Please visit the new home of Majikthise at bigthink.com/blogs/focal-point.

« Ancient Greek joke book foreshadows Monty Python's "Dead Parrot" sketch | Main | Rick Perlstein at NYU »

November 13, 2008

Dan Savage vs. Tony Perkins on Prop 8

[HT:Daily Dish.]

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61e653ef010535ec9272970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dan Savage vs. Tony Perkins on Prop 8:

Comments

"This isn't mainly an issue of rights- its an issue of status."

For bigots like The Phantom Homer, it's an issue of keeping gays at a lower status.

"I won't spend much time on this here, as it's been kicked around these pages many times, and there's ... "

Where have I heard THAT before? And then he goes on for 648 words. Whataya know, a two-fer lie from a conservative bigot.

"Civil unions can address the needs of gay couples ... "

As a The Field Negro said of this: "I guess, and we can all still drink the same water, what's wrong with separate drinking fountains?"

"Marriage is between one adult man and one adult woman."

Based on what?

"If you disagree, I won't call you names, like some here are wont to do."

Well, you called me a liar for saying something that was true (since I first heard about gay marriage back around 1980).

And calling you a bigot isn't name calling if it's accurate.

You want to deny gay people their rights simply because of who they are. That's no different than saying 'Women can't do ______.' or 'Blacks can't do _______ ."

It's bigoted. Anybody who espouses those points of view is a bigot.

The Phantom Homer, three things:

1 - "But all government entities would be forced to perform same sex marriages and to recognize them."

Really? ALL government entities like the Department of Defense? But anyway, that's right. It's called equal protection. That's what prevents some states from have Jim Crow laws on the books. Equal rights for everybody in every state. It has to be that way, or it's not a democracy.

2 - "And all schools would have indoctrinated students in the normalcy of this change. Many parents want no part of this."

Why gosh golly! Next thing you know, schools might have to start teaching things like women have the same rights as men and discriminating based on skin color is morally wrong! Heaven forfend if our schools would have to start teaching things like that! Why, it flies in the face of so many fundamental traditions!

3 - "I won't spend much time on this here, as it's been kicked around these pages many times, and there's ... "

How's that whole "won't spend much time on this here" deal working out for you?

TB addresses none of the more relevant points and continues to holler that I am ( and presumably those in the 30 states, along with Barack Obama ) are "bigots".

I guess its easier to shout than to think.

I heard of google in 1980 too, and I wrote a dissertation on the promise of Barack Obama in 1976. I can tell the truth just as TB does.

Shalom to all from Israel. Great little country, and I will be posting some photos and comments upon my return.

Marriage is largely an institution to protect children. I think that children are by necessity harmed when they grow up without both a father and mother. Doesn't mean that single mothers or occasionally single fathers cannot do a good job in the absence of a partner, I do say that it's sad to see children brought up by a so called married couple that do not include either a mother or father.

To my knowledge, sociological evidence says this isn't true. I don't even know of any evidence that children do better in two-parent households than in single-parent households, after accounting for the natural differences in income.

OK The Phantom ("I won't spend much time on this here"), it's real simple:

Do you believe that gays deserve equal protection under the law?

As for Obama, I think we're both agreed he only says he's against SSM to get elected. I know a lot of people who'll tell you he isn't really religious, either - his account of his conversion to Christianity sounds like he started going to church because that was what was expected of a black community organizer, rather than because he came to believe in Jesus.

"To my knowledge, sociological evidence says this isn't true. I don't even know of any evidence that children do better in two-parent households than in single-parent households, after accounting for the natural differences in income."

Not to my knowledge either Alon.

The determining factor for the emotional and physical health of a child is the love from the parents, not what kind of genitals the parents have.

"Marriage is largely an institution to protect children."

Since when? That's largely a recent construct you hear conservatives say, usually in connection with lots of "Won't someone think of the children!!!" hand-wringing over gay marriage. Children raised by gays aren't that different from children raised by hets.

Much the same way they go on about "the family is the basic unit of society", which is also wrong.

"As for Obama, I think we're both agreed he only says he's against SSM to get elected."

That seems to be the case, Alon, especially if you read what he's said about wanting to do away with DOMA.

Really, logically, this is SUCH a non-issue.

What's to be feared if two men or two women want to get married?

All those fears I've heard expressed have more to do with the hang-ups and inadequacies of (supposedly) straight conservatives than actual facts on the ground.

I have yet to hear from anyone how this will take away their rights for being straight and married or straight and single.

I have yet to hear from anyone how this will take away their rights for being straight and married or straight and single.

Consider two citizens of a foreign country hoping to emmigrate to the United States, establish permanent residency and work legally. Imagine they are exactly the same except one is married to a U.S. citizen and the other one is single.

Does the single citizen have the same rights as the married citizen?

What change?

Gay REAL MARRIAGE is legal in Britain, Canada, Spain, Mass., Conn., CA., etc.


*****


Phantom - tell it to the voters who supported slavery. Tell it to the Justices in the Dred Scott decision.


Mob rule is tempered by the Bill Of Rights, and the U.S. Constitution, and the CA Constitution. So that the minority doesn't get rolled by the majority. And yes, every single idiot who votes against gay marriage is a bigot just like you, Phantom. Stand up and be counted. 50 million French men can be wrong, just like millions of Americans.

As for traditional marriage...according to the bible, it's between one man and up to four wives at one time. FACT. Don't talk about traditional marriage, Phantom, you don't even know what your talking about.

And you said, yourself, that Obama supports your idea of marriage, and then you wrote that Obama secretly supports gay marriage. You can't even keep your own thoughts/story straight. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

BTW - Stamp your feet all you want Phantom, but no one needs your sanction for anything, much less their marriages.

"Does the single citizen have the same rights as the married citizen?"

No parse, but that's only relevant because of their marriage status, not because of their sexual orientation.

You cold say the same thing about a straight couple versus a straight single person trying to move form one country to the next.

How many wives did Solomon have mudkitty?

I think it was more than four ... but this whole "biblical traditions" of most anything when applied to a democracy is hogwash.

The bible endorses slavery. The bible endorses stoning. Hell, the bible endorses stoning someone if they wear two different kinds of fabric.

I'd be careful with that poly/cotton blend you're wearing The Phantom Homer. The god-fearing, bible-thumping Israelites might smite you a blow.

Sorry parse, I forgot to add, this isn't conferring special rights to gay people, just making sure they have the same rights straight people have.

Sorry parse, I forgot to add, this isn't conferring special rights to gay people, just making sure they have the same rights straight people have.

The same rights straight married people have now. Single people, straight and gay, don't have that right. Making sure married gay people have the same special rights married straight people doesn't strike me as the most equitable way to resolve the problem.

My friend characterized a similar situation in response to the furor over Proposition 8: support health care for all, not marriage for some.

Parse, do you think it's unreasonable for the immigration system to give priority to people who are married to US citizens?

California recognizes a substantive constitutional right to marry.
You're oversimplifying, Fitz. No one disputes that the Federal government recognizes a right to marry, but the question is what "to marry" means. New York says that "to marry" means to have an opposite-sex marriage, while California says it includes same-sex marriage as well. It's not enough to say that California misreads the cases; you've got to explain why.

And that's getting harder and harder to do. Loving grants us a right to marry, and Lawrence neuters the force of "morals" justifications for state action. In light of Lawrence, Douglas' concurrence in Roe v. Wade (reading 14th amendment "liberty" to mean "autonomy") seems to be the most enduring articulation the content of "liberty" in the 14th amendment. None of the competing explanations--privacy, freedom from imprisonment--cohere as well.

Parse, do you think it's unreasonable for the immigration system to give priority to people who are married to US citizens?

Yes. I support open immigration.

This is off-topic, but I've always thought open immigration is an oddly extremist doctrine. Is the idea that anyone who can make it to North America and who wants to be an American citizen can become one, no questions asked? Does this include the criminals of the world, the drug addicts of the world, the diseased people of the world? Wikipedia (under tuberculosis) tells me that already, 40% of the USA's new TB cases come about through immigration from countries where TB is endemic.

Dan Savage says a simple majority is not always correct. Obama only won 53% to 47%, is that simple majority questionable too?

If gay marriage is a civil right that does not redefining marriage, is polygamy in all its forms a civil right that does not redefine marriage too? Are prostitution and public nudity also civil rights.

Joe - you need to take a sex education course. Gay couples marrying is not the same as polygamy...you also need to learn to count, evidently.

And there's nothing in either prop 8, or the ruling allowing gay marriage in CA., that says anything about prostitution or public nudity. If you can't tell the difference between gay marriage and prostitution, or public nudity, than, you need to take an 8th grade health class.

If you are a public nudist, or a prostitute, than fight for your own rights Joe, and don't try to muddy the waters, or change the subject.

"A lot of the propaganda behind Prop 8 intimated that churches were in danger of being "forced" to marry same-sex couples."


http://www.thelocal.se/tag/lars_ohly

Thom

Hardly… you rather, seem be ignoring the plain charge of the very quote I use…

Judge Graffeo noted….

“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”2

2 - Andersen v. King County (J. Graffeo concurring)

From the Washington State Decision

“But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple. And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single- sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis.”


Note the court appropriately applies Loving, etc.

The plurality makes strong criticisms of the concurrence and two of the dissents at the outset of its opinion, including charging the main dissent with “sadly overstep[ping] the bounds of judicial review” for suggesting that supporters of marriage laws are bigots.

Besides calling the lower court decisions “transparently result-oriented” and a reflection of “the dominant political ideas of their legal community,” the concurrence says: “[t]hough advanced with fervor and supported by special interests loudly advocating the latest political correctness, the arguments (and the dissenters) cannot overcome the plain legal and constitutional principles supporting Washington’s definition of marriage.”

To elaborate - As Justice Cordy wrote in dissent, the majority of the court had -

“transmuted the "right" to marry into a right to change the institution of marriage itself.”1

"only by assuming that 'marriage' includes the union of two persons of the same sex does the court conclude that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples infringes on the 'right' of same-sex couples to 'marry'.”2

"[i]n context, all of these decisions and their discussions are about the 'fundamental' nature of the institution of marriage as it has existed and been understood in this country, not as the court has redefined it today.”3

Maintaining that marriage's - “'fundamental' nature is derivative of the nature of the interests that underlie or are associated with it” -and that a an - “examination of those interests reveals that they are either not shared by same-sex couples or not implicated by the marriage statutes.”4


1,2,3,4, - Goodridge v. Dept. of Pub. Health,798 N.E.2d 941, 955 (Mass 2003)

Phantom,

Again: what is your position on infertile people being allowed to marry? What about females with Turner syndrome, i.e. only one X chromosome? They're not going to reproduce. They might not even menstruate. Why should they be allowed to poison the marital well, so to speak? If God wanted them to marry he'd bless them with the ability to reproduce. Right?

Parse, there isn't open immigration right now, and there never will be; there is family-based inheritance, and there always will be. Everything you support about marriage has to take that into account. It's not enough to say that your idea of how to structure society is consistent with itself; it needs to be consistent with an external reality.

Fitz, if the purpose of marriage is to bring biological children into the world, then say that. Currently law and custom aren't that marriage needs to bring biological children; adoption is legal, tax benefits don't lapse if a married couple fails to have children, and every opposite-sex couple can marry regardless of fertility.

Someday we will have a gay, lesbian, or transgendered president. Onbviously not a Republican president, I would think, but you never know.

The comments to this entry are closed.