Top.Mail.Ru
? ?
 
 
01 February 2006 @ 09:36 pm
 
NEWS SUPPLEMENTAL:
* Dan Froomkin on the State of the Bubble.
* Dana Milbank on Supreme Court applause politics during the State of the Union.
* Robert Kaiser's instant analysis of the speech.
* Patriot Act gets one more month. This is, in fact, cracking me up.
* LiveOnline transcripts with two Maryland lawmakers concerning the proposed constitutional amendment baning gay marriage: one for and one against.
Tags:
 
 
 
Malkinmalkin on February 2nd, 2006 04:04 am (UTC)
I read those LiveOnlines earlier. Good reading. Scary, but good.

Every time I read more about this, it scares the hell out of me. All I can think is "NOT IN MY STATE." Damn it, we're better than that. We have to rise above this nonsense.

There are a lot of political issues I do not, as a matter of personal policy, comment on in unlocked posts. However, for me, the matter of gay marriage is not subject to debate. It's pretty cut and dry, really.

Either:

A.) Marriage is a Religious Institution. If that is the case, then the government has no business regulating it, and should butt the hell out.

...or...

B.) Marriage is a Civil Contract. If that is the case, then the government has no business discriminating, and should stop immediately.

It is one or the other. If it must be both, then the two entities should be separate, and neither should require the other. The government doesn't tell churches who can be baptised, so what business does it have telling them who can get married?
PMMJ: I want to believe.cheetahmaster on February 2nd, 2006 04:18 am (UTC)
Either:
A.) Marriage is a Religious Institution. If that is the case, then the government has no business regulating it, and should butt the hell out.
...or...
B.) Marriage is a Civil Contract. If that is the case, then the government has no business discriminating, and should stop immediately.


A.m.e.n.
Jenexamorata on February 2nd, 2006 02:11 pm (UTC)
EXACTLY. Actually when I broke it down this way for my father, he came out pro gay marriage. But he wants to call them civil unions. He wants the legal contract that couples get from their county courthouse to be a "civil union" contract no matter the gender makeup of the couple, so that marriage can be defined soley as the religious aspect. Which, hey, whatever works. As long as the legal rights are the same.
mediaprophetmediaprophet on February 2nd, 2006 03:45 pm (UTC)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/01/31/DI2006013101209.html

The democrat made a good point: If you want to make a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, regardless of what couples actually want to do, why not propose an amendment that actually does protect marriages: one that bans divorce! Now I'd oppose that amendment just as much, but it would actually protect marriages, in a twisted way, unlike a "defense of marriage act" that has nothing to do with defending marriage.
(Deleted comment)
PMMJ: King Louiecheetahmaster on February 2nd, 2006 07:18 pm (UTC)
What the hell does that mean? Wasn't that same argument made when lawmakers opposed civil rights and allowing women to vote?

B.i.n.g.o.
mediaprophetmediaprophet on February 2nd, 2006 07:27 pm (UTC)
Or more appropos, it's the same argument made by the lawmakers defending Anti-Miscegenation laws.
mediaprophetmediaprophet on February 2nd, 2006 07:25 pm (UTC)
Most of these people don't know what they're talking about. The argument is that gay men are promiscuous, so marriage is threatened with increased infidelity. See, they think married gay men will not show fidelity. The increasing infidelity of married men will spread to straight men as well because the role of "husband" will come to include rampant infidenlty, imported by the new gay husbands.

This argument is logical, but predicated on two incorrect assumptions.

1) That gay men are unfaithful to their partners and will continue to be promiscuous after marriage. This is based on media stereotypes. There is little data on whether gay men cheat on their partners any more than straight men, and there is NO data on whether married gay men cheat more than married straight men, because right now there AREN'T any married gay men.

2) That the role of "married male" does not differentiate by sexual orientation. This is plainly false; the role of "boyfriend" or "fiance" is definitely different by sexual orientation. Straight boyfriends do not act like gay boyfriends; they do not role-model them; and they do not aspire to be like them.

Finally, the argument has the flaw that fidelity is legally mandated in ways other than just prescribing who can be married to whom. Adultery laws in most states and divorce laws in all states penalize unfaithful spouses without any mention of sexual orientation.