Need help arguing against a gay marriage ban
 

As I've mentioned before, I work for the editorial page of my local paper, which means, I also sit on the editorial board. The editorial board, among other things, decides what the position the paper will take (if any) on various issues as well as endorsing candidates for office.

Last week the state legislature had a press conference essentially saying that they are planning to try to get gay marriage banned. Insiders say that they're trying to get on the ballot with the 2008 presidential election (PA's process is longer than a lot of states), no doubt since PA went blue in 2004.

SO I heard my boss say last week that perhaps we (the paper) need to sit down and formulate a stand on the issue. I'm one of the most liberal people on the board and plan to argue against what the state legislature is doing, however I have no doubt I will end up arguing with our more conservative members. I have been trying to ready myself for the fight by doing research, but have come up a bit short.

I'm looking for good solid pro-gay marriage arguments (or anti-ban ones anyway), especially retorts to the predictable anti-gay marriage arguments, since these are questions I know I'm going to have to answer.

One of the reasons I'm asking you guys becasue I remember a year or so ago I thought one of you (sparky, Tower, Strand???) had a really cogent retort to the whole "why outlaw three people getting married..." etc. argument. I tried the Ledge search, but still can't find it.

You can direct me to Web sites or other sources or just present your positions here. I'm actually a little embarassed that I need help on this and that I'm not well enough armed on my own, but I finally decided to swallow my pride and just ask for help. I'm really going to have to have my ducks in a row on this one; the area is istorically conservative and while I may not be able to convince them to come out against the ban, I may be able to punch enough holes in the conservative argument so that we just don't take one at all.

I really appreciate anything anyone can add...including any retorts to the whole "slippery slope" argument...

I dont mean for this to sound like a simple answer, but to me it's purely and simply fear. What I mean by that is they are afraid that somehow if I were to marry Derek, that the institution of marriage would crumble before god's feet. I just fail to understand that logic. Hope that helps.

My position is the govt. should sanction no form of marriage at all. In other words, the terms "husband," "wife," and "marriage" should appear nowhere in the actual law. If your church wants to marry you - great. Then, it should be on you to fill out the paperwork to get the rights of visitation, inheritance, tax benefits, etc. automatically given to people married under the current definition of some religions.

But, my idea will never happen because the far religious right cannot abide anything other than the Christian idea of marriage. So, until then, it is against the Const. prohibition of establish a formal religion to say that only one form of religious mariiage (albeit the most popular form) automatically gets sanctioned by the govt. So, all forms of marriage should be included in the govt. def.

And I don't understand it either.

Here's a good essay I found:

http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

I find it interesting that Anthony Kennedy would make a statement like that being a Reagan appointee.

So if you're not the chuch-going type, you're saying people need to register as a "union" in order to get the custody, tax, and death type benefits? Making the unreligious not so much married as "unionized"?

Including, say a marriage among three people? (There are already laws against marrying young people and animals based on issues of consent which is why I'm not bothering with that argument.)

Well, being an absolute libertarian, I'm afraid my views are way too idealistic to use in an argument, but I'll say them anyway.

First, the whole "if this passes, then people could argue they want to marry an animal." Umm...generally from what I've seen, it takes consent (the saying of "I do" in a traditional marriage) from BOTH sides in order to marry. How is an animal going to consent to marriage?

Second, the rest of the conservative's argument on the "definition of marriage" view is that anyone could marry, people could marry more than one person, etc. My question has always been, WHO CARES?!? What the Hell do I care if the neighbor down the street wants to marry his sister? Do I agree, or would I do the same? HELL NO! But if it's not hurting me, or anyone else for that matter, what's the big deal? As for bigomy coming into play, I may be wrong but I believe there ARE people in the U.S. who can marry more than one spouse because of their culture. Plus, like I said, how many people are truly going to consent to having their spouse marry another person? And if that spouse DOES consent to it, again, WHO CARES?

There are just way too many other issues that I feel are SO much more important than all of this. Let people marry who they will if it makes them happy. After all, the U.S. guarantees the right to the pursuit of happiness, albeit that that pursuit doesn't hurt anyone else. Marriage is NOT hurting anyone else. Again, I guess I'm just too idealistic, but I just really don't care what other people do if they aren't hurting anything.

Well, H. W. Bush appointed Souter, and Ford appointed Stevens, and they're two of the most liberal justices...so you can't always go by that.

I think I'm in love with you...:xoxo:

I think it boils down to something really basic. With issues like war, poverty, racism, problems with education or lack thereof and many more, too many to name, people need to waste their valuable time on somebody's private life? So the state of the country is just so perfect and there are absolutely NO problems to solve that the government feels the need to jump all over LOVE? I could scream, its so absurd.

:lol: LOL :lol:
And here I was waiting for some harsh responses!

Well I'm the gay GOPer around her (almost a libertarian...ALMOST)

So, this is why I give you love :xoxo:

I think that the government should get out of the "marriage" business, leave that to churches to do as they wish, and instead have a set of laws that guarantee certain benefits and define certain responsibilities to a union, allowing that union to define itself any way it wishes (with obvious exceptions).

However, Sugar, I don't think that's how your paper should approach the gay marriage ban issue. Opponents of gay marriage are defining your issue by putting a ban on the ballot, so you need to respond accordingly.

The simple argument is that denying a gay or lesbian couple the same benefits and privileges as a heterosexual couple is discrimination. It is indefensible, and that's why court after court rules accordingly.

If you are against gay marriage, it means that you don't think gay people should get equal treatment as straight people. Pure and simple. So those against gay marriage should admit that and stop hiding behind arguments about protecting the family, or sanctity of marriage, or the "slippery slope" to legalizing polygamy. Massachusetts has already proved that gay marriage isn't a threat to anyone.

If I were you, I'd advocate that your paper lay it out clearly: if you believe in equal rights for gay people, then you support gay marriage, if not, then you support discrimination. Make your choice, but know what it means.

The polygamy thing and slippery slope are just red herrings. Supporting gay marriage has nothing to do with blowing wide open the definition of marriage. Don't let the others frame the issue. Keep it simple and obvious---do you support discrimination against gay people, or don't you.

Sugar, I suggest you go out and buy a book called "The Commitment" by Dan Savage. It will give you every single thing you need. Or just google him, as many excerpts of his book have appeared other places. He starts off not wanting to get married at all, and through a series of misadventures, his opinion changes a bit. It will solve all your problems re: the editiorial.

We *must* have separation of church and state. If Christians believe the bible, then you know that God has given us free choice…for which we all will answer for in the end. But the point is, those choices are ours to make. If God thinks free choice is good enough for us, what makes the government think they know better than Him? Maybe it’s a sin, maybe it isn’t. If you believe it’s a sin, then so be it. I sin every day but I’m still allowed to live my life as I see fit so long so I don’t hurt others. Go right ahead and believe gay marriage is a sin. Pray for them if you want, but don’t deny their civil rights. People have to make their own choices and deal with their own consequences. I think so many people are worried about the consequences others will deal with rather than their own. :shrug: Good luck with your arguement and let us know how it goes!

Kelly :)

No, I am saying none of those benefits should exist. There should be no registering at all with the govt.

Instead, people should privately contract for these benefits a la a will, a Power of Attorney, etc. The far right claims that gay and other people can obtain 95% of the rights automatically granted to heterosexual marriage by executing these documents - so they should continue to do so and not "ruin" marriage. I say that if these rights are so easily obtainable, then everyone should have to do it by contract and the govt. should not automatically grant them to anyone.

I say if you want to marry 10 consenting people - you should be able to do so without the govt. interfering in your life. That is why the govt. should not sanction any union or marriage. It is forcing the concept of the religion of many on everyone, which is wrong.

I totally agree with you. But, people cannot stand other people being too wild and too free :shrug:

Wow. That is something I had never even considered before....sorta like I must've figured that sanctioning was something from the dawn of time and had always existed. Shows what a bubble I've lived in. I will think about that.

Kelly :)

isnt there some sort of Constitutional angle? such as due process? or discrimination via Civil rights (race color religion national origin sex age political beliefs?)

I am at work or I'd delve into this further.....

^^

The only Constitutional issues I see are

1. promoting one religion over the other violates the anti-establishment clause -

2. arguably, due process/equal protection is being violated because not all people can get the same rights - though homosexuals are not a suspect class (which is harder to discrimminate against) and homosexuals can marry women, though they chose not to, etc.

Finally, the Full Faith and Credit clause pretty much overrides the DOMA - and another state will be forced to accept a sister state's definition of marriage.

Teen Shoots Up Mass. Gay Bar, Police Say
 

Here's a good reason, unequal treatment perpetuates descrimination and hatred. I suppose it would be hard to prove this but if you just use common sense it isn't so much of a leap.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1569739

By RAY HENRY Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press

NEW BEDFORD, Mass. Feb 2, 2006 — A teenager armed with a hatchet and handgun opened fire inside a gay bar early Thursday, wounding at least three people in what police are investigating as a hate crime.

A bartender at Puzzle Lounge told The Associated Press that the young man, dressed all in black, ordered a drink and asked if Puzzles was a gay bar. He finished his drink shortly after midnight, ordered another, then started attacking people, the bartender said. Three were hospitalized Thursday.

Police were searching for Jacob D. Robida, 18, Police Capt. Richard Spirlet said.

An arrest warrant sought to charge Robida with assault, attempted murder and civil-rights violations. According to a court filing attached to the warrant, a woman in the bar recognized had recognized Robida as a current or former student at New Bedford High School.

The teenager was armed with a handgun and "some sort of cutting instrument," Spirlet said.

The bartender said the attacker was swinging a hatchet.

After finishing his drink, the man walked to the back of the bar where two men were playing pool, shoved one to the ground, then pulled a hatchet from his sweat shirt and began swinging at the man's head, cutting him, the bartender said.

Other patrons tackled the man, sending the hatchet sliding across the floor, the bartender said. That's when the man pulled out a handgun, he said. The gunman shot both pool players and also fired at a patron who was leaving the bathroom, hitting him in the chest.

"He was shooting at everyone," said the bartender, who asked to be identified only by his first name, Phillip, because of concerns about his safety.

The attacker also shoved him before running out, Phillip said. He said police found the hatchet and a machete in the bar.

Puzzles is popular with the local gay community and is listed on Web sites offering resources to gays and lesbians.

New Bedford, a city of 94,000 residents, is 50 miles south of Boston.


Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

how freaking insane is this? I have often thought about things like this happening or a bomb like on Queer As Folk...scary ****

Wow...I thought this thread was dead....:lol:

The importance issue is a real one here in PA, in my opinion, since the state legislature is under fire for both shoving through a 34% pay raise (since repealed) and for a botched property tax reform. In last week's paper my take was basically, "Hello? Why are we talking about gay marriage when people NEED tax reform."

I, like you, frankly have a hard time caring who someone else wants to marry. Other than tradition, I don't know that I have a problem with three consenting people getting married. Frankly the most disturbing thing I've found in doing research are conservative sites, not pro-pologamy ones, saying "You want to kill gay marriage? Start pushing for legalized pologamy."

These people need jobs...

This is not a very popular opinion around here, but I blame religion (from the Catholic Church on down) for this. I get that some are worse than others and the majority do not advocate violence, but they all demonize gay people and by associating the actions of some gay people and some not even gay people like peds. with all of gaydom. That demonization cannot be handled by many, which leads to people like this fukctard wanting to punish gay people. So, yes, to me, the fault lies with religion and its endless persecution of gay people as if they are the sole cause for suffering in the world.

I actually agree with most of this. I don't think it is the intention of say the Catholic Church to advocate violence towards gays/lesbians in ANY WAY! But I think, like you said...some people just can't handle that "demonization" and feel that somehow in their warped minds they are doing a "good deed". But I don't know whether to blame this on religion or just nutcases? :shrug:

Well, the Catholic Church equates homosexuals with peds. and then demonizes the peds. because it knows most people hate homosexuals on some level. Then, out of the other side of its mouth, it says don't hurt them. I mean equating an innocent human being to some other freak who gets off hurting prepubescant children in an effort save its own ass is horrible and can only lead to violence. So, yes, it is the religion itself to these eyes.

I've also thought that perhaps "marriage" just needs to be relagated to a religious distinction and that there be some extra step of registering with the government that everyone needs to do to be recognized by the government as a union.

The simplicity/red herring argument is an interesting one too. I've seen it argued that where gay marriage is recognized there hasn't been any rush for people to marry their sister, their cat, or six people down the street.

Not letting other guy redefine the issue is a good one. It's hard because as people lob their arguments at you the natural reaction is to attempt to respond to them. But perhaps in this case it would be more effective not to address those scare tactics and keep on point. Thanks!

I can see that.

On another note...when comparing Catholics and Protestants in terms of their "views" on gays...Catholics look like saints.

Well, no they do not. Again, the Catholic Church convinced people that being gay means you are ped., which is just untrue. So, yes, the Church is not Jimmy Swaggert saying he would punch any gay guy who came onto him, but that is a distinction without a difference to these eyes :shrug:

Thanks! I didn't even know he had a book out. I'm a regular reader of his columns and like his sraightforward logical approach. That's exactly what I need in this circumstance.

Yes, I suppose you are right...

I guess I just have a soft spot for some Catholics, as it is all that I know. :shrug:

Oh - don't get me wrong, the Church has done so many wonderful things and inspired billions. I think overall it is a good is not great organization, despite the blemishes I am harping on here. A good example is Mother Theresa - some, including me, call her a saint - others blame her for millions of unwanted pregnancies and endless suffering because she refused to advocate birth control in India. I think the good she did more than outweighes that.

Don't make me laugh.

laugh at the idea that people despise her for that or laugh at that fact that I think the good she did outweighed that?

On edit - yes, I think she should have advocated birth control.

Also, within the Catholic definition of that word (a holy person who is exceptional in their faith) - she was just that, regardless of lay opinion.

Laugh at the fact that you consider that wench to be a "saint."

Good stuff, Jason. Thanks.

I'm going to be actively arguing with folks who are going to want us to support the ban, and I'm only going to get one shot at this so the more ammo I have the better. Thanks...all of you...for helping me to cover all the bases.:thumbsup:

She did do so much good for so many. In fact, exponentially far more than you or I will ever do :shrug: So, yes, though she is a human being and had faults, she was as good as she could have been in her faith and billions were better for it. But, I know I know - night day - black white - hot cold - etc. - and I love ya for it :angel:

You are more than welcome. Again, in the end, the sole question is is it right for the govt. to push the majorities concept of religious marriage on the minority. The answer must be no because this country was founded on religious tolerance after years of persecution abroad, which lead to the lang. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ... .” - here is fairly cool site http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...ent/index.aspx

GOOD LUCK!!!!

Methinks you don't know all that much about that little witch other than what's been regurgitated in the mainstream press about her supposed "good deeds." She's proof positive that religion is what's been wrong with this world since day one. Paint it whatever color you want, but I'm not about to fawn over a single thing that she did.

I knew a Sister who worked in her organization and knew her.

But, I guess you are correct, she never tended to the sick, clothed and fed the poor, and inspired no one :rolleyes:

Now, if you want to say religion is a bad thing and through that she hurt people, sure she did.

I am not a fan of wiki - but his is pretty good and seemingly a fair and balanced portrayal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mo...eresa/Archive3