the conservative case for same sex marriage

[Diemen]

so what kids are going to be better off:

those with a gay dad and a lesbian mom?

Well, they won't ever suffer the trauma of walking in on their parents doing it, so they've got that going for them.

 

[yolland]

There's no getting around the self-stunting sadness of faking enthusiasm at marrying someone you could never love just to please your parents. But to look at it optimistically, in their own way these "fake" marriages could be seen as a step forward--you still feel obliged to act like what your parents expect you to be, yet for the first time you're asserting some agency in that process by choosing someone you won't have to lie to for it. And it's a country where arranged marriage remains widespread enough to be normative (especially the modernized, choose-your-spouse-through-an-interview type, which is basically what this is), so there perhaps isn't quite the sense of insult-added-to-injury you or I might find in the coldly contractual nature of it.

Hard to perceive any hopeful progress in terms of what longterm message this level of deception sends to children, though.

 

[Irvine511]

There's no getting around the self-stunting sadness of faking enthusiasm at marrying someone you could never love just to please your parents.

many parents would much rather the deception to the reality, and many parents actually encourage this as a preferable alternative than having to suffer the indignity of a gay child.

we had discussions about the paramount need to please one's parents in (stereo)typically Asian cultures -- this seems a logical extension of the Tiger Mom phenomenon. with hard work and practice, you can learn not to be too lesbian and perform the rote mechanics of heterosexuality enough to score, if not an A, at least a B+ on the exam.

 

[yolland]

If you're convinced homosexuality reflects a diseased mind or soul, I doubt you'd be able to properly support a gay child's maturation into adulthood no matter which parenting model you followed. Parenting isn't brainwashing, but it's not a revolutionary arena either; basically you have to raise kids who can function well within the surrounding culture and society, and that does impose certain limitations. At least in our (mainstream) culture it's possible as a last resort to cut yourself off from destructive parents, while still retaining the ability to look at yourself in the mirror afterwards. Elsewhere that may not be true.

you can learn...to score, if not an A, at least a B+ on the exam

But that's basically what arranged marriage is, you know? I'm not trying to equivocate on there being hierarchies of advantage there, but by its very nature, it doesn't prioritize "what you really love to do."

 

[Irvine511]

it doesn't prioritize "what you really love to do."

or who you really love.

 

[deep]

But that's basically what arranged marriage is, you know?

historically (and factually speaking) that is the true traditional marriage
.

 

[yolland]

Oh absolutely, I wasn't suggesting it was some weird aberration. It's 'love marriage' that's the newcomer historically.

 

[deep]

Obama: DOMA Unconstitutional, DOJ Should Stop Defending In Court

a bold move

 

[Irvine511]

President Obama has instructed the Justice Department to no longer defend the Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, the legal prohibition on federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement that the Department will stop defending the policy because it has now been challenged in the Second Circuit, "which has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated."

"After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny," he said. "The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President's determination."

Holder said that despite the decision, his department will "remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation." He added that members of Congress can still elect to defend the statute and that Justice will "work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation."

Still, the reversal is a major victory for gay rights advocates. After a district judge ruled in July that DOMA is unconstitutional, Justice announced it would appeal the ruling, arguing it has an obligation to defend all federal laws. That angered the gay rights community, which was quick to note President Obama's campaign promise to repeal the policy.

The administration stood by its position despite the criticism, filing a brief in January defending DOMA. The brief argued that DOMA "is supported by an interest in maintaining the status quo and uniformity on the federal level, and preserving room for the development of policy in the states."

A 2009 Justice Department brief defending DOMA caused particular anger in the gay community, in part for referencing a case involving "marriage of uncle to niece" to support maintaining the policy.

The change in policy comes roughly two months after Mr. Obama signed a bill allowing for the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy to be ended, a moment he cast as a move toward equality for all Americans. He has said twice in recent months that while he still opposes same-sex marriage, his position is "evolving."

DOMA mandates that the federal government not recognize same-sex marriages and that states not be forced to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20035398-503544.html

Here's the entire text of the letter from the Department of Justice to Speaker Boehner.





pretty big.

also looks like MD is about to pass SSM via the legislature. seems that listening to the testimony *against* SSM is what swayed some on-the-fence state representatives to vote in favor of SSM. seems that the more the argument advances, the more opposition is revealed to be little more than unfounded fear and ignorance.

 

[Irvine511]

Mike Huckabee denounced the Obama administration Wednesday for its decision to stop supporting the Defense of Marriage Act against challenges in court.
Continue Reading

Huckabee, who was traveling to Washington for much of the day and had not heard of the administration's decision before speaking with POLITICO, responded to the news: "It doesn't surprise me, but it disappoints me."

The Fox News host and ordained minister said President Barack Obama has sent out a "pretty consistent message" to voters who care about traditional cultural values.

And while Huckabee praised Obama for being a "role model as both a husband and a father," he voiced concern about the impact the White House's stance on DOMA would have on families.

"He's been a good husband and a good father," Huckabee told POLITICO. "Unfortunately, his policies are not necessarily conducive to helping other people, in their own families, to be good husbands and good fathers."

Huckabee was in the nation's capital to promote the release of his book, "A Simple Government," which argues that traditional families, with one husband and one wife, help promote economic stability.

In that light, Huckabee said DOMA is a law with important economic consequences.

"Two-thirds of the poverty in this country would be eliminated if the mothers of the children were married to the fathers," he said.

Read more: Huck: Obama indefensible on DOMA - Alexander Burns - POLITICO.com

please, someone, tell me: how on earth do two lesbians in Northampton getting married somehow prevent straight people from marrying each other and being good husbands and wives to each other and good fathers and mothers to their children?

what on earth do gay people have to do with heterosexual failings?

 

[Pearl]

"Two-thirds of the poverty in this country would be eliminated if the mothers of the children were married to the fathers," he said.

Uhm, maybe those mothers have good reasons not to be married to their children's fathers? Maybe those fathers walked out on their kids because they weren't man enough to take care of them? Maybe those mothers believe their lives are healthier and better without abusive men around? Hasn't Huckabee ever thought of those ideas?

 

[Irvine511]

Uhm, maybe those mothers have good reasons not to be married to their children's fathers? Maybe those fathers walked out on their kids because they weren't man enough to take care of them? Maybe those mothers believe their lives are healthier and better without abusive men around? Hasn't Huckabee ever thought of those ideas?

no, it's my fault.

 

[corianderstem]

Damn, Irvine. You really get around.

 

[Irvine511]

Damn, Irvine. You really get around.

beware the meddling hand of the gays.

 

[corianderstem]

Oh, I do. If only so I don't get steamrolled by the gay agenda.

 

[anitram]

Huckabee has it right.

First, you deny teenagers proper sex ed, and instead push abstinence. This is key. Then when that (inevitably) fails because of satan and Hollywood, you force the couple to marry for the sake of the child. This won't at all contribute to increasing the divorce rate or to unhappy marriages.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Uhm, maybe those mothers have good reasons not to be married to their children's fathers? Maybe those fathers walked out on their kids because they weren't man enough to take care of them? Maybe those mothers believe their lives are healthier and better without abusive men around? Hasn't Huckabee ever thought of those ideas?

Well, guess he figures those were straight relationships, so even though they went to crap, at least it was a heterosexual union of some kind for a time.

I just want to know what the hell kind of argument this is:

"He's been a good husband and a good father," Huckabee told POLITICO. "Unfortunately, his policies are not necessarily conducive to helping other people, in their own families, to be good husbands and good fathers."

Huh?

Very pleased to hear that news about not defending DOMA anymore. It should never have been worthy of defending to begin with (it just shouldn't have existed at all), of course, but better late than never.

Angela

 

[the iron horse]

Um, for much of human history, hasn't that been grandma's job?




I think the notion of a nuclear family is rather mid- to late-20th century.

What?

The idea of a mother and father is a late development in history?

 

[BVS]

What?

The idea of a mother and father is a late development in history?

That's not what he said. Did you read his post?

Where are all those Biblical examples of mother-father-children ideal families that you speak about?

 

[deep]

Edith Schlain Windsor, the plaintiff in the New York case, married another woman, the late Clara Spyer, in Canada in 2007, according to her complaint. While New York legally recognized their marriage, and afforded them the same protections as other married couples, the two women weren’t considered married under federal law, she said.

Federal Tax Law

The case claims that under U.S. tax law, the transfer of money and property doesn’t trigger any estate tax on a spouse who is widowed. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act, Windsor was forced to pay more than $350,000 in taxes that she wouldn’t have had to pay if her marriage to Spyer had been recognized under federal law, according to the complaint.

federal tax laws must be the same for all Americans

 

[Irvine511]

according to a married friend i have, it's rather emotionally brutal too, to file taxes as "single" federally whereas she files as "married" in Massachusetts.

 

[kramwest1]

What?

The idea of a mother and father is a late development in history?

The only place that has consistently had a "traditional" family is 1950's clip art.
Yes, it's an incredibly important job to raise children, but who has done that throughout history has been different (and probably changed) in every culture. Grandmothers, grandfathers, great-grandmothers, aunts, siblings, neighbors and nannies have been just as responsible for raising children as mothers. The only "correct" structure is the one that is consistently there for the children. The only formula is caring and attention. There is no specific gender to it. There is no specific relation to it.

Just as conservatives who don't want gay people to marry should be railing against divorce within their own ranks, apparently they also should be railing against daycare. Heaven forbid someone other than mom raise the child.

I maintain that a "nuclear" family structure is largely a late-20th century phenomenon.

 

[kramwest1]

according to a married friend i have, it's rather emotionally brutal too, to file taxes as "single" federally whereas she files as "married" in Massachusetts.

I still feel that government should just get out of the marriage business. Why should I get additional benefits because I was able to cough up $75 (I think it was) at the license bureau (which is what my wife and I did--we eloped.)?

I don't think you can simultaneously promote equality and marriage. The government should ensure equality for all people at all times. Some people aren't fit for marriage for various reasons.

Until we get this, I support government recognizing gay marriage because it is a step toward this equality. I also support legal unions. I see no reason that siblings or a parent and child can't form a government-sanctioned union to get a tax advantage or to get benefits from an employer. This is especially true in circumstances where one is caring for the other who is ill. But again, if we recognized citizens' rights to health care for all, this really wouldn't be necessary.

 

[Irvine511]

I maintain that a "nuclear" family structure is largely a late-20th century phenomenon.

once, after breaking the picture window while playing stickball with friends, Mary said to Jesus, "oh, just WAIT until your father gets home!" and Jesus KNEW he was in for it, because Joseph wouldn't hesitate to bring out the belt on occasion.

 

[yolland]

Let me tell you, Jewish mothers do NOT wait for Dad to come home before laying down the law.

 

[Irvine511]

Let me tell you, Jewish mothers do NOT wait for Dad to come home before laying down the law.

you're right.

i was projecting 1950's-style American WASP values upon people who lived over 2,000 years ago, and i'm probably going to get a few things wrong.

i'm sure she gave him a good wallop on his tush and told him to stop being such a shlemiel.

 

[PhilsFan]

I really enjoy not being a WASP. I'd be so embarrassed, as strange as that sounds.

 

[deep]

Gay Marriage Seems to Wane as Conservative Issue

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/us/politics/25marriage.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

 

[yolland]

you're right.

i was projecting 1950's-style American WASP values upon people who lived over 2,000 years ago, and i'm probably going to get a few things wrong.

To be clear, the was in reference to the general tactic of "Just WAIT until your father gets home!", not your ascribing it to Jesus' mother, whose preferred disciplinary methods are really anyone's guess. But I actually do remember a friend's mother snapping that at her when I was a kid and my thinking, "What a weird, lame thing to say." It seemed like a way more hostile response than just punishing her on the spot--an "I hate having to put up with you, and can't wait to watch you squirm!" kind of thing. Maybe it was just the way she said it, but...

 

[Irvine511]

To be clear, the was in reference to the general tactic of "Just WAIT until your father gets home!", not your ascribing it to Jesus' mother, whose preferred disciplinary methods are really anyone's guess. But I actually do remember a friend's mother snapping that at her when I was a kid and my thinking, "What a weird, lame thing to say." It seemed like a way more hostile response than just punishing her on the spot--an "I hate having to put up with you, and can't wait to watch you squirm!" kind of thing. Maybe it was just the way she said it, but...

oh, i was trying to continue to be funny ... in the way that, as you have noted in the past when people read what Jesus may or may not have said about marriage and then they nod self-satisfactorily and say, "yup, honey, that sure sounds like us," we seem to take our contemporary understanding of things like family, or our understanding of interactions between husbands and wives and parents and children and project them onto people in the past. i found it funny to imagine a Normal Rockwell-type scene only with Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, like Jesus got bad grades or something and his gender-appropriate parents gave him a stern-but-loving talking-to at the dinner table, because of course families are timeless and interact in exactly the same way then as we do now. because families are always a mother and a father taking separate but equal roles in parenting and children are raised today much the way they were 2,000 years ago.