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 :)