If you’re going to impose your social views on others, whether they like it or not, aren’t you no better than the opposition? Wouldn’t it be nice if we lived in a country where we had freedom of conscience, to live in the way we each think is right?
I wasn’t aware of the fist used as a “Black Power” meme. It was before my time. The message I read from that poster is “We need to defend our social philosophy, using violence if necessary.”
Liberalism is all about using the power of government to impose their will. The stronger government gets the stronger they get and the weaker the people get. Liberalism has always been about power over the people. Liberals seek to create a nanny state that controls our every thought and actions. Four years from now we will be significantly less free than we are today and you will see liberals loving it.
Ken– I don’t know where you get your definition of liberalism. The dictionary says: “a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.”
What you describe is more like authoritarianism. That’s pretty much the opposite of liberalism.
Cliff - To me, that poster seems to convey the attitude that people should force other people to support gay marriage. That it’s OK to bypass the democratic process, and to make other people agree with you using violence if necessary.
I like individual freedoms and liberties. I like how gay and lesbian people can live as they please, have gay social groups, and committed gay relationships. In fact, I don’t mind if they have promiscuous gay relationships. It’s their business.
What I don’t like is what I perceive to be an escalation in the “culture wars” between the pro-same-sex-marriage and anti-same-sex-marriage camps. Obviously, people are angry at Proposition 8 passing, and they are gearing up for a fight. (“They must be attacked mercilessly and humiliated at every turn.”) I think both sides need to calm down and discuss the matter reasonably.
Dividing the country even further isn’t going to make us get along any better. Isn’t that the point of the same-sex-marriage movement? The GLBT community wants the same respect as the straight community? To be treated as peers, as equals? I think we can come up with some kind of a solution without killing each other. I don’t want to see violent riots in the street over this.
An angry liberal whose rage clouds his judgment is no better than a fanatic right-winger who does the same. We need to use our brains to solve this problem, not our fists.
Scientific research (see the section on teamwork) has proven your thesis is untrue. People on the right and left are not the same. In fact, they are fundamentally different. It is only your authoritarian personality that deludes you into assuming you are just like us but on a different end of the spectrum.
We are really on different playing fields. You operate from belief and faith, liberals are more objective.
Thats why not only did Bush fuck up everything he did, but every federal department has become a dysfunctional mess.
Kevin - The raised fist has long been a symbol of solidarity and resistance among people targeted by legal segregation - and do let’s be honest, denying same sex couples the right to marry is the same thing as Jim Crow. Legalizing same sex marriage asks nothing of heterosexuals -you don’t have to change your behaviors or beliefs. You can still think it’s wrong. You can still marry and cheat on and divorce the person you love all you want.
Of course Cliff’s thesis fails to explain such lions of the left as Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Dear Leader, Aristide, Castro, Mugabe, Honecker, Ceau?escu, etc…
jd - they were many things but not liberal - all of them were authoritarians and dictators and despots and frankly they use the rhetoric of both right and left in dishonest ways to get one thing- power for themselves. Liberalism’s dedication to human rights is inimical to authoritarians of all political stripes.
Cliff - I see your point. Yes, a hysterical left-winger and a hysterical right-winger are different. I was wrong about that. Still, I think they are both wrong if they are making decisions based on rage.
I think you are mischaracterizing me by calling me an Authoritarian. I don’t believe in submitting to authority for its own sake. I took the RWA scale test in that book, and got a 56 or a 76, depending on my scoring method. (I found the scoring instructions confusing.) The author said a score of 100 was average, and the higher the score, the more Authoritarian.
I do not believe that public policy should be based on narrow religious beliefs. The government is for everyone, and everyone’s views need to be considered carefully when making laws. My faith in God does not prohibit me from feeling empathy for others or considering their points of view.
Glenden - I didn’t know that’s what the fist meant. Once again, that stuff came before my time. I am growing up in a post-racist generation. The world seems to me like it always had civil rights for people of all races. Obviously, this colors my world view.
Legalizing same sex marriage does ask something of heterosexuals–it asks that we legitimize homosexuality as a respectable institution, and that we support that legitimacy through tax policy and other laws. I don’t want to do this because: A.) I feel like a homosexual relationship is less valuable to society than a heterosexual relationship; and B.) I feel like heterosexual marriages are the best way to raise children, and it is socially beneficial for us to support such an environment for the sake of the rising generation. These are both guesses, and if science proves me wrong, I will be happy to change my position and support gay marriage.
I would like to make the important clarification that I don’t believe homosexual people are less valuable to society than heterosexual people.
jdberger - The link Cliff had in his post addressed that. Someone can be considered politically “left-wing”, but still Authoritarian.
Kevin– Thanks for offering a halfway logical argument for denying the right of same-sex marriage. I have to argue back that “legitimizing homosexuality” is not the issue, any more than “legitimizing racial differences” was the issue during the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. People are who they are. If you accept them as citizens of the United States, then they get the same rights everyone else has. It may surprise you to know that in some states interracial marriage was illegal until 1967.
Kevin - you are absolutely wrong. Legalizing inter-racial marriage didn’t require people opposed to accept it as valid - it required they recognized that other people thought they were valid relationships. TO use another example: If you are a person of faith, you might believe that all marriages need to be conducted in your church, according to your tradition, that doesn’t mean you automatically say every other marriage is invalid - it means you accept that they are valid for the people involved. If I’m a devout Roman Catholic, I believe that second marriages are not only immoral but they in fact do not technically exist - without annulment, no faithful catholic can remarry, but an annulment in essence means the first marriage never happened - so I’m not remarrying, I’m, in the eyes of the church marrying for the first time. But, as a faithful Catholic, I have to accept that other traditions and the law recognize divorce and second marriages. I don’t have to change my views, values, or beliefs; I simply have to recognize they are not shared by everyone.
The actual “harm” you claim (support by law and tax code) are not suffered directly by you and are in fact greatly outweighed by the harms experienced by same sex couples - who can even with all the legal contracts in the world, find themselves summarily separated at the whim of administrators in hospitals or family members. Stories of same sex couples denied hospital visitation or rights of inheritance taken for granted by heterosexuals abound. For another example, consider it this way: even if your mother in law hates you, she cannot legally keep you from visiting your wife in the hospital or staying in the house you and your wife bought together even if you never worked or paid for the house (as always there are conditions if she could prove you deliberately put your wife in the hospital but that’s not easily done). By contrast, even with things like rights of survivorship and tenancy in common, survivors in same sex couples often find themselves kicked out of their houses by their deceased partner’s relatives and as often as not have to fight tooth and nail to visit in the hospital. Imagine - if your wife is in a car accident and you show up at the hospital -you say, I’m her husband, and show your ID, it’s all over. A same sex partner has to bring proof he/she has power of attorney and probably an attorney to get the hospital to honor it. The actual harms suffered by same sex couples diminish any of the supposed harms you claim you will suffer by legalizing same sex marriage.
“Wouldn’t it be nice if we lived in a country where we had freedom of conscience, to live in the way we each think is right?”
You have that Kevin. You’ve taken it away from gay people. Your freedom of conscience does not include the right to strip other people of theirs. Get it?
A.) I feel like a homosexual relationship is less valuable to society than a heterosexual relationship; and B.) I feel like heterosexual marriages are the best way to raise children, and it is socially beneficial for us to support such an environment for the sake of the rising generation. These are both guesses, and if science proves me wrong, I will be happy to change my position and support gay marriage.
You seem to suffer the same confusion as Okelflamer.
How you ‘FEEL’ about gay sex is not an argument for creating laws.
When a group promotes laws based on FEELINGS about what is good or bad about society its called ’social engineering’ .i.e. a Theocracy.
You could take your cues from Paul Mero. At least he understands that if you want to conduct social engineering through law, you must demonstrate either harm or as Paul does, a state interest.
But let me remind you again. If you want to restrict the rights of people because of your ‘feeling’ about their sex live, consider how I might ‘FEEL’ about your sex life.
Are you strictly missionary style, or do you get creative? Does your woman like a little SMACK on her rear end occasionally? Does she like it a little rough?
What about Grandma and Grandpa Owens? How do you ‘FEEL’ about their sex life? Should we a null their marriage because we are sickened by there sex life?
My apologies to your grandparents for that, but it was the best way I could think of to help you understand the difference between legislating ‘feelings’ treating all people as equal.
The following demonstrates an utterly corrupt understanding of law;
“The government is for everyone, and everyone’s views need to be considered carefully when making laws.”
Opinion polls are explicitly NOT the basis for making laws…at least not in a Constitutional Democracy.
[...] Here’s what he wrote yesterday: I do not believe that public policy should be based on narrow religious beliefs. The government is for everyone, and everyone’s views need to be considered carefully when making laws. My faith in God does not prohibit me from feeling empathy for others or considering their points of view. [...]
And this porch stuff is totally ridiculous considering that I’ve bested you in every debate we’ve had. That’s why you regularly retreat to name calling and Godwins Law.
Check out your Alan Korwin threads where you consistently made an ass out of yourself - and then quickly changed the subject (or started a new thread).
Relax JD. It doesn’t mean you are a good or bad person, it just means you operate with a more restricted thought process.
That you stick around means there is hope. You are opening. Perhaps Bush has jarred you into a new place.
BTW: Korwin wasn’t about me, or beating you. You guys never produced good data that was accepted by the credentialed community. Korwin used bad and wrong data. Korwin is a liar.
The data produced was good and accepted by the credential community, it was you that couldn’t accept it.
You are right in that it wasn’t about you or beating anyone else. It is about preserving rights that you and those like you want to take away from others.
Get real. The Kleck and Gertz poll is accepted by no one.
Source:
Victimization Survey (NCVS) data, one would conclude that defensive uses are rare indeed, about 108,000 per year. But other surveys yield far higher estimates of the number of Defensive Gun Uses (DGU). Most notable has been a much publicized estimate of 2.5 million DGUs, based on data from a 1994 telephone survey conducted by Florida State University professors Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz.13 The 2.5 million figure has been picked up by the press and now appears regularly in newspaper articles, letters to the editor, editorials, and even Congressional Research Service briefs for public policymakers.
You might want to spend a little more time reading your sources. This link you provided does qualify in your mind as acceptable, right- especially since you cited it?
From Page 8
Forty-five respondents reported a defensive gun use in 1994 against a person
(exhibit 7). Given the sampling weights, these respondents constitute 1.6 percent of the sample and represent 3.1 million adults.
Kleck and Gertz concluded 2.5 million and this survey shows the number to be even higher. Let’s review who exactly published that study:
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice
Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms
by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig
On page 9 the study talks about the GREATER RESTRICTIONS USED BY KLECK AND GERTZ
A somewhat more conservative NSPOF estimate is shown in the column of exhibit
7 that reflects the application of the criteria used by Kleck and Gertz to identify “genuine” defensive gun uses. Respondents were excluded on the basis of the most recent DGU description for any of the following reasons: the respondent did not see a perpetrator; the respondent could not state a specific crime that was involved in the incident; or the respondent did not actually display the gun or mention it to
the perpetrator.
Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of
the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly
comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs.
Your own source cites 4.7 million Defensive Gun Uses.
This study, once again, cited by you comes to this conclusion:
If the DGU numbers are in the right ballpark, millions of attempted assaults, thefts, and break-ins were foiled by armed citizens during the 12- month period. According to these results, guns are used far more often to defend against crime than to perpetrate crime. (Firearms were used by perpetrators in 1.07 million incidents
of violent crime in 1994, according to NCVS data.)
The Kleck and Gerz numbers above refer to a poll funded by the NRA Gun Lobby and lack peer review because their poll methods were insufficient and unscientific.
I will be top posting, hopefully today, more updated information that will demonstrate that hand gun gun ownership in the US dramatically increases dealth by hand guns.
This result will surprise no one since the sole purpose of a hand gun is to kill youself, members of you family, your 6-year-old school mate, and the other perfectly alive humans.
I will also show that gun ownership in the US is dropping quickly as more and more frightened, ignorant old men die off.
Nice try to save yourself, but the very study you cited shows that you are wrong.
You say the Kleck and Gertz numbers are unscientific but you don’t address the very scientific survey that refutes your contention, the very study you cited.
I believe that in internet terms that would earn the rating of - EPIC FAIL.
Also you state that hand guns have only one sole purpose, of course the Olympics then most be about training killers, eh?
From Wikipedia, a list of current shooting sports
Pistol and Rifle
10 Meter Air Pistol
10 Meter Air Rifle
25 Meter Rapid Fire Pistol
50 Meter Pistol
50 Meter Rifle Prone
50 Meter Rifle, Three positions
Your reading comprehension really is sub par.
Maybe you are so afraid of ’scary’ firearms you’ve never learned some simple common terms.
So, first a pistol is a handgun. 3 of the sports listed would be handgun sports, 10 meter Air Pistol, 25 Meter Rapid Fire Pistol and 50 Meter Pistol.
You’ve previously stated that firearms have no purpose except to kill, so I include other sports to show that you, once again, are wrong.
How about addressing the fact that the survey, published by the National Institute of Justice supports the conclusion of Kleck and Gertz?
We often hear that banning guns or any other dangerous object is worth it if it saves just one life, right?
How about addressing the fact that defensive gun uses can and has saved more then one life?
Face facts Cliff, you are wrong on this subject.
You claimed the 2nd amendment didn’t guarantee an individual right, the Supreme Court said it does.
You claim the defensive gun use number was wrong, the very survey you linked to proved you wrong.
You claim that handguns have only one purpose - to kill, I pointed out that handguns are used in Olympic sports. Not to mention the countless millions of target shooters, competitions such as IPSA.
Your claim that handguns have only one purpose -to kill is further demolished by the very survey that you cited and the fact that most defensive gun uses don’t end up with someone being shot. The presence, presentation or willingness to use a handgun stops many crimes.
Cliffy? Could you please back up this statement? Got any proof?
Cliff Says:
November 17th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Dear OneUtah reader,
The Kleck and Gerz numbers above refer to a poll funded by the NRA Gun Lobby and lack peer review because their poll methods were insufficient and unscientific.
Note: We’ve shown already that Kleck is well reviewed and respected in his field. So is Professor Gertz.
On the other hand, Cliffy’s reading comprehension, writing and debate skills have caused a lot of folks to rethink an education in Vermont.
This is the beauty of the internet. Unsupportable public comments and the people who make them can be taken to task and a permanent record established.
Thanks for the compliment earlier, Cliff makes it easy.
I hope he will get that top post up soon. I won’t be online much from Wednesday through Sunday. Going out to San Diego for my son’s graduation from Marine Corp Boot Camp.
I’m not arguing against “legitimizing homosexuals,” I’m arguing against “legitimizing homosexuality.” It’s one thing to tolerate the behavior, it’s another thing entirely for government to endorse it. We can absolutely accept GLBT folks as citizens of the United States with equal rights. We don’t need to redefine marriage to do that.
Glenden,
You make a good point. Same-sex marriage doesn’t require that society endorse homosexuality. We can go on disagreeing with the practice and still have laws which recognize its existence.
As for the inheritance, hospital visitation, and other rights which gay couples deserve, do you think civil unions would be sufficient?
Don,
I am not suggesting we prohibit gays from being gay. That’s fine. They can have relationships if they want and live in their own way. I am only suggesting that we do not include same-sex marriage in the legal definition of marriage.
When I said “I feel like heterosexual marriages are the best way to raise children, and it is socially beneficial for us to support such an environment for the sake of the rising generation,” “feel” was a poor choice of words. I meant “believe”. Science can prove my beliefs wrong by providing further evidence.
Cliff,
I didn’t mean we should legislate based on personal feelings. It was a mistake for me to use the word “feel”. It wasn’t what I meant.
My statement that “The government is for everyone, and everyone’s views need to be considered carefully when making laws.” meant something other than what you understood. I meant we need to consider the will of the minorities, the disenfranchised, the powerless. It didn’t have anything to do with opinion polls.
Kevin - While I think the short term solution is civil unions, at some point, if civil unions grant the same rights, responsibilities and protections as marriage, why not just cut to the chase and grant marriage to same sex couples?
Just one thought on civil unions vs marriages. There are already statutes on the books and a massive amount of case law referring specifically to marital rights and disputes (particularly as it pertains to divorce and death). Would all that law apply to legal cases involving civil unions, or do we start from square one with those? Just wondering.
heterosexual marriages are the best way to raise children
Kevin, you realize that same sex couples are already raising children, don’t you? Do you suggest that granting civil unions instead of marriages will change that? If not, then how does same sex marriage provide any better or any worse (or any different)environment for raising children than exists right now?
News Release
November 17, 2008
For Immediate Release
Contact: Christine Gasparac 916-324-5500
Print Version
Attorney General Brown Urges California Supreme Court to Review Constitutionality of Proposition 8
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 17, 2008
Contact: Christine Gasparac (916) 324-5500
Attorney General Brown Urges California Supreme Court to Review Constitutionality of Proposition 8
SACRAMENTO—California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today urged the California Supreme Court to accept review of the legal challenges to Proposition 8 and for this matter of widespread concern to be “promptly resolved.”
“The profound importance of the issues raised by Proposition 8 warrants that this matter be reviewed and promptly resolved by the California Supreme Court.” Attorney General Brown said.
In a set of briefs filed with the Court today, Attorney General Brown wrote that: “review by this Court is necessary to ensure uniformity of decision, finality and certainty for the citizens of California. The constitutionality of the change created by Proposition 8 impacts whether same-sex marriages may issue in California and whether same-sex marriages from other states will be recognized here. There is significant public interest in prompt resolution of the legality of Proposition 8. The Court can provide certainty and finality in this matter.”
Typically, matters are brought before lower courts before the Supreme Court hears the case. However, petitioners have asked the Supreme Court to accept the review directly to bring an early resolution to the matter.
Attorney General Brown opposes a stay on Proposition 8, arguing that it would increase uncertainty related to marriages performed in California. The Attorney General’s brief states that “the public interest would be best served not by issuing a temporary stay, but by an expedited resolution of the important issues raised by the petitions.”
Attorney General Brown continues to believe that same-sex marriages performed between June 17 and November 4, 2008 remain valid and will be upheld by the Court.
Attached are the briefs that were filed today with the Court.
2008 World Action Pistol ChampionshipsHundreds of the world’s best action pistol competitors competed last week at the NRA’s Sixth World Action Pistol Championships in Hamilton, New Zealand, but it was the U.S. Pistol Team who walked away with four titles.
The United States was represented by 12 shooters, all with past experience in the NRA Bianchi Cup.
Doug Koenig earned the title of Open Champion with a score of 1920-181x. Koenig is also this year’s NRA Bianchi Cup Champion. Vance Schmid scored a 1902-133x, making him the Metallic Sights Champion. Bruce Piatt was named the Iron Man Champion with a score of 3811-321X. Helen Jeavons won the title of Ladies Champion with a score of 1892-147x.
USA Teams A and B also took the titles of First and Second Place in this year’s Open Team Match and Metallic Team Match.
The competition holds events for both teams and individuals in the customary makeup of the NRA National Action Pistol Championships. This championship, more commonly known as the NRA Bianchi Cup, is traditionally held during Memorial Day weekend at the Green Valley Rifle and Pistol Club’s Chapman Academy Range outside Columbia, Missouri.
Since its inception, the NRA Bianchi Cup has retained its original course of fire, consisting of four matches: Practical, Barricade, Moving Target and Falling Plates. These four events are paralleled at the World Action Pistol Championships. Each event is timed and is worth 480 points, equaling a total of 1920 possible points.
“The best of the best come together for the NRA World Action Pistol Championships in New Zealand,” said Mike Krei, Director of NRA’s Competitive Shooting Division. “Action pistol shooting is just one of the many programs offered by the NRA to the hundreds of thousands of citizens who enjoy practicing and preserving the Second Amendment.”
For more information about the Bianchi Cup, the NRA World Action Pistol Championship or any other Action Pistol events, contact Tom Hughes at bianchicup@nrahq.org or call him at NRA Headquarters at (703) 267-1478 or (800) 672-3888, extension 1478.
Congratulations to the US team….still waiting on that top post Cliff.
When you say gays can “live in their own way” what exactly does that mean? What if they want to live “married”? There is no compelling state interest in denying them the freedom to do so. When you say you are “only” suggesting that we not legally sanction same-sex marriages you do realize that what you are “only” suggesting is restricting the rights, freedoms and equality of an entire segment of our population, right?
If the sole purpose for the government in sanctioning heterosexual marriages was to support the best environment to raise future generations and you could prove that the best environment was solely heterosexual marriages, then, and only then, would you be on the verge of having a valid argument. As it stands, you have yet to provide even a valid premise for the state to sanction heterosexual unions while excluding same-sex unions. Therefore any conclusions based on your feelings and beliefs concerning the premise are invalid (from a legal standpoint) as well. One last question, how can science prove anything, good or bad, about same-sex marriage if same-sex marriage isn’t allowed?
Nice way to describe a high school student participating in a drama event. It didn’t slip my notice.
For everyone who won’t click on the link, here is part of the story
Fifteen-year-old Tucker Thayer was killed Saturday when a gun loaded with blanks discharged during a school musical at Desert Hills High School in St. George.
The Washington County School District says a parent and a student approached the drama teacher at Desert Hills High School about using a .38-caliber revolver for sound effects during the student production of the musical, “Oklahoma.”
The administration and school resource officer approved the request with certain conditions:
* The parent had to bring the gun to and from the school.
* The parent also had to discharge the blank and take the gun home every night.
* Police say the gun was kept in a lockbox.
Okay, so the gun was loaded with blanks, being used as a sound effect, the school had procedures in place and there was an negligent discharge….not exactly someone taking out one of their own.
Thayler was setting up for Saturday’s performance of the musical when the gun discharged in his hand. Police say he suffered head injuries from the energy released from that discharge.
Let’s review the 4 rules of Firearm safety, this apply even to firearms loaded with blanks.
1. All guns are always loaded (until you establish whether they are or not).
Since no one saw the accident happen, it is impossible to tell at this time if the youth was following this rule or not.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. Keep your gun pointed in a safe direction at all times: on the range, at home, loading, or unloading.
If the firearm discharged and struck the youth in his hand, this was not being followed.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target (and you are ready to shoot).
A firearm does not usually just “go off”, especially a revolver, it usually requires someone to pull the trigger. Unfortunately, it appears that is what this young man did.
4. Be sure of your target. Know what it is, what is in line with it and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you haven’t positively identified.
Had Rules 1, 2, and 3 been followed, this wouldn’t have happened. Maybe we need to look at training our kids how to handle guns safely. This site is often knocking abstinence only training for sex, shouldn’t the same logic apply. Shouldn’t we teach our kids how to safely handle firearms so they can make better decisions.
I think there was a lapse of adult judgment and supervision in this case, combined with the misuse or mishandling of the firearm.
I don’t think civil unions should grant all the same rights, responsibilities, and protections as marriage. I think civil unions should only cover the financial and sexual legal aspects of marriage (e.g., inheritance, divorce, hospital visitation, etc.), but should not grant parenting priveleges (e.g., adoption, etc.) That’s why the distinction is necessary.
Becky,
I don’t think we would have to start from square one with civil unions. I think we could transfer some of the existing marriage statutes to civil unions. It would definitely be more complicated than simply creating same-sex marriage, but I think it is important to make the disctinction.
Yes, I understand same-sex couples are already raising children. Polygamous families are also raising children, but that doesn’t mean we should legalize polygamy.
I don’t know just how much the legal statutes change people’s family behaviors. For example, there are people out there who will choose to have one more child, in part, because of the child tax credit. (Not that it’s the only reason, but that it helps weigh the decision in that direction.) So, I don’t know the magnitude, but I know it has some effect.
Changes in the law may not have much effect on what people are already doing, but I think it is still important to write the law for what is right. People lie, kill, and steal, but that doesn’t mean we should make lying, killing, and stealing legal. (Homosexuality isn’t like killing, of course, but I hope you get my point.)
Don,
When I say people can “live in their own way,” I mean they should be free to live together, have a sexual relationship, have a commitment ceremony, or whatever else they so choose. They can exchange rings, tell everyone they’re married, take the same last name, buy a house together, and any of that stuff. That’s fine.
Yes, I realize I am suggesting that we restrict the rights, freedoms, and equality for an entire segment of our population by prohibiting same-sex marriage. I also suggest that we limit the freedom of convicted felons by sending them to jail, that we restrict the rights of kleptomaniacs by making stealing illegal, and that we curtail the equality of children by not letting them drive.
Is there a compelling state interest in prohibiting polygamy? Or Rick Santorum-style “man on dog” marriages? If we legalize same-sex marriage, polygamy will be next, I’m certain. The arguments in favor of gay marriage absolutely apply to polygamous marriage.
You’re right that it is not yet scientifically established whether gay couples are better, worse, or the same as heterosexual, biological parents. There are a few studies about it but not enough to come to a conclusion. Until we can really know the answer to this question, it will be unclear whether the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting or allowing same-sex marriage. I guess that gay parenting is bad, and the pro-gay-marriage advocates guess that it’s good. Who is right? Only time will tell.
Science need not study same-sex marriage as such. I think it would be sufficient that we study same-sex parenting, and we can use that as a basis for policy decisions regarding same-sex marriage. The real question is whether it is in the best interest of our children to be raised by homosexual couples.
Glenden Brown
November 14th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
That’s right. We should all force our social agendas on the country with an iron fist.
November 14th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I’ll bet you were upset by this weren’t you Kevin?
November 14th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
As the late Studs Terkel said, the Boston Tea Party was civil disobedience.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
If you’re going to impose your social views on others, whether they like it or not, aren’t you no better than the opposition? Wouldn’t it be nice if we lived in a country where we had freedom of conscience, to live in the way we each think is right?
Sending anthrax hoax letters and vandalizing churches is no way to advance any kind of agenda, except one of violence and terror.
I wasn’t aware of the fist used as a “Black Power” meme. It was before my time. The message I read from that poster is “We need to defend our social philosophy, using violence if necessary.”
November 14th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
People have a right to be angry over Prop 8. They don’t have a right to commit crimes in protest– but there is no proof that they have.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Kevin,
How on earth is a social agenda being forced upon you?
I think you confuse individual freedoms and liberties with a social agenda.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Yes!
November 14th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Liberalism is all about using the power of government to impose their will. The stronger government gets the stronger they get and the weaker the people get. Liberalism has always been about power over the people. Liberals seek to create a nanny state that controls our every thought and actions. Four years from now we will be significantly less free than we are today and you will see liberals loving it.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Ken– I don’t know where you get your definition of liberalism. The dictionary says: “a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.”
What you describe is more like authoritarianism. That’s pretty much the opposite of liberalism.
November 14th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Cliff - To me, that poster seems to convey the attitude that people should force other people to support gay marriage. That it’s OK to bypass the democratic process, and to make other people agree with you using violence if necessary.
I like individual freedoms and liberties. I like how gay and lesbian people can live as they please, have gay social groups, and committed gay relationships. In fact, I don’t mind if they have promiscuous gay relationships. It’s their business.
What I don’t like is what I perceive to be an escalation in the “culture wars” between the pro-same-sex-marriage and anti-same-sex-marriage camps. Obviously, people are angry at Proposition 8 passing, and they are gearing up for a fight. (“They must be attacked mercilessly and humiliated at every turn.”) I think both sides need to calm down and discuss the matter reasonably.
Dividing the country even further isn’t going to make us get along any better. Isn’t that the point of the same-sex-marriage movement? The GLBT community wants the same respect as the straight community? To be treated as peers, as equals? I think we can come up with some kind of a solution without killing each other. I don’t want to see violent riots in the street over this.
An angry liberal whose rage clouds his judgment is no better than a fanatic right-winger who does the same. We need to use our brains to solve this problem, not our fists.
November 14th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Actually Kevin,
Scientific research (see the section on teamwork) has proven your thesis is untrue. People on the right and left are not the same. In fact, they are fundamentally different. It is only your authoritarian personality that deludes you into assuming you are just like us but on a different end of the spectrum.
We are really on different playing fields. You operate from belief and faith, liberals are more objective.
Thats why not only did Bush fuck up everything he did, but every federal department has become a dysfunctional mess.
Hard to accept I know….but true.
November 14th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Kevin - The raised fist has long been a symbol of solidarity and resistance among people targeted by legal segregation - and do let’s be honest, denying same sex couples the right to marry is the same thing as Jim Crow. Legalizing same sex marriage asks nothing of heterosexuals -you don’t have to change your behaviors or beliefs. You can still think it’s wrong. You can still marry and cheat on and divorce the person you love all you want.
November 14th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Of course Cliff’s thesis fails to explain such lions of the left as Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Dear Leader, Aristide, Castro, Mugabe, Honecker, Ceau?escu, etc…
They were so objective…..so liberal…
November 14th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
jd - they were many things but not liberal - all of them were authoritarians and dictators and despots and frankly they use the rhetoric of both right and left in dishonest ways to get one thing- power for themselves. Liberalism’s dedication to human rights is inimical to authoritarians of all political stripes.
November 14th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Cliff - I see your point. Yes, a hysterical left-winger and a hysterical right-winger are different. I was wrong about that. Still, I think they are both wrong if they are making decisions based on rage.
I think you are mischaracterizing me by calling me an Authoritarian. I don’t believe in submitting to authority for its own sake. I took the RWA scale test in that book, and got a 56 or a 76, depending on my scoring method. (I found the scoring instructions confusing.) The author said a score of 100 was average, and the higher the score, the more Authoritarian.
I do not believe that public policy should be based on narrow religious beliefs. The government is for everyone, and everyone’s views need to be considered carefully when making laws. My faith in God does not prohibit me from feeling empathy for others or considering their points of view.
Glenden - I didn’t know that’s what the fist meant. Once again, that stuff came before my time. I am growing up in a post-racist generation. The world seems to me like it always had civil rights for people of all races. Obviously, this colors my world view.
Legalizing same sex marriage does ask something of heterosexuals–it asks that we legitimize homosexuality as a respectable institution, and that we support that legitimacy through tax policy and other laws. I don’t want to do this because: A.) I feel like a homosexual relationship is less valuable to society than a heterosexual relationship; and B.) I feel like heterosexual marriages are the best way to raise children, and it is socially beneficial for us to support such an environment for the sake of the rising generation. These are both guesses, and if science proves me wrong, I will be happy to change my position and support gay marriage.
I would like to make the important clarification that I don’t believe homosexual people are less valuable to society than heterosexual people.
jdberger - The link Cliff had in his post addressed that. Someone can be considered politically “left-wing”, but still Authoritarian.
November 14th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Mugabe is plenty liberal. He’s into the whole wealth equality/redistribution thing. Same goes for any of the folks I mentioned above.
Human rights isn’t necessarily a “liberal”/leftist concern. The left just claims it for themselves.
November 14th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Kevin– Thanks for offering a halfway logical argument for denying the right of same-sex marriage. I have to argue back that “legitimizing homosexuality” is not the issue, any more than “legitimizing racial differences” was the issue during the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. People are who they are. If you accept them as citizens of the United States, then they get the same rights everyone else has. It may surprise you to know that in some states interracial marriage was illegal until 1967.
November 14th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
JD Bergerdorf,
Do you really think anyone of any intelligence accepts that all those dictators were liberal?
Back under the porch POOCH!
November 14th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
BergerPooch,
Kevin is RIGHT! I’m going to be nice to him because he is willing to investigate and educate himself.
It IS true, “Someone can be considered politically “left-wing”, but still Authoritarian.”
However, that is the exception rather than the rule.
November 14th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Kevin - you are absolutely wrong. Legalizing inter-racial marriage didn’t require people opposed to accept it as valid - it required they recognized that other people thought they were valid relationships. TO use another example: If you are a person of faith, you might believe that all marriages need to be conducted in your church, according to your tradition, that doesn’t mean you automatically say every other marriage is invalid - it means you accept that they are valid for the people involved. If I’m a devout Roman Catholic, I believe that second marriages are not only immoral but they in fact do not technically exist - without annulment, no faithful catholic can remarry, but an annulment in essence means the first marriage never happened - so I’m not remarrying, I’m, in the eyes of the church marrying for the first time. But, as a faithful Catholic, I have to accept that other traditions and the law recognize divorce and second marriages. I don’t have to change my views, values, or beliefs; I simply have to recognize they are not shared by everyone.
The actual “harm” you claim (support by law and tax code) are not suffered directly by you and are in fact greatly outweighed by the harms experienced by same sex couples - who can even with all the legal contracts in the world, find themselves summarily separated at the whim of administrators in hospitals or family members. Stories of same sex couples denied hospital visitation or rights of inheritance taken for granted by heterosexuals abound. For another example, consider it this way: even if your mother in law hates you, she cannot legally keep you from visiting your wife in the hospital or staying in the house you and your wife bought together even if you never worked or paid for the house (as always there are conditions if she could prove you deliberately put your wife in the hospital but that’s not easily done). By contrast, even with things like rights of survivorship and tenancy in common, survivors in same sex couples often find themselves kicked out of their houses by their deceased partner’s relatives and as often as not have to fight tooth and nail to visit in the hospital. Imagine - if your wife is in a car accident and you show up at the hospital -you say, I’m her husband, and show your ID, it’s all over. A same sex partner has to bring proof he/she has power of attorney and probably an attorney to get the hospital to honor it. The actual harms suffered by same sex couples diminish any of the supposed harms you claim you will suffer by legalizing same sex marriage.
November 14th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Assuming the wife took the husband’s name. ;)
Glendon’s right on with this one (second paragraph). The occasions of this happening are common.
In other news, what’s your fascination with dogs and porches, Cliffy?
November 15th, 2008 at 11:05 am
“Wouldn’t it be nice if we lived in a country where we had freedom of conscience, to live in the way we each think is right?”
You have that Kevin. You’ve taken it away from gay people. Your freedom of conscience does not include the right to strip other people of theirs. Get it?
November 15th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Geeze, Kevin, you are one irrational dude. The poster is about solidarity. It has nothing to do with using violence to achieve one’s goals.
“I think we can come up with some kind of a solution without killing each other.”
Yes, marriage equality won’t kill anyone.
November 15th, 2008 at 11:13 am
How can science prove your feelings wrong?
November 15th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Kevin,
You seem to suffer the same confusion as Okelflamer.
How you ‘FEEL’ about gay sex is not an argument for creating laws.
When a group promotes laws based on FEELINGS about what is good or bad about society its called ’social engineering’ .i.e. a Theocracy.
You could take your cues from Paul Mero. At least he understands that if you want to conduct social engineering through law, you must demonstrate either harm or as Paul does, a state interest.
But let me remind you again. If you want to restrict the rights of people because of your ‘feeling’ about their sex live, consider how I might ‘FEEL’ about your sex life.
Are you strictly missionary style, or do you get creative? Does your woman like a little SMACK on her rear end occasionally? Does she like it a little rough?
What about Grandma and Grandpa Owens? How do you ‘FEEL’ about their sex life? Should we a null their marriage because we are sickened by there sex life?
My apologies to your grandparents for that, but it was the best way I could think of to help you understand the difference between legislating ‘feelings’ treating all people as equal.
The following demonstrates an utterly corrupt understanding of law;
Opinion polls are explicitly NOT the basis for making laws…at least not in a Constitutional Democracy.
November 15th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Then why do you cite them so much, Cliffy?
November 15th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
[...] Here’s what he wrote yesterday: I do not believe that public policy should be based on narrow religious beliefs. The government is for everyone, and everyone’s views need to be considered carefully when making laws. My faith in God does not prohibit me from feeling empathy for others or considering their points of view. [...]
November 15th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
JD, Show me where I used polling data as support for law. Then, when you can’t, go ahead and crawl back under the porch.
November 15th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
In your support for certain gun control laws.
And this porch stuff is totally ridiculous considering that I’ve bested you in every debate we’ve had. That’s why you regularly retreat to name calling and Godwins Law.
November 15th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Hah VINDICATED!
JD, you’ll be pleased to hear that until your last comment, you were the last holdout - announcing the score between us.
You see, one of the many very predictable things about the authoritarian personality is the need for ranking and order.
Until now, you have been the only right winder currently on this site not to have claimed to have ‘won’, ‘beat’ or ‘bested’ me.
Bob did it after several weeks. Okelberry almost right away.
We keep track.
Is that terrible?
November 16th, 2008 at 1:27 am
Wrong again, Cliffy.
Check out your Alan Korwin threads where you consistently made an ass out of yourself - and then quickly changed the subject (or started a new thread).
Apparently, you don’t keep track.
November 16th, 2008 at 8:44 am
My point is not about who won, it is about the need to keep score, declare victory, and establish a pecking order.
It the same reason you believe in good. For the authoritarian mind, the idea of no God leaves to many open questions, too much chaos and randomness.
Relax JD. It doesn’t mean you are a good or bad person, it just means you operate with a more restricted thought process.
That you stick around means there is hope. You are opening. Perhaps Bush has jarred you into a new place.
BTW: Korwin wasn’t about me, or beating you. You guys never produced good data that was accepted by the credentialed community. Korwin used bad and wrong data. Korwin is a liar.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Cliff,
Sorry, but once again you are lying.
The data produced was good and accepted by the credential community, it was you that couldn’t accept it.
You are right in that it wasn’t about you or beating anyone else. It is about preserving rights that you and those like you want to take away from others.
November 16th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
[...] of our readers here commented that he was too young to remember the Black Power fist symbol as he was growing up in a post-racist [...]
November 16th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Bob S,
Get real. The Kleck and Gertz poll is accepted by no one.
November 16th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Cliff,
You might want to spend a little more time reading your sources. This link you provided does qualify in your mind as acceptable, right- especially since you cited it?
From Page 8
Kleck and Gertz concluded 2.5 million and this survey shows the number to be even higher. Let’s review who exactly published that study:
On page 9 the study talks about the GREATER RESTRICTIONS USED BY KLECK AND GERTZ
Your own source cites 4.7 million Defensive Gun Uses.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Dear OneUtah reader,
The Kleck and Gerz numbers above refer to a poll funded by the NRA Gun Lobby and lack peer review because their poll methods were insufficient and unscientific.
I will be top posting, hopefully today, more updated information that will demonstrate that hand gun gun ownership in the US dramatically increases dealth by hand guns.
This result will surprise no one since the sole purpose of a hand gun is to kill youself, members of you family, your 6-year-old school mate, and the other perfectly alive humans.
I will also show that gun ownership in the US is dropping quickly as more and more frightened, ignorant old men die off.
November 17th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Cliff,
Nice try to save yourself, but the very study you cited shows that you are wrong.
You say the Kleck and Gertz numbers are unscientific but you don’t address the very scientific survey that refutes your contention, the very study you cited.
I believe that in internet terms that would earn the rating of - EPIC FAIL.
Also you state that hand guns have only one sole purpose, of course the Olympics then most be about training killers, eh?
From Wikipedia, a list of current shooting sports
Pistol and Rifle
10 Meter Air Pistol
10 Meter Air Rifle
25 Meter Rapid Fire Pistol
50 Meter Pistol
50 Meter Rifle Prone
50 Meter Rifle, Three positions
Shot gun
Double Trap
Skeet
Trap
It sounds like you are running a little scared.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Bob S, which one of those sports includes the use of hand guns????
Is it possible the NRA does not train is lobbyist on types and classes of guns?
November 17th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Cliff,
Your reading comprehension really is sub par.
Maybe you are so afraid of ’scary’ firearms you’ve never learned some simple common terms.
So, first a pistol is a handgun. 3 of the sports listed would be handgun sports, 10 meter Air Pistol, 25 Meter Rapid Fire Pistol and 50 Meter Pistol.
You’ve previously stated that firearms have no purpose except to kill, so I include other sports to show that you, once again, are wrong.
How about addressing the fact that the survey, published by the National Institute of Justice supports the conclusion of Kleck and Gertz?
We often hear that banning guns or any other dangerous object is worth it if it saves just one life, right?
How about addressing the fact that defensive gun uses can and has saved more then one life?
Face facts Cliff, you are wrong on this subject.
You claimed the 2nd amendment didn’t guarantee an individual right, the Supreme Court said it does.
You claim the defensive gun use number was wrong, the very survey you linked to proved you wrong.
You claim that handguns have only one purpose - to kill, I pointed out that handguns are used in Olympic sports. Not to mention the countless millions of target shooters, competitions such as IPSA.
Your claim that handguns have only one purpose -to kill is further demolished by the very survey that you cited and the fact that most defensive gun uses don’t end up with someone being shot. The presence, presentation or willingness to use a handgun stops many crimes.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:24 am
A right smart spanking there…. Nice work, Bob.
Cliffy? What ever makes you think that I’m religious or even believe in a God?
You’re making those wacky assumptions again, Tubby.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Cliffy? Could you please back up this statement? Got any proof?
Note: We’ve shown already that Kleck is well reviewed and respected in his field. So is Professor Gertz.
On the other hand, Cliffy’s reading comprehension, writing and debate skills have caused a lot of folks to rethink an education in Vermont.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
JD,
I believe the phrase you are looking for is :
Thanks for the compliment earlier, Cliff makes it easy.
I hope he will get that top post up soon. I won’t be online much from Wednesday through Sunday. Going out to San Diego for my son’s graduation from Marine Corp Boot Camp.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Richard,
I’m not arguing against “legitimizing homosexuals,” I’m arguing against “legitimizing homosexuality.” It’s one thing to tolerate the behavior, it’s another thing entirely for government to endorse it. We can absolutely accept GLBT folks as citizens of the United States with equal rights. We don’t need to redefine marriage to do that.
Glenden,
You make a good point. Same-sex marriage doesn’t require that society endorse homosexuality. We can go on disagreeing with the practice and still have laws which recognize its existence.
As for the inheritance, hospital visitation, and other rights which gay couples deserve, do you think civil unions would be sufficient?
Don,
I am not suggesting we prohibit gays from being gay. That’s fine. They can have relationships if they want and live in their own way. I am only suggesting that we do not include same-sex marriage in the legal definition of marriage.
When I said “I feel like heterosexual marriages are the best way to raise children, and it is socially beneficial for us to support such an environment for the sake of the rising generation,” “feel” was a poor choice of words. I meant “believe”. Science can prove my beliefs wrong by providing further evidence.
Cliff,
I didn’t mean we should legislate based on personal feelings. It was a mistake for me to use the word “feel”. It wasn’t what I meant.
My statement that “The government is for everyone, and everyone’s views need to be considered carefully when making laws.” meant something other than what you understood. I meant we need to consider the will of the minorities, the disenfranchised, the powerless. It didn’t have anything to do with opinion polls.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Enjoy sunny San Diego, Bob. Have a beer for me at the Lahaina Beach House.
How does a Marine say “helicopter”?
(points) Mynughhhh!
Congratulate your kid for me. Tell him that Richard says he can’t be a soldier without another 2 years of training!
November 17th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Kevin - While I think the short term solution is civil unions, at some point, if civil unions grant the same rights, responsibilities and protections as marriage, why not just cut to the chase and grant marriage to same sex couples?
November 17th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Just one thought on civil unions vs marriages. There are already statutes on the books and a massive amount of case law referring specifically to marital rights and disputes (particularly as it pertains to divorce and death). Would all that law apply to legal cases involving civil unions, or do we start from square one with those? Just wondering.
Kevin, you realize that same sex couples are already raising children, don’t you? Do you suggest that granting civil unions instead of marriages will change that? If not, then how does same sex marriage provide any better or any worse (or any different)environment for raising children than exists right now?
November 17th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Interesting development:
NB: Nothing was attached to the pre-press release
November 18th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Hey Cliff,
More of those handguns that only have one purpose being misused.
United States Pistol Team Claims Four Titles in World Action Pistol Championships
Congratulations to the US team….still waiting on that top post Cliff.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Bob:
Just in case this slipped by your notice:
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=4818098
Freeping gun toting idiots take out one of their own!
November 18th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Kevin,
When you say gays can “live in their own way” what exactly does that mean? What if they want to live “married”? There is no compelling state interest in denying them the freedom to do so. When you say you are “only” suggesting that we not legally sanction same-sex marriages you do realize that what you are “only” suggesting is restricting the rights, freedoms and equality of an entire segment of our population, right?
If the sole purpose for the government in sanctioning heterosexual marriages was to support the best environment to raise future generations and you could prove that the best environment was solely heterosexual marriages, then, and only then, would you be on the verge of having a valid argument. As it stands, you have yet to provide even a valid premise for the state to sanction heterosexual unions while excluding same-sex unions. Therefore any conclusions based on your feelings and beliefs concerning the premise are invalid (from a legal standpoint) as well. One last question, how can science prove anything, good or bad, about same-sex marriage if same-sex marriage isn’t allowed?
November 18th, 2008 at 9:23 am
JFarmer,
Nice way to describe a high school student participating in a drama event. It didn’t slip my notice.
For everyone who won’t click on the link, here is part of the story
Okay, so the gun was loaded with blanks, being used as a sound effect, the school had procedures in place and there was an negligent discharge….not exactly someone taking out one of their own.
Let’s review the 4 rules of Firearm safety, this apply even to firearms loaded with blanks.
Since no one saw the accident happen, it is impossible to tell at this time if the youth was following this rule or not.
If the firearm discharged and struck the youth in his hand, this was not being followed.
A firearm does not usually just “go off”, especially a revolver, it usually requires someone to pull the trigger. Unfortunately, it appears that is what this young man did.
Had Rules 1, 2, and 3 been followed, this wouldn’t have happened. Maybe we need to look at training our kids how to handle guns safely. This site is often knocking abstinence only training for sex, shouldn’t the same logic apply. Shouldn’t we teach our kids how to safely handle firearms so they can make better decisions.
I think there was a lapse of adult judgment and supervision in this case, combined with the misuse or mishandling of the firearm.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Glenden,
I don’t think civil unions should grant all the same rights, responsibilities, and protections as marriage. I think civil unions should only cover the financial and sexual legal aspects of marriage (e.g., inheritance, divorce, hospital visitation, etc.), but should not grant parenting priveleges (e.g., adoption, etc.) That’s why the distinction is necessary.
Becky,
I don’t think we would have to start from square one with civil unions. I think we could transfer some of the existing marriage statutes to civil unions. It would definitely be more complicated than simply creating same-sex marriage, but I think it is important to make the disctinction.
Yes, I understand same-sex couples are already raising children. Polygamous families are also raising children, but that doesn’t mean we should legalize polygamy.
I don’t know just how much the legal statutes change people’s family behaviors. For example, there are people out there who will choose to have one more child, in part, because of the child tax credit. (Not that it’s the only reason, but that it helps weigh the decision in that direction.) So, I don’t know the magnitude, but I know it has some effect.
Changes in the law may not have much effect on what people are already doing, but I think it is still important to write the law for what is right. People lie, kill, and steal, but that doesn’t mean we should make lying, killing, and stealing legal. (Homosexuality isn’t like killing, of course, but I hope you get my point.)
Don,
When I say people can “live in their own way,” I mean they should be free to live together, have a sexual relationship, have a commitment ceremony, or whatever else they so choose. They can exchange rings, tell everyone they’re married, take the same last name, buy a house together, and any of that stuff. That’s fine.
Yes, I realize I am suggesting that we restrict the rights, freedoms, and equality for an entire segment of our population by prohibiting same-sex marriage. I also suggest that we limit the freedom of convicted felons by sending them to jail, that we restrict the rights of kleptomaniacs by making stealing illegal, and that we curtail the equality of children by not letting them drive.
Is there a compelling state interest in prohibiting polygamy? Or Rick Santorum-style “man on dog” marriages? If we legalize same-sex marriage, polygamy will be next, I’m certain. The arguments in favor of gay marriage absolutely apply to polygamous marriage.
You’re right that it is not yet scientifically established whether gay couples are better, worse, or the same as heterosexual, biological parents. There are a few studies about it but not enough to come to a conclusion. Until we can really know the answer to this question, it will be unclear whether the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting or allowing same-sex marriage. I guess that gay parenting is bad, and the pro-gay-marriage advocates guess that it’s good. Who is right? Only time will tell.
Science need not study same-sex marriage as such. I think it would be sufficient that we study same-sex parenting, and we can use that as a basis for policy decisions regarding same-sex marriage. The real question is whether it is in the best interest of our children to be raised by homosexual couples.
November 19th, 2008 at 4:31 am
Cliff,
Going out of town for the rest of the week so I got up early to check 1Utah for that top post you promised.
Guess you can’t find enough supportable evidence from credentialed a-political sources for it, eh?