Centerfield

I actually think it works as "red meat" for at least a while yet. On the whole, the political reaction has gone the other way -- all 11 states who put it on their ballot passed measures outlawing gay marriage, including a couple of blue states (Oregon and Michigan).

I hope public opinion shifts the way you suggest, but we're going to have to go from a climate where people put anti-gay measures in their state constitutions to one where they favor them, and that's a fairly long trip.

You have a valid point. I think civil unions, which really aren't any different--they just make people feel more comfortable, will be the trend. Yes, a few states have even banned those in their amendments, but I'm not sure that those bans will stand up in court. Much like abortion, it may be a decision eventually decided by the courts, and radical opposition will continously decrease.

I think the guy you quoted about "not making a big deal about it" is stating a very profound truth. Gay rights were winning until activists started making a big deal about it. The problem is, IMO, that the gay rights activists aren't satisfied with just having people accept gays--they want to be embraced. They want more than tolerance and I think that was a key mistake. Let's face it--a lot of people couldn't care less what gender someone chooses to sleep with. But if it's thrown in their face, they may find it uncomfortable. That's what I think happened with gay marriage--the court rulings brought the issue into people's faces and brought out some latent discomfort with the kind of rapid social change that gay marriage implies. It's quite possible for people to have ambivalent feelings--to tolerate homosexuality but to feel uncomfortable with it at the same time. It's clear that the culture, for the most part, has become more and more willing to accept homosexuality. Yet, the insistence by gay activists that the society do more than simply accept gays, IMO, created problems by trying to force people to think a certain way about gays rather than just accepting a certain ambiguity that was likely to be moving toward more inclusivity rather than less.

This is where I think the Democratic Party is between a rock and a hard place. Liberals and activists insist on purity of heart and are unwilling to accept partial victories. When I have suggested on liberal blogs that we need to soft pedal social issues, it always comes back as "we aren't going to abandon [pick the group]. This insistence on purity is killing the Democrats, IMO. This may eventually happen with the GOP as well, but so far, the religious right has been willing to live with its left wing as Democrats have been unwilling to live with its right wing.

Abel, I think you are wrong about court decisons minimizing radical opposition--I think they are more likely to increase it.

What Marc said. I worked for three years to keep the gay marriage amendment off the Kansas ballot. We failed this spring. By forcing the issue into the spotlight, gay activists sparked a backlash and set back their own cause by years. All in the name of righteousness (both sides).

Most people can manage acceptance and tolerance and accomodation, and that's the way it was trending before the "in your face" activists got on a roll. But people resist like hell if you try and force the legal sanctioning of official governmental/societal approval on them.

Case in point, I have no problem with gay couples obtaining the same rights and priveledges under the law as straight couples. I know a few gay people and I like them all (i.e. the ones I know). But reading that Globe article, in spite of the intended jest regarding the authors feelings, gave me a case of the willies. Yuck!

children would grow up confused as to which sex they should select

I am very much in favor of extending full civil liberties to gays via the extension of marriage rights or civil unions that include all of the same right sas marriage acknowledges. I had gay friends in college. I have many gay colleagues that I value, respect, and consider friends.

But I'd say the jury is still out on this one cited above, and we should be honest and fair-minded in acknowledging it. My suspicion is that a preference for either heterosexuality or homosexuality varies across the population. Some people are strongly predisposed one way or the other, but not all of them. It makes sense to me that those with some ambivalence have thus far been making their choices at least in part based upon culture cues.

So I expect that increased acceptance may well lead to some increased incidence of homosexuality and bisexuality. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, and I have no idea how much. But I find the "no change whatsoever" hypothesis a little strong, and maybe a little wrong.

It is almost certain to lead to additional confusion. Especially during puberty. More choices, more confusion. I'm just not convinced that for every person, sexual choice is purely a matter of genetics.

If either choice is acceptable, there would be no reason for confusion. Go with one, the other or both. What's it matter? The confusion comes from having feelings that you are told are wrong. Non-choices are more of a problem than choices. That's just my opinion, of course.

I don't disagree that there may be more home/bi-sexuality in a truly accepting and open society, even beyond that attributable to the elimination of the need to stay in the closet.

I think my point about "not making a big deal out of it" was mis-construed. In no way was I saying that activism was the politically sensible way of going about acceptance. I personally feel that the movement made a strategic error in focusing on gay marriage, instead of say, "don't ask don't tell."

However, it is midly amusing to me that someone would espouse the belief that someone can have rights "if they don't make a big deal about it." It just struck me as a comment that would have been made to an African-American in the 1950's...such as instructing them to part their hair down the side and avoid any semblance of an accent.

I don't think people should be forcing their beliefs on others...I believe that about both sides of an issue. I simply found that sentiment of "it's okay but don't make a big deal" amusing.

"However, it is midly amusing to me that someone would espouse the belief that someone can have rights "if they don't make a big deal about it." It just struck me as a comment that would have been made to an African-American in the 1950's...such as instructing them to part their hair down the side and avoid any semblance of an accent."

That's not really a good analogy. No one is saying gays should pretend to be straight. And, of course, gays are in a completely different situation than African-Americans in the 50s; the society is clearly moving toward greater acceptance and more equality. That was not true of African-Americans in the 50s, at least not in the South.

I think the crux of the issue is that most people don't have any problem affording people that are different then them equal rights. People DO have a big problem when they start to get the feeling that thier emotions, beliefs and "acceptance" toward such individuals are being forcibly legislated.

People want the freedom to NOT "accept" things that make them uncomfortable on a private level. I have no problem with same-sex couples being granted the same rights as me and my wife have. At the same time I do view homosexuality as somewhat "abbarant", and I do want the freedom to CHOOSE not to asociate with such individuals and to CHOOSE to believe that same-sex marriage is not "real marriage"..... and I don't want my freedom to holds those views banned by legislation.

The way the gay rights campaigns have been run, it feels like what is being advocated for goes beyond a mere establishment of equal protections and equal rights to enforced legislative "acceptance" on an individual level. That's why I think it's seen such a backlash...and where the "not make such a big deal of it" rhetoric stems from. Probably the exact same legislation could be pushed succesfully if the tone in which it was pushed was different.

If either choice is acceptable, there would be no reason for confusion. Go with one, the other or both. What's it matter? The confusion comes from having feelings that you are told are wrong.

What matters is that choices have consequences. it's the thinking about the disparate consequences that follow from choices that make people confused and conflicted. And I think that's the sense in which the argument has been made that cultural acceptance of homosexuality would engender (pun intended) confusion among adolescents.

I don't say this to reject or minimize the notion that social condemnation has negative effects upon homosexuals. Moreso than making them feel confused, I think it makes them feel bad.

I think conflating the idea of confusion with societal condemnation obscures this important point. Let me stress that I'm not arguing that the concern is serious enough to continue witholding civil rights. I'm only saying that the objection that increased societal acceptance of homosexuality may lead to increased adolescent confusion is a valid point.

I think you'll find the "withholding civil rights" argument weak. There is no historical legal right to same-sex marriage. And no one is withholding any existing rights. It's just that right to opposite-sex marriage doesn't help them much.

When I say "witholding civil rights" I'm not implying that an exisiting codified legal right is being held back. I'm very much speaking idealistically in such instances. Slavery was once legal, and I were alive then, I'd have said that slaves were being denied their civil rights. Anyone could have argued against this by saying There are no historical legal rights for slaves. And no one is withholding any existing rights. The constitutional right had yet to be defined and expounded upon.

IMO, and narrow constitutionalists may disagree, "all men are created equal"(in the eyes of the law) tells me all I need to know. Both for slaves and for marriage rights.

Which creates a new right to same-sex marriage how? The right to opposite-sex marriage is not very personally useful to gays. Just as the right to a first-trimester abortion isn't very personally useful to me. That lack of usefullness of an existing right doesn't create a right to same-sex marriage any more than my being male creates a right to a uterus.

No one is locking them in pens, selling them on the auction block, etc., so the "slave" angle is a poor comparison. The Constitution hasn't defined gays as three-fifths of a person for apportionment purposes. They can vote, buy and hold property, be txaed, etc. The point is that gays enjoy all of the same legal rights as any other citizen right now. You can not deny or withhold that which does not exist. We are not speaking of extedning to gays rights that others already have and they do not, but of creating new rights for gays.

Understand that I'm in favor of letting adults make their own personal arrangements, including polyamorous ones if they see fit. I'm just pointing out the problem with arguing that any established rights are being denied or withheld. The "equality" argument has some major flaws.

typical conservative narrowmindedness. he supports gay marriage, and therefore he *is* gay. I understand that you have no sense of empathy, but do you believe that no one does? I guess that would require empathy as well. Shame.

"The right to opposite-sex marriage is not very personally useful to gays. Just as the right to a first-trimester abortion isn't very personally useful to me."

I don't get it. How is opposite-sex marriage not very personally useful to gays?

I'm just pointing out the problem with arguing that any established rights are being denied or withheld. The "equality" argument has some major flaws.

I'm not arguing that an established right is being witheld. I thought I made that clear. If not, my bad. What I'm saying is that IMO this right is implicit in the words of the constitution despite the fact that the legal system has NOT clearly established this particular detail of its application.

The fact that antigay marriage forces are trying to fortify ambiguous documents by adding specific bolstering that explicitly states that marriage is between a man and a women strongly suggests that exactly which marriage rights do and don't exist is not clear.

Currently, heterosexuals may marry and gays for the most part may not. So it perplexes me that you say ...gays enjoy all of the same legal rights as any other citizen right now. You can not deny or withhold that which does not exist.

Please disregard my previous post. I read (and typed, myself) "opposite-sex" as "same-sex." The bulb mysteriously went on over my head a few minutes later when I wasn't even thinking about it. I so see what you mean now, but disagree with your point. I think your playing a game of semantics, Tully.

I find it interesting that so many people blame gay activism for their rejection of gay rights. One right that we are NOT guaranteed is a right to be "comfortable" with our neighbors. Gay americans are a minority being treated differently under american law. Whether or not you're comfortable with homosexuality or feel that gay right's groups have gotten uppity or something is completely irrelevant. This issue is a lot more important to couples who face uphill battles over child custody, visitation rights, insurance coverage and serious medical decisions than it is to those of us who would rather not see two men kissing.

Suggesting that the uselessness of opposite-sex marriage to gays means that gays are not being denied an existing right would be the same as suggesting that, since male voting rights are useless to women, women were not denied an existing right before they were allowed to vote.

That opposite-sex marriage is useless to gays is the very reason gays are being denied existing rights.

The analogy to abortion rights is specious since a man has no way to exercise the right to an abortion. Gays are certainly capable of enjoying the rights and priveleges of marriage.

I agree with you about the injustice of the situation, Brian, I'm pointing out holes in making legal claims about "rights." I've known plenty of gays who were married to opposite-sex partners at one time or another. Obviously marriage as it has been known throughout history is not a right being denied them. Marriage to same-sex partners, a previously non-existing "right," is not being implemented for them. I doubt the Supreme Court will find an implicit right to same-sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution. They upheld the anti-polygamy laws as constitutional and found ample justification. Making same-sex marriage legal will require changing the law mostly outside the judicial process, either piecemeal or in whole. Piecemeal was already proceeding. Insisting on "in whole, right NOW" is what provoked the backlash. And that put a crimp in the progress of piecemeal.

WHQ, law is semantics, fine distinctions of meaning. And I'm talking about the emotional rhetoric versus the reality of the law. You won't get any argument from me that gays are discriminated against because of prejudice. You won't get any argument from me that they cannot exercise some traditional rights of married couples because they don't have the right to legally marry same-sex partners. But failure to provide a new right that has not previously existed for anyone is not the same as denying rights that exist for everyone. That good analogies are impossible to find shows by itself that the situation is unique and unprecedented.

The fact that antigay marriage forces are trying to fortify ambiguous documents by adding specific bolstering that explicitly states that marriage is between a man and a women strongly suggests that exactly which marriage rights do and don't exist is not clear.

If I understand the Nebraska court decision overturning the state amendment correctly, the crux of it is that the referendum overstepped constitutionality by restricting to opposite-sex married couples many rights that extend well beyond marriage to other family, and that can also be voluntarily extended by choice and contract. Huzzah! The harder the opponents try to pin down the details of what the rights of marriage are (and screw it up by claiming too much) the more exposure the injustices will get, and the more of those rights will be judicially acknowledged as not being strictly "marital" rights. That's "judicial piecemeal." It eventually leads to "civil unions," where the rights of marriage (if not the label) can be found.

KevBC--please understand the distinction I'm making. The emotional arguments won't sway the Supreme Court, and (my point) the legal arguments are weak. That leaves the legislative approach, and you don't win that one by pissing off a majority of the electorate. Quite the opposite. That's not blame-storming, it's reality. Read the vote counts.

duus--you forgot the "f" in the middle of your name.

"But failure to provide a new right that has not previously existed for anyone is not the same as denying rights that exist for everyone."

I guess I can see what your point is in the above. No one has ever been allowed to marry someone of the same sex, but everyone has been allowed to marry a member of the opposite sex. If a gay man wants to marry a woman, he is just as free to do so as a straight man. It's an interesting take on the issue. I then have to agree with the distinction you are making, but I don't accept it as a justification for denying homosexual couples the rights, priveleges AND IMMUNITIES (I just added that one to my standard language - the three are directly from my diploma) now conferred to straight couples under the law. It's a valid distinction none the less.

why all the bluster will be rendered moot by time.

Zogby poll 2001 of American HS teens
# 88% report they have heard classmates use the phrase "that's so gay" and half have heard gay students called "faggot," "homo," "dyke," or a similar name
# Over 85% say that gays and lesbians "should be accepted by society" and over 77% agree that "gay people contribute in unique and positive ways to society."
# 88% favor laws to protect gays against hate crimes and 79% favor laws to protect gays against job discrimination.
# 66% say marriages between homosexuals should be recognized by law as valid with the same rights as traditional marriage, while only one-third of adults hold this position.

Thanks for listening and getting the point, WHQ. I'm not arguing against the social justice issue AT ALL. I spent many long moons over the last few years lobbying at the state house, trying to keep that ****** "marriage amendment" OFF the ballot. I'm just trying to show some of the problems with legal arguments based on "denied rights" claims.

The problem is that justice and law don't always go along together. Sometimes they don't even date.

Here's another angle. Mary wants to marry Joe, and she can because she is a woman. Mike wants to marry Joe, but he can't because he, Mike, is a man. Is Mike being denied a right that Mary has because of his sex? Is this, though not discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, discrimination on the basis of sex?

Yeah, Marcus, most of us here agree that time is on the side of the extension of civil marriage rights to gays and full acknowledgement of them as equals in cases where we still fall short as a culture. It does undoubtedly appear to be a generational thing. It's like adding drops of clean water to a polluted bucket. The water in the bucket always gets cleaner, slowly, but never becomes entirely unpolluted.

Is this, though not discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, discrimination on the basis of sex?

Obviously. But the operative question is, is this illegal or unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of sex? Not all discrimination is illegal or unconstitutional. Mike does not have a legal right to marry Joe in particular (nor does Mary). Mike has a right to marry someone of the opposite sex, if the marriage is not otherwise barred by law. Mary can't marry Joe if Joe is her brother, for example.

Fundamentally, marriage is a social institution recognized in law. My personal thought is that it's a lot easier to change a social institution through social "evolution" than it is to change it through the law.

The Supreme Court decision of Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down the Texas anti-homosexual-sodomy statute, is widely claimed by both the pros and antis as having opened the door to legal gay marriage. I have considerable doubt. In my non-attorney reading, it seems that the majority opinion carefully side-stepped the relevant principles. Not that a narrow SC decision is unusual. They try to keep them as narrow as possible.

Call it "marriage," and 2/3's are against. Call it "civil union," and 2/3's seem to be somewhat supportive or accepting, if not in favor.