prove causation. That is true for any assertions of this type made by Kurtz or by Eskridge and Spedale. Eskridge is homosexual apparently.
Third, Kurtz provides a fairly significant rebuttal to Eskridge and Spedale on NRO on October 30, 2006 ("Avoidance Strategy"). His chief point-- the Netherlands is much different than the rest of Europe because it has had a full gay marriage law for five years-- longer than any other place in the world. The other places Eskridge cites have primarily had partnerships/civil unions.
But Kurtz makes many other points effectively in this brief article, and provides many links.
I do not regard gay marriage as a "right"-- that type of language is based on a very recent brand of political advocacy that is profoundly misguided. There is no "right" to marriage-- it is an institution whereby society confers a set of privileges in exchange for demonstrating societally beneficial behavior-- providing an appropriate context for the raising and support of children.
I am not at all persuaded by the fact that some homosexuals are raising children. These couples cannot, by natural biological means, conceive and have children. Therefore, their having children is primarily a result of fulfilling a personal desire and choice on their own part-- not as a result of any natural biological or natural order.
The fact that children are being raised by homosexual couples does not compel us to approve these arrangements, nor should it. The jury is out on the effect these arrangements have on the long-term well being of children with respect to gender identity, future sexual preferences, adherence to norms and other factors. I would argue that children should not be raised in these arrangements-- that is a societal decision that has been made in various states through various means, beneath the radar screen, and upon which voters have not really spoken. It has been allowed to happen, thereby assuring that it will happen with greater frequency, but that does not make it right.
But Anthony, if the primary concern here is to assure that children are raised in a two-parent family, I can suggest a number of legal measures that would make it much more likely that would happen much more often. All of these measures, however, have been bitterly and stridently opposed by elements of the political left because of factors having to do with individualism, sexual liberationism and welfare statism. I am not going to get into the specifics right now.
The stated concern over children being in two-parent families on the part of the political left to further the gay marriage debate unfortunately does not always spill over to other policy areas.
Interesting.
Roch brings up a lot of good points. Gay people aren't fighting for incest. We are fighting for simple rights that we need in order to take care of our families. Many of these rights are given, without question or doubt, to straight people.
Below is a portion of a comment I made in response to meblogin on one of the my companionate posts to Joel's post. The comment brings up important issues and things which gay couples are denied; simple things that just can't be argued against in my mind:
Legally, gay couples are not considered “family” and hospitals can use that against gay couples if the hospital has a “family-only” visiting policy for intensive care or emergency room service. People say that it doesn’t happen - my own aunt told me “Why do you have to bring sex into it; just say you are his brother.” - I have to sternly disagree. I’ve heard too many stories and experiences of people who have gone through this; it isn’t fiction or fantasy. Straight couples don’t have to lie. Husbands don’t have to say, “She is my sister.” A husband can walk into the hospital and say, “She is my wife,” and that would be accepted almost always without question or doubt, even if it weren’t true. I have heard stories of gay couples who have power-of-attorney agreements or even legalized domestic partnerships (in areas where they are legal) and the hospital makes them go home to get the paperwork before they are allowed to see each other. Do straight people carry around their marriage licenses? Are they required to show their marriage certificates at the hospital door?
Another major issue is what happens to a person’s life if his or her partner (I hate that word - I’d rather use “spouse” b/c partner just sounds like a police officer’s partner or business partner) passes away. It is even worse if the death is unexpected. What happens if there is no will? Politicians against marriage say “Just get a will.” Sometimes the death is unexpected. What happens if the couple is poor? Poor people can’t often afford lawyers and other legal help to draw up all the necessary papers that would, in theory, provide almost every protection that marriage would. Straight people get these protections automatically and for free (unless there is a marriage license filing fee or something), whereas gay people must spend loads of money on a great amount of legal counsel and paperwork.
I made a post on this very issue just a day or so ago. A young man had to fight IN COURT to keep his partner’s body in the grave they had chosen together before he died. The partner’s family wanted to void the wishes of the surviving partner - something that might not have happened as easily if the couple would have had a legal and civil recognition of their relationship. While the court sided with the surviving partner, it would have been very easy for the court to treat the partner as nothing more than a stranger (and that has happened before, NUMEROUS times in America), because legally and on paper, the partner is a stranger as the law does not include gay couples in the definition of “family.”
"it is an institution whereby society confers a set of privileges in exchange for demonstrating societally beneficial behavior-- providing an appropriate context for the raising and support of children." -- Joe
What then is the justification for extending that "priveledge" to people who cannot or will not raise children?
Roch,
You didn't include those several caveats in your original queston. And no, my argumnets are not red herrings. They are only red herrings to you because you want so badly, in order to make your case, to separate things that cannot and will not in fact be able to be separated. Thus your hypothetical question is not a part of the real world that I or you live in. It does not matter what you want or Matt wants or advocates - these things will come as winter follows fall. PotatoStew asks the more compelling question, and that is, so what? So what if these things do follow? What is the argument against them? On what grounds does one oppose them? And THAT question gets us all back to the real question which is that of grounds. What is the grounds for making any kind of marriage a privilege? Ultimately there has always been some sort of moral ground upon which the legal structure is built. But we have no moral consensus anymore. Thus it comes down to power, to the public mood, to votes, to the whimsical winds of opinion. Today we believe this, tomorrow that. Today we accept this, tomorrow that. Roch, why would you NOT advocate for incestuous adult marriages between consenting adults, say a grown up daughter and her mother? What possible reason can you give for denying that privilege? Back to your question of me. I oppose all the arrangements I have talked about for the same reasons, and those having to to do with the public good, and that determined by multiple factors - the moral well being of the body politic, our overall cultural well being and consequent pressures upon children as certain lifestyles are normalized, political freedoms as those opposed to such arrangements are marginalized and persecuted (yes, it is happening already), religious, pedagogical, as our children begin to be taught about the normalization of such things in our schools and silenced in their opposition, and so forth. I could go on and on.
Alright Joe... So if the world were to be run as you suggest, with no civil marriage for gay couples, how would you propose we solve the problems mentioned my comment: hospital visitation, survivorship issues (wills, lack of wills, inheritance, burial, etc), adequate care of children with gay parents, adoption of a child by the non-biological gay parent, what happens to the child if the biological parent passes away...
How do you propose we provide a legal and civil atmosphere that allows gay families to adequately, equally and fairly care for the families like straight families can?
"Alright Joe" That should be "Joel" not Joe. Ooops
Okay, I think I'm clear now. You have no objection to homosexual unions other than the horrible things you think they would lead to. Do I have that right?
Roch,
I assume by union that you mean marriage and we are talking about civil unions here. In that case, no, you don't have that right. I have common objection to same gender marriage, same family marriage, marriage in triplicate or more, etc. To me they are all the very same. No difference whatsoever. What possible moral/legal/ethical/cultural difference could there be between two adult sisters marrying, or a man marrying his grown son, for example, and a same gender marriage of non family members? So, no, I put them all together, and believe they will all happen, maybe not at the same time, but in time, and I don't think it is in the overall common good for our culture to be that way.
Matt,
Shoot, I thought I could punt that one to Joe :).
I'm going to answer the question in two ways. The first way will irritate you maybe. Well, so will the second, just less!
First, there is a presumption behind your question that these entities, these relationships, are already "families," that they already have or should have the rights and privileges that go with marriage. OK, so you're going, yeah, duh. But I think there is a cart before the horse issue.
And since I am not a big fan of gay and lesbian adoption, I may not be the one to ask that other question, though I will touch on it below.
However, second, the world is at it is. I am not proposing sodomy laws, and people are going to love and live with whom they choose. And if one person wants another person to have certain legal powers over one's own life, estate, and medical care, then that needs to be arranged for. Also, until there is a seismic shift in adoption policy the children of gay couples have to be protected via estate and inheritance laws. I do not know HOW that is to be all worked out but I think it needs to be.
OK look, you have a gay couple. One is dying. The dying one considers the other to be like I consider my spouse to be. He wants to include that other in a living will and in his actual estate, etc. He wants that other to have medical power of attorney. I think that stuff needs to be worked out even for the unmarried. Some (not all) benefits need to accrue to the unmarried that accrue to the married. I mean, you have almost all the same issues with non gay common law couples. So, if I were in political power, even with the views I hold, I would support such things, because you have to make policy for the world you live in. But I would draw the line for marriage as you know (no news here) as between one man and one woman.
Oh, and did I say I wish they had spell check in comments? I am a two finger typist and it takes me forever and I have to look at the keyboard and then edit as best as I can when I look up. Sorry for all the typos.
Oh, and go Deacs.
" To me they are all the very same. No difference whatsoever." -- Joel
Then honestly, Joel, I can't take your opinions seriously. In attempting to discuss this issue you insist on making it a discussion about something else. It's like trying to discuss whether or not people should be allowed to consume alcohol and you insisting that there is no difference between that and a discussion of allowing people to consume peyote, opium and cocaine.
Bottom line: When asked if there was anything inherently wrong with gay unions, you came up empty. The best you could do is conflate the issue with others. Not convincing. Really, if that's the best you've got (it might lead to daughters wanting to marry their mothers) you really should examine the compassion of your position for you are willing to ostracize people for no reason other than your fears of things they are not seeking.
Thanks Joel... You never quite said it, but I am taking your response as "yes, I'd support some legal recognition of gay couples, specifically for" the issues we've been discussing, even though you would draw the line at "marriage."
You said, however, "I mean, you have almost all the same issues with non gay common law couples."
You can't compare the two Joel. Non-married non-gay (straight) couples have the legal option of getting married. Gay couples do not.
Also... you talk about "making legal arrangements" which cost a butt-load of money sometimes. Straight couples don't have to do all that... all they have to do is go to their magistrate and get a practically free civil contract, a.k.a. marriage.
Really... what would be so wrong with giving the same legal and civil benefits that allow a family to take care of itself to gay families and their children?
Answer the question directly... Is it really against some moral or Biblical code to allow the government to allow people the same civil and legal protections as everyone else?
Dear Reader,
I deleted two of my own comments above because they were so filled with spelling and punctuation errors they embarrassed me. I pasted them into word, fixed them up, and combined them back into this comment. Although tempted to better my own points I did not. I mainly just copy edited. Joel
Matt,
You're right, the two are not the same, just as you say. Some heterosexual couples refuse to get married but want the legal benefits of marriage, which is totally not the same as wanting to be married, and the benefits of marriage, and not being able to have either.
As to your other question....there is not a specific moral/biblical "code" as to what privileges to allow anyone in a secular pluralistic nation. But as best as I can figure it out I would say "yes" to your answer.
Dear Roch,
The fact that the REASONS for which I would oppose normal gay marriage are ultimately the same as the reasons I would oppose say two sisters getting married does not mean I am "conflating" anything - it just means that the two things are similar. Nor does it nullify or weaken the case I have made at all that I oppose both. You can say this all you want but it does not make it so. I am opposed to these things for the same overall reasons. I turn the matter back at you. What argument can you make that would allow for gay marriage and not allow for adult incestuous marriage? I don't think you can come up with one that has any standing. You are trying to argue into a world that isn't our world. If in some unreal world sense the only issue at hand were gay marriage, I would oppose it for the reasons I have already stated - not having to do with the other things. Maybe you missed that part of my answer before. But that is a pointless exercise because it is academic – it is not the world we live in. And Roch, these kinds of arguments as I have made are the same as are made before the Supreme Court all the time - I have listened carefully to summaries of arguments many times between lawyers and justices. The effect of a law meant for one thing on another thing is very relevant. No law sits in a vacuum. You explain to me how the things I have compared are legally or morally different in any significant way. Again, opposing similar things for similar reasons is not the same as conflating the two things.
Joel, it seems like you were focusing on two separate issues: "cultural normalization of homosexuality and the redefinition of marriage". I say they are separate because Lawrence v. TX, what really pushed this debate, dealt specifically with anti-sodomy laws that essentially banned being gay. The move from that decision to the marriage debate was one consequence listed by Scalia in his dissent. It really helps to read his dissent because it does a good job of analyzing both sides of the argument, and reducing them to a fairly understandable level.
"State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers. validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding."
Scalia’s argument is that legislation based on morality has been and should be legitimate.
"The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional morals offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. The law, it said, is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral
choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.
[W]e have insisted not merely that the interest denominated as a .liberty. be fundamental. . . . but also that it bean interest traditionally protected by our society.); Moorev. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 503 (1977) (plurality opinion); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399 (1923)(Fourteenth Amendment protects .those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. (emphasis added)).All other liberty interests may be abridged or abrogated
pursuant to a validly enacted state law if that law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest."
Scalia focuses on the morality aspect, as you do, “On what basis? Are you going to exclude incestuous marriage? On what basis?” Scalia’s tactic is to say that the Lawrence v. TX decision invalidates any law based on morality. When I thought about that, I thought, on what basis are “age of consent” laws constitutional? Aren’t they just someone’s moral standard, one that has changed throughout time. If those laws could be struck down, it would be scary.
Then I considered the additional test to “a legitimate state interest”. “Age of consent” laws, laws against polygamy, incest, prostitution, drug use, all serve legitimate state interests, much more so than laws against the practices involving two consenting adults. If you take the 9 “offenses” listed by Scalia in the first quote, laws against 4 (by my count) don’t serve much of a state interest, besides the fact that they would not have the support to be enacted. Many of the things some argue will become legal as a result of the Lawrence decision, can still be outlawed because those laws serve legitimate state interests.
We should all remember that our constitution was not very fair as initially ratified, and the 14th amendment and due process did not solve everything. With regards to blacks and women, their rights were not assumed under the original Constitution and required specific amendments to enumerate them.
Thanks guys...
For a fellow who is on the fence about the ramifications of governmental recognition of gay marriage, this conversation has been enlightening from both ends of the argument.
"Gay marriage" ceremonies occur all the time in NC and elsewhere. I have attended one myself (I believe it was in a "United" church, Joel).
So, perhaps it is only semantics, but because gay couple can and do marry, the argument is not really for or against gay 'marriage' from my perspective. The flap is about the civil rights that are bestowed, or not, to couples depending on their sexual orientation.
Joel;
I don't believe that Jesus would find Matt to be a threat.
To Anonymous,
I don't believe that Jesus would find anything or anybody to be a "threat." That is not the issue.
To David,
Yes, churches can and do "marry" whomever they please pretty much. And yes, we've been talking about civil unions, unions the State recognizes as marriages. Matt has rightly also pointed out the reverse. That if the State allows civil unions between gay people, that would not require the churches to do so. I don't know if that would be sustained over time but for now that is true.
To Jim,
Your comments are hepful and seem to be getting to the heart of the matter. We're all doing the best we can here but few of us, certainly not me, are constitutional/philosophical/political science scholars. I agree and have tried to make the case that law is grounded in somebody's sense of morality and/or that thing we call the public good, which is in my lingo similar to what you refer to as the "state interest." I don't think that the "public good" can be separated from somebody's definition of "good" which brings us back to a moral/ethical issue. We tend to look at morality too narrowly I think. Having said those things it does not go without saying what issues we look at more strictly from a moral viewpoint and what we look at from a public good or state interest standpoint. To all I say, friends, these are not easy matters. This is cutting edge stuff and we're striving together with good intentions to do what's right and best
Jim, I don't see how you can argue that normal gay marruage is not against the public good or state interest but say sibling gay incestuous marriage is. I don't see that.
I am on the other side obviously of the question of gay marriage as being in the the interest of the public good or interest of the state, but I appreciate the other view point, and am learning a lot as these discussions develop. One thing I am learning is that I need to study more my constitutional law. Thanks for the good citations.
"The fact that the REASONS for which I would oppose normal gay marriage are ultimately the same as the reasons I would oppose say two sisters getting married..."
Well, that's all I'm asking. What are the reasons you oppose gay marriage?
Roch,
Since the reasons are the same why don't you ask me what are the reasons I would oppose two sisters getting married. But I asked YOU that.
Roch, I believe I have answered this question explicitly and implicilty in this thread already, a thread all coming out of a post which was not meant to be an argument for anything, but an expression of good will toward Matt, and an attempt to show how we as neighbors may find ourselves on oppostie sides of significant issues and yet be loving and neighborly to one another.
There is no way I can do what you want me to do. I cannot simply isolate the one matter and separate what cannot and will not be separated. I see already before me that if I say this, you will say that, and if I say that, you will say this, and we'll spin around in circles til the cows come home. I am perfectly aware of the corner that I am being backed into, whether intentionally or not, and I am not going to be backed into it. So I am going to take a break for a little while from this thread. It has already dominated one weekend of my life. Maybe after a few days the cobwebs will clear and I will see a way to answer differently than I have answered that will both satisfy you and not allow me to step into the rhetorical trap I see being set before me.
It's a simple question, Joel. Why would gay marriage be bad for society? Because it might lead to a daughter marrying her mother. Got it.
Roch.
Now you're just being a smart ass. I'm the President of the local smart ass club, and you are violating rule number 142, which is, you can't be a smart ass to the presedent of the smart ass club. Fec was the President but there was a coup a few weeks ago. Somehow they got hold of old transcripts of my mother talking to me (left wing government snooping I think), and kept hearing "smart-ass" smart-ass," so they chose me.
Look Roch, did you read my last post? Give me a break man. I will try to figure out a way to answer your question (which I have answered already to a significant degree), in a way you want answered, but which will not allow myself to be snookered into a corner, and which will not force me to separate what I cannot separate. I can't blog all day every day. Just wait already.
Joel- I'm tired of honoring Matt as a young, potential leader. His positition is clear, he believes the Bible's references to sexuality are no longer relevant, that people like you and me who believe it is not only relevant, but the Word of God- are proponents of hate and evil. I think he's part of a movement that twists the truth for hits own gain.
Chip,
From our perspective Matt twists and shapes the Bible to meet his personal desires and poltical agendas. Obviously many disagree with our perspective. However that is viewed, Matt is a leader. He is influential. That is undeniable. And he is our neighbor. That too is undeniable. Sadly, as the nature of our culture continues to be molded and shaped, the pushing and pulling can rightly be refered to as a culture war. On the issue Matt is most passionate about (not all issues, and not all aspects of that issue) we are on opposite sides, thus I can use the language of being enemies in the culture wars. He is a leader of the opposition so to speak. But you asnd I are told by our common master how to treat our enemies. We are told to love our enemies We are also told how to treat those who may persecute or mistreat us (which demonizing and stereotyping us is a variety of). So, I think we owe Matt an appropriate honor and love do to his, a. being created in the image of God, b. being our neighbor, c. being a leader in the community, and d. being our enemy in the culture war.
And besides, I like Matt.
As to his Christian profession while maintaining a gay lifestyle, well, since he is not in our fellowship, or in our affiliation, and since it is not my job to address every professing Christian's error in the world, I think I should just let Matt say what Matt wants to say about himself, as he does me. If this were a church matter and not a community matter it would be different as we all know.
Please discuss the other subjects in the Bible that are no longer followed.
As a child I tried to be a friend to most including the boys and girls that were "different....sigh...". Some grew up to be gay and most of us would have guessed they would.
What about them? Were they broken 1st graders? Of course not...don't be silly.
There are so many messed up hetero couples.....let our children be in loving households.
tough topic---
meblogin,
name the subject...
Do I think SOME people are tending toward being gay by first grade? Yes. People are tending towards a lot of things by first grade. That does not make it good or bad.
There are also countless good hetero couples...plenty enough for children who need homes.
Yes, it is a very hard subject.
If one has concerns about homosexuality, that person is labeled by many, at the least biased, and at the most a hater or bigot. It's not politically correct to voice them and to do so one faces reprisals. Just ask Jim Talcott's receptionist, if you need a second opinion on that. Tell her I sent you.
As I have had concerns and questions about homosexuality, in some eyes that makes me a bigot, or a hater. But what someone believes about me, or Matt, Roch, or anyone, doessn't make it true.
So attach your labels, to me, to any, to all, and go right on believing and defending whatever it is you believe to be 'right'. Just remember that doesn't make it so.
Post a Comment