the conservative case for same sex marriage

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe because they were voting to give Americans rights, not take them away.

Well, you call same-sex marriage, collective bargaining, health care, abortion, etc, "rights" because you hope to silence debate and provide a moral high ground for their advocates. As well as justifying a vision of an ever expanding list of "rights" granted from an ever expanding government.

Enumerated and inalienable rights must be protected and defended but good gosh everything is not a right. Most issues are meant to be debated and decided by "the people."

I don't see a right for same-sex marriage but in New York there is now a bill and a law making it legal. Indiana has no such law. Democracy in action.
 
So Cuomo signed the bill making it law, right?

Does that mean it's too late to make one last visit to NYC before the inevitable chaos and anarchy takes over the state?

Also, I've scoured E-bay and have yet to find David Tyree's Super Bowl championship ring. I'm sure it'll turn up soon enough.


he signed last night, I posted about it

but the law does not go into effect for 30 days,

there is always a chance the Lord will intervene,
he did close the lions' mouths for Daniel,
and he opened and closed the Red Sea for his chosen people,
the Lord does intercede on the side of righteousness.
 
I don't see a right for same-sex marriage but in New York there is now a bill and a law making it legal. Indiana has no such law. Democracy in action.



so what would you call the ability to now freely enter into a contract that had formerly been denied on the basis of sexual orientation if not a "right"?

was it a "right" when you were allowed to marry your wife?

anyway, and i don't want to put you totally on the spot because i know you're generally a lone voice in here, but i do want to point out that the argument about "silencing debate" is little more than a rhetorical judo technique now employed by the anti-gay right (heck, it was a GOP controlled state senate). you know, it's really the gays who are the bullies and it's the good Christians who need to be told that "it gets better." you know, it's really that the laws are unbelievably biased in favor of gay people. you know, it's really that the judiciary is stacked with liberal activists activists. these are arguments made by people who are losing the big argument.

that's what's really happening. public opinion is shifting dramatically. and the reason why is that there's really no intellectually defensible reason to deny people the right to marry who they love. yes, you can point to referendums and to laws passed in 2004, but you also can't deny the enormous speed with which public opinion has changed on an issue that wasn't even an issue 10 years ago. you're not being silenced. you're losing support. your arguments are unsustainable. all NOM is left with are political "... and your little dog, too" threats.

the reason why? gay people are people, and as with most prejudices -- be they about the elderly, Latinos, the French, or whatever group -- they seem really silly when you actually get to know people.

as Frank Bruni explains so well.

Marriage equality in New York

In the mid-1980s, when I was in college, what concerned and frustrated my peers and me was how few states had basic statutes forbidding discrimination against gay men and lesbians: laws that merely prevented someone from being denied a job or apartment on the basis of whom he or she loved.

At that point only Wisconsin and the District of Columbia provided such protection. The decade would end with just one addition, Massachusetts, to that meager list.

Same-sex marriage? I don't recall our talking — or dreaming — much about that. We considered ourselves realists. Sometimes idealists. But never fantasists.

As it happens, we were pessimists, and underestimated our country's capacity for change.

That was my thought all week, even as it remained unclear what the endlessly dithering New York state Legislature would decide and even as President Barack Obama, speaking at a gay gala in New York, stayed the closeted pro-gay course, giving coy signals of solidarity without tying the knot.

The fact that same-sex marriage was drawing such serious attention at such high levels was public proof of what I could see in my private life — in my own family. Where we are is a long way from where we were.

Outside New York, five states, along with Washington, D.C., already permit same-sex marriages. Twenty-one states, along with D.C., outlaw anti-gay discrimination. And both numbers will grow.

That's what recent polls telegraph, and that's what the shape and flavor of the campaign for same-sex marriage in New York irrevocably demonstrated. This issue will increasingly transcend partisan politics and hinge less on party affiliation or archaic religious doctrine than on the intimate, everyday dynamics of family and friendship.

As The New York Times' Michael Barbaro and Nicholas Confessore have reported, the biggest and most influential donors to the New York campaign were Republicans. A New York City mayor without any huge strategic stake in the matter devoted considerable money and muscle to it.

And public-service announcements in favor of it were recorded not just by actors and artists but also by athletes like the hockey player Sean Avery, and by the city's former police commissioner William J. Bratton.

Why such widespread backing, from such surprising quarters? One major reason is that the wish and push to be married cast gay men and lesbians in the most benign, conservative light imaginable, not as enemies of tradition but as aspirants to it.

In the quest for integration and validation, saying "I do" to "I do" is much more effective — not to mention more reflective of the way most gay people live — than strutting in leather on a parade float.

We're not trying to undermine the institution of marriage, a task ably handled by the likes of Tiger Woods, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Edwards and too many other onetime role models to mention. We're paying it an enormous compliment.

But an even bigger reason is how common it now is for Americans to realize that they know and love people who are gay. AIDS had a lot to do with that. This month is the 30th anniversary of the disease's emergence, a ghastly dawn chronicled in the current Broadway revival of "The Normal Heart."

And it's worth pausing to note how drastically the epidemic raised the stakes of secrecy and silence, pulling homosexuals from the shadows. If we wanted people to take up arms against a scourge associated primarily with gay men, we had to make them appreciate how many gay men they were close to.

Over the last quarter-century the love that dared not speak its name turned into a veritable motor mouth, to a point where the average American, according to an astonishing Gallup Poll last month, thinks that about 25 percent of the population is homosexual.

Hardly. But that perception underscores how visible gay people have become. And familiarity changes everything.

Same-sex marriage is personal for Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, whose longtime companion, Sandra Lee, has a gay brother. It's personal for Paul E. Singer, the most impassioned of the Republican donors. At a fundraiser for same-sex marriage last year, he recalled leafing through the wedding album of "my son and son-in-law," married in Massachusetts.

"At the moment they are pioneers," he said, according to a transcript, "although I felt like a loving father and father-in-law, not a pioneer, as we were looking at the pictures."

It's personal for the New York Post columnist Andrea Peyser, who on Monday wrote, "I give in."

She recounted the recent Massachusetts wedding of her niece and another woman and said: "Despite abstract discomfort over normalizing gay unions, I don't know of a soul who would discriminate against the nice guys next door. Nor would I deny my niece happiness that is evident in the size of her smile."

In voicing his support for same-sex marriage, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has mentioned — and appeared with — his niece Rachel, who is lesbian.

"It brings it home," he told me on the phone this week, though he added that beyond his desire for her to have everything she wants in life, "Government should not tell you what to do unless there's a compelling public purpose." He sees no such purpose in blocking same-sex marriage.

I asked Avery how he arrived at his support. He mentioned gay friends whose weddings he thinks it would be a blast to attend.

I asked Bratton. "My sister, Pat, is married to her partner in Massachusetts," he said, adding that the two women have been together for decades and have a grown son.

To reckon with the gay people right in front of you is to re-examine your qualms. I've seen that in my father, a 76-year-old Republican.

Years ago he would quietly leave the room whenever my sexual orientation came up in a family conversation.

But when he urged me to attend a Halloween party he gave for his friends last fall, he insisted I bring Tom, whom he has come to know well over the two and a half years we've been together. And as he introduced us to his golf partners from the country club, he said, "This is my son, Frank. And this is my other son, Tom. Or at least I think of him that way."

Only once did he look unsettled: when he realized he hadn't run that language by Tom. "I'm not making you uncomfortable, am I?" he asked him.

I called Dad the other day to get his permission to share that story. I also brought up something else — for the first time.

"Do you support gay marriage?" I asked him.

"I don't know," he said, explaining that it still seemed strange. He added: "But not if you know the person."

"Meaning me?" I said.

"No," he said. "I mean Tom. He's a good person. If you and he got married? I guess that would be

OK. Yeah, that would be fine."

Frank Bruni is an editorial writer for the New York Times.
 
Well, you call same-sex marriage... "rights" because you hope to silence debate and provide a moral high ground for their advocates.

No. It's a right because equal protection is in the United States Constitution.

And since when have debate on this been "silenced"? No one can shut the "traditional" crowd out or up. They are a noisy bunch.

It could just be that fewer people are listening to them.
 
Enumerated and inalienable rights must be protected and defended but good gosh everything is not a right. Most issues are meant to be debated and decided by "the people."


You mean like Brown v. The Board?

Or the court decision that stopped segregation in the South?

I don't recall asking your permission to marry my husband. Why do gay people have to ask you first?
 
"Government should not tell you what to do unless there's a compelling public purpose."--Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City.

Can I get a hell yeah, INDY? :wink:
 
Glad to get home and read about NY. :up:
I should put my HRC "equals" symbol sticker on my rental car when we hit Syracuse in a week.

Sorry OT, but I wanted to quick post this:
I also was heartened while in Michigan's U.P. to overhear a group of relatively scruffy biker guys talking about "the fucking Koch Bros." and "the rich are silencing us with their money by crushing our little-guy unions" and "no fucking way do I want my public tax dollars to go to fund a private education at some rich-kid school." :lol:
This was in the U.P. for heaven's sake! I think at least a few of them were from WI, but still.
 
so what would you call the ability to now freely enter into a contract that had formerly been denied on the basis of sexual orientation if not a "right"?
One of the rights we do have is of individual sovereignty--some of which we may consent to loan to a legislative power to enact the laws under which we live in a civil society.

I'd say gays in N.Y. are no longer restricted by law to marry.

gay people are people, and as with most prejudices -- be they about the elderly, Latinos, the French, or whatever group -- they seem really silly when you actually get to know people.

And what of Americans with the where-did-they-come-up-with-a-crazy-notion-like-that belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman? Any silly prejudices exist about them?
 
And what of Americans with the where-did-they-come-up-with-a-crazy-notion-like-that belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman? Any silly prejudices exist about them?



what's silly and prejudicial is the notion that it is only and can only be between a man and a woman as a matter of law.

we know for a fact that gay couples exist and are asking for inclusion into the the most basic tool people are given to start families.

why deny them this unless for a silly prejudice?
 
It's a battle of rights. In one corner, we have the right for homosexuals to get married, and in the other corner, we have a percentage of heterosexuals' right to a sense of superiority over gays.
 
Irvine511 said:
the reason why? gay people are people, and as with most prejudices -- be they about the elderly, Latinos, the French, or whatever group -- they seem really silly when you actually get to know people.

This is very true. Amazing though how some people still hold prejudiced views even after they've gotten to know someone.
 
And what of Americans with the where-did-they-come-up-with-a-crazy-notion-like-that belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman? Any silly prejudices exist about them?

When someone in here makes a joke(on in your case several dozen) about the way you were born, or who you are and not some belief you have then come and talk to me.

A grown man shouldn't me making such analogies.
 
And what of Americans with the where-did-they-come-up-with-a-crazy-notion-like-that belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman?

They are people too.

What silly prejudices did you have in mind? Acknowledging that they are against gay marriage and believing they are wrong about that hardly constitutes as silly prejudice. Even suggesting that they are being discriminatory or hateful doesn't qualify as silly prejudice. After all, no one is taking away their rights.
 
And what of Americans with the where-did-they-come-up-with-a-crazy-notion-like-that belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman? Any silly prejudices exist about them?
They're welcome to adhere to that belief inside the boundaries of their own religious denomination :up:

That's the great thing about America, Indy.

Now if you will excuse the rest of us not hogtied to a particular faith, it's time to get back to the public buggery and men grinding other men in public in front of your kids at public swimming pools and throwing free condoms at grandmas on park benches.
 
"What you saw was the people of New York having a debate, talking through these issues. It was contentious, it was emotional, but ultimately they made a decision to recognize civil marriages. And I think that's exactly how things should work."

So the president agrees with Indy, the process IS important. Now I don't believe him for a second because instead of reversing DOMA by the same process by which it became law, legislation. The president deems it "unconstitutional" (knowing he would lose) and his Justice Dept will no longer enforce it.

I, on the other hand, have been consistent and explanatory on this point. Regardless of whether you think same-sex marriage a civil right or not, it is important not to trample on clearly stated constitutional rights (free speech, freedom of religion) or the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, to secure it.

Actually, considering what a phoney Barack Obama is regarding this entire issue I'm rather embarrassed to agree with him so often.
 
Actually, considering what a phoney Barack Obama is regarding this entire issue I'm rather embarrassed to agree with him so often.
You're right on the head of the nail on this point (I know, WTF????????). Obama has had a very public, very lame, and very metric-driven "coming to terms about thinking about rethinking how he feels about gay marriage". I don't blame Barry for a lot of dumb shit that goes down in Washington, but this is one case where he is being embarrassing.
 
He doesn't want to stick his neck out on the issue and turn it into one more thing conservatives can point to and say "look how liberally socialist communist Marxist he is!" And that blows.
 
You're right on the head of the nail on this point (I know, WTF????????). Obama has had a very public, very lame, and very metric-driven "coming to terms about thinking about rethinking how he feels about gay marriage". I don't blame Barry for a lot of dumb shit that goes down in Washington, but this is one case where he is being embarrassing.

Yep.

He doesn't want to stick his neck out on the issue and turn it into one more thing conservatives can point to and say "look how liberally socialist communist Marxist he is!" And that blows.

And yep.

I heard his press conference on NPR today and he refuses to explicitly state that he supports gay marriage. Clearly he feels hedging on the issue is a political necessity which I is both unfortunate and understandable.
 
Fingers crossed for a second term conversion.

To me all the haters already assume he supports gay marriage as part of his plot to destroy America. And the people who support Obama seem more likely to also support gay marriage. So I wonder if the pretense is really necessary.
 
I don't see how hedging on it is for political reasons, since poll after poll indicates that more and more people support it. Or just have no issue with it. Maybe it has more to do with his religion. I don't get how someone like him can't be in favor of gay marriage and still reconcile that with his religious beliefs and be able to articulate that. I don't know if he wrestles with it at all because of any religious beliefs (don't think so) or if it's other reasons.

Or is it because you're President you can't come out in support of gay marriage? Like that's still some sort of taboo?
 
I don't see how hedging on it is for political reasons, since poll after poll indicates that more and more people support it. Or just have no issue with it. Maybe it has more to do with his religion. I don't get how someone like him can't be in favor of gay marriage and still reconcile that with his religious beliefs and be able to articulate that. I don't know if he wrestles with it at all because of any religious beliefs (don't think so) or if it's other reasons.

Or is it because you're President you can't come out in support of gay marriage? Like that's still some sort of taboo?

I really think it is 2012 calculating. He has proven that he does what he feels is right versus what he may believe (I think the U.S. military stuff bares that out.). Whether he personally believes gay marriage is right or not, I believe he knows it is the fair thing to allow to happen.

A majority in the U.S. may support or passively not care about gay marriage, but those aren't necessarily the ones who get out and vote.
 
Quite a profile in courage there.



you're right.

however.

i don't believe for a minute George W Bush actually wanted the "no fags allowed" amendment to the constitution he called for in 2003 after the MA supreme court ruling. nor do i think he cared one iota for the 2004 anti-gay amendments Rove got tacked onto the ballots beyond their political expediency.

you'll also note that most Republicans, especially Senators, have plenty of gay staffers and all are probably privately for same-sex marriage. just as they'd happily pay for abortions for their teenage daughters.

while Obama is certainly stringing the gay community along, it's the social conservative who really get played by the people they are supposed to be represented by
 
Quinnipiac Poll: NY Catholics, Republicans Like Cuomo
Almost two-thirds of New York voters reward Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo with a positive job approval rating after a legislative session that included an on-time budget with reduced spending, tightened ethics rules, a property tax cap, and passage of his bill to legalize same-sex marriage.

...[W]hite Catholic voters approve of the 53-year-old Cuomo by almost 3-to-1, or 62% to 22%, despite the Catholic Church’s staunch opposition to the gay marriage bill, which the Senate passed Friday and Cuomo signed shortly thereafter...Republicans also gave Cuomo positive marks, 53% to 26%. His approval among voters in his own party is a predictable 75-13%, while independents give him the nod at 61-19%, and voters in union households endorse his performance at 63-20%.

...Cuomo’s appeal among voters ran higher than several other first-term governors, Quinnipiac noted. New Jersey’s GOP Gov. Chris Christie had a 44% to 47% rating as of June 21; Florida’s Republican Gov. Rick Scott, 29% to 57% as of May 25; and Ohio’s Republican Gov. John Kasich, 38% to 49% as of May 18.
Sounds like most of NY's Catholics, at least, aren't nearly as worried as their appointed leaders about same-sex civil marriage trampling on their religious liberties.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom