the Greater Nomadic Council

Warning: I'm not happy in this post. I don't think I've written anything that should be offensive, but if I have overlooked something, please forgive me.

Yes, my question about intolerance was loaded, but I meant it that way since that's how I see the issue.

The constant insistence on maintaining the "traditional definition of marriage" is a canard meant to mask the moral judgement that informs such a position. It would be far more honest to simply say "I think homosexuality is a sin, therefore I do not support allowing gays to marry as it would formally recognize the legitimacy of their relationships." Of course, I realize that I might be oversimplifying or misrepresenting your position here, so if I've done that, please point out how your position differs.

Further warning: The argument in this next paragraph depends upon an acceptance of the premise in the previous. I recognize this weakness, so if you have a reason for banning gay marriage that is not based on the sinfulness of homosexuality, ignore this next paragraph. We can, instead, discuss your real reason for supporting a constitutional amendment.

As for "gays... obsessing over the right to get married", you make it sound like they're agitating for some outlandish, indefensible reason. I'm sorry. I understand your religion tells you homosexuality is a sin and I respect your desire to uphold that, but I don't think that should require a prohibition on gay marriage. Gluttony, lust, and greed are mortal sins and serious problems in American culture, but there's no movement to outlaw them. Would you support constitutional amendments outlawing them? If not, why not and how is that different from one banning gay marriage?

As for the fact that the amendment will never be ratified, you're absolutely right. Bush knows this. He's trying to exploit our nation's division on this issue for political gain. A "uniter" indeed.

ah yes, let's all base our rule of law upon the book of leviticus. that means i should die since i eat shellfish, and that anyone with a beard should be executed immediately!

seriously, though, this issue of equality has nothing to do with religion, and another argument i hear is that gay marriage infringes upon the rights of the church.

well, let's see. right now marriage is a civil contract issued by the state. none of these civil contracts must be sanctified by the church. if that were the case, then truly we'd be infringing upon the freedom to worship as one chooses. but the bottom line is that if gay couples were allowed marriage licenses, the church *still would not be forced to sanctify the union*. so see, nothing changes. no infringement upon the churches or anything like that. people will still be free to worship as they choose, and nobody is going to force the churches to start marrying gay couples.

Well, the New Testament also condemns homosexuality. It's not just Leviticus. That said, I agree that it's a civil issue, not a religious one. It seems that those in opposition to gay marriage disagree.

My comment approaches the same territory from a different angle: what does marraige represent in and of itself, and what is its inherent value? If the question can be answered in positive terms, we can then examine, hopefully with minimal prejudice, just what damage an expansion of the definition of marraige would do to the institution and, presumable in turn, to society.

As evenhanded as I'm trying to sound, I can't help but respond with my own answer - marraige represents an ideal of commitment between two people, and the foundation of a family unit that is the most basic building block of modern society. This is an utterly profound institution - the absolute foundation of society. But the definition above would not be undermined in the least by variation in the gender of those entering into such a pact. Anyone making assertions about the relative stability of different sorts of unions are at best on thin ice, given the lack of real empirical data, not to mention how easily I feel consensus could be reached that people's problems getting along with one another go deeper than Mars and Venus.

Most definitions that go beyond that above enter religious territory, which, I think there should be no question, has no place in influencing policy. That's the real code here - whenever anyone says "traditional marraige", what they're really saying is "religious definition of marraige." The fact that it has been the predominant view on marraige in the U.S. doesn't change the fact that there are other, less dogmatic definitions.

Mallarme,
Thanks for your thoughtful response.

The constant insistence on maintaining the "traditional definition of marriage" is a canard meant to mask the moral judgement that informs such a position. It would be far more honest to simply say "I think homosexuality is a sin, therefore I do not support allowing gays to marry as it would formally recognize the legitimacy of their relationships." Of course, I realize that I might be oversimplifying or misrepresenting your position here, so if I've done that, please point out how your position differs.

Actually I think you are quite correct. Where we probably differ is that I think that is a completely acceptable reason to oppose gay marriage. I happen to have a problem with gay relationships. Maybe I have good reasons, maybe I don’t. But it’s an issue that should be up to the democratic process. I should have the opportunity to try to persuade you. Since there is obviously a disagreement about the definition of marriage than it should be debated in the public square and I should be allowed to bring my faith into that square.

As for "gays... obsessing over the right to get married", you make it sound like they're agitating for some outlandish, indefensible reason.

What I was trying to get across is that it seemed like you were making it sound as if Christians are “agitating for some outlandish, indefensible reason.” My point is that we are as much within our rights to fight for are convictions as gays are for fighting for theirs.

I understand your religion tells you homosexuality is a sin and I respect your desire to uphold that, but I don't think that should require a prohibition on gay marriage. Gluttony, lust, and greed are mortal sins and serious problems in American culture, but there's no movement to outlaw them. Would you support constitutional amendments outlawing them? If not, why not and how is that different from one banning gay marriage?

There is a difference between allowing a sinful activity to go on and institutionalizing it with the law. I’m not calling for a law to outlaw homosexual behavior. But I don’t think the government should give homosexual relationships the dignity of the title of marriage because I believe marriage ought to belong to something else.

With that said, while I do not advocate a Constitutional amendment outlawing the deadly sins I certainly think the government can do things to discourage such behavior and I think moral judgments are at the basis of most laws. Aggressively prosecuting tax cheats or Enron type executives is one way in which we can discourage greed. Making marriage laws such that they come down hard in divorce cases on spouses who cheat is a way to discourage lust.

Hmm.. blockquotes. I forgot about those. :)

But it’s an issue that should be up to the democratic process. I should have the opportunity to try to persuade you. Since there is obviously a disagreement about the definition of marriage than it should be debated in the public square and I should be allowed to bring my faith into that square.

I agree that your faith should be allowed to inform your positions. It would be hypocritical of me to claim otherwise. I just wish others supporting the FMA would be as honest about their true motivations as you.

My point is that we are as much within our rights to fight for are convictions as gays are for fighting for theirs.

True. I just see the support for gay marriage in terms of civil rights, but opposition as an attempt to impose religious beliefs.

There is a difference between allowing a sinful activity to go on and institutionalizing it with the law. I’m not calling for a law to outlaw homosexual behavior. But I don’t think the government should give homosexual relationships the dignity of the title of marriage because I believe marriage ought to belong to something else.

The lack of constitutional amendment to define marriage does not mean that homosexuality has been institutionalized. I'm certain you realize this, so I assume that you support the FMA as a preemptive measure to prevent the Supreme Court from eventually ruling in favor of gay marriage. If that is the case, it implies that you implicitly accept the fact that the Constitution, as currently written, would not uphold a ban on same-sex marriages. I understand that, for you, religion trumps secular law, even those as fundamental as the Constitution, but for me, the principles underlying the Constitution are paramount: equality and liberty. An amendment written specifically to discriminate against an unpopular minority is antithetical to those principles and the spirit of the Constitution.

With that said, while I do not advocate a Constitutional amendment outlawing the deadly sins I certainly think the government can do things to discourage such behavior and I think moral judgments are at the basis of most laws. Aggressively prosecuting tax cheats or Enron type executives is one way in which we can discourage greed. Making marriage laws such that they come down hard in divorce cases on spouses who cheat is a way to discourage lust.

Although I agree that moral judgements are part of the basis for most laws, there is typically a much stronger consequentialist aspect. We prosecute tax cheats because that revenue drives our government. A failure to prosecute in such cases would undermine its power and coherence. Marriage laws that punish adulterers theoretically discourage adultery and strengthen one of the fundamental structures of our society. Although my moral beliefs are along more Kantian lines, I don't think moral imperatives are necessarily a good or sound basis for public policy. The promotion of a stable, healthy society is.

It seems you and I will never come to an agreement on this particular issue. I didn't expect we would be able to, but I like to discuss these sorts of things anyways.

On a related topic, what do you think of the argument that gay marriage would undermine the institution of marriage itself?

A tangential note (sorry, no fancy block quotes here):

"I understand that, for you, religion trumps secular law, even those as fundamental as the Constitution, but for me, the principles underlying the Constitution are paramount: equality and liberty. An amendment written specifically to discriminate against an unpopular minority is antithetical to those principles and the spirit of the Constitution."

I don't want to take these words as coming from P's mouth, of course, but they do conjure up a borderline terrifying spectre - how many people in America are truly willing to let their religious belief trump the Constitution? I guess it's just something that I hadn't thought about much, but it stands to reason that these people, whether they themselves have thought about the question or not, are legion. Most of them are probably "God and Country" types for whom "God" means Jesus Christ and "Country" means Toby Keith, and who would be unlikely to recognize the condradiction between their professed patriotism and their support for such marvels of ignorance as this ammendment garbage.

Terrifying, really.

Hmm.. blockquotes. I forgot about those. :)

Yeah, good clean fun.

The lack of constitutional amendment to define marriage does not mean that homosexuality has been institutionalized.

No, but that is what is starting to happen right now and that is what the president is responding to. I think Dubya’s speech writers got it exactly right today: “After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse.”

I'm certain you realize this, so I assume that you support the FMA as a preemptive measure to prevent the Supreme Court from eventually ruling in favor of gay marriage. If that is the case, it implies that you implicitly accept the fact that the Constitution, as currently written, would not uphold a ban on same-sex marriages.

No, I do not “accept the fact that the Constitution, as currently written, would not uphold a ban on same-sex.” I think such a ban is entirely Constitutional. Nevertheless it seems likely that the courts will have a different reading of the Constitution than I have – a reading that I think is incorrect.

I understand that, for you, religion trumps secular law, even those as fundamental as the Constitution, but for me, the principles underlying the Constitution are paramount: equality and liberty.

I don’t really think I’d say that. I believe very much that the Constitution is the fundamental law of the land and must be followed. And I believe that the principles it expresses must be protected and that the amendments should not conflict with those principles. It’s just that I think a lot of people think the Constitution promises more things than it does in actuality.

Henceforth, I shall abuse blockquotes until they're reduced to a whimpering entity begging to be deprecated.

Most of them are probably "God and Country" types for whom "God" means Jesus Christ and "Country" means Toby Keith, and who would be unlikely to recognize the condradiction between their professed patriotism and their support for such marvels of ignorance as this ammendment garbage.

That's a bit condescending, don't you think? I would imagine that we all have beliefs that contradict our nation's laws. Patriotism does not have to equal blind adherence to those laws. I know the kind of person you're describing—the narrow-minded, unreflective jingoist—but I don't think it's fair to conflate them with everyone who places their religious beliefs above secular laws. I would find someone who placed more importance in laws than their morals terrifying.

Also, living in Texas must be warping your perception of the general population if you think "these people... are legion". :)

No, I do not “accept the fact that the Constitution, as currently written, would not uphold a ban on same-sex.” I think such a ban is entirely Constitutional. Nevertheless it seems likely that the courts will have a different reading of the Constitution than I have – a reading that I think is incorrect.

No offense, but shouldn't you defer to the Supreme Court's judgement in such cases? I would consider that also part of respecting the principles of the Constitution.

I don’t really think I’d say that. I believe very much that the Constitution is the fundamental law of the land and must be followed. And I believe that the principles it expresses must be protected and that the amendments should not conflict with those principles. It’s just that I think a lot of people think the Constitution promises more things than it does in actuality.

I don't understand your position then. It seems to me that you're for a gay marriage ban based on your religious beliefs, regardless of whether the Supreme Court would find such a ban, if enacted in some way other than through an amendment, constitutional or not. However, you also imply that you think there is no constitutional basis to strike down such a ban. If that's the case, why not advocate taking the issue to the Supreme Court rather than mangling the Constitution? Are you sure that your interpretation of the Constitution isn't unduly influenced by your religious beliefs in this case? Either way, why do you think a gay marriage ban would be constitutional? I know you're not a legal scholar, but I haven't heard this argument yet.

M: "That's a bit condescending, don't you think?"

Yeah, well, it's my stock in trade, innit?

"I would imagine that we all have beliefs that contradict our nation's laws. Patriotism does not have to equal blind adherence to those laws."

I think it's less a matter of laws than principles. The idea that we can all make space for one another, and get along despite differences in lifestyle, race, or creed, is perhaps the single fundamental motivating idea of modern America. People who can't see this, yet still wave the red white and blue, are profoundly hypocritical, or at least ignorant.

"I know the kind of person you're describing—the narrow-minded, unreflective jingoist—but I don't think it's fair to conflate them with everyone who places their religious beliefs above secular laws."

True. I don't know exactly what my evaluation would be of someone who, in good faith, placed their religion above the Constitution in importance, and was willing to sacrifice the principles of their homeland, not to mention of humanism, to the principles of their religion - but I doubt that someone who did this in good faith would be any less terrifying to me than someone who did it out of ignorance.

There would seemingly be little ideological difference, at a very basic level, between such a person and an Islamic extremist - and we all know where that leads. If we've already had bombings of abortion clinics and black churches in the U.S., how safe will gay marriage ceremonies be if they're institutionalized? Not to imply that all religious types are potential terrorists, but the ability to live and let live does seem to atrophy from time to time, for a variety of reasons, religion among them.

All of which brings up another issue - the gay marriage debate inevitably places religion itself in a terrible light. This is why so many Ammendment supporters are doing rhetorical backflips to avoid sounding like they're passing judgement on gays. They want to make the whole thing as clinical and high-minded as possible, because they know that even among their more doctrinaire followers, the seeds of civil rights and the ideology of equality have taken root, and that performing anything that evokes a Wallace blockade or a Falwell tirade might remind people of exactly what they're really talking about - institutionalized, religion-motivated discrimination in a putatively secular-humanist nation.

True. I don't know exactly what my evaluation would be of someone who, in good faith, placed their religion above the Constitution in importance, and was willing to sacrifice the principles of their homeland, not to mention of humanism, to the principles of their religion - but I doubt that someone who did this in good faith would be any less terrifying to me than someone who did it out of ignorance.

There would seemingly be little ideological difference, at a very basic level, between such a person and an Islamic extremist

If you were drafted to fight a war that you objected to, would you go? If not, how is that different from someone else's moral beliefs being more important to them than the laws? How is that in any way related to terrorism? It's not a question of someone willing to "sacrifice the principles of their homeland", but of one's personal moral system being, in cases of extreme conflict with the laws, more important. See Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobediance. Anyways, I just want to make it clear that I'm not talking about a casual disregard for the laws, but outlier situations where there can be no resolution between one's beliefs and the laws. Furthermore, I would think that most Americans in such a conflict would try to work through the system in a lawful way to get the specific offending statute changed. How, again, is that terrifying?

". . . why do you think a gay marriage ban would be constitutional? I know you're not a legal scholar, but I haven't heard this argument yet."

The question is why wouldn't it be Constitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution saying there is a right to marry who you want, when you want. States have always been given the right to regulate marriages (e.g. banning polygamy, granting and deciding terms of divorce) so if a state legislature determines that marriage is limited to one man and one woman that is the law. What section of the Constitution does that violate?

No offense, but shouldn't you defer to the Supreme Court's judgement in such cases? I would consider that also part of respecting the principles of the Constitution.

Surely you aren’t saying that we must unquestioningly accept SCOTUS’ interpretations of the Constitution? I don’t believe the Court to be omnipotent. One of the Court’s own would agree with me that the current trend of the Supreme Court inventing new rights out of thin air and saying they are supposedly found in the Constitution is dangerous (okay actually I agree with him; he doesn’t know who I am). Having different understandings of the Constitution is the whole reason there are different schools of thought regarding Constitutional interpretation.

ooo ooo, me next! and no blockquotes!

first, to sleepnotwork:
here is an example of an individual (running for public office no less) who believes his religion trumps secular law in every way. he was brought to my attention this week while driving around town. i saw signed that had his name on them, along with the following big red letters:
homosexuality is sin.
abortion is murder.
god's law is perfect.

that is one crazy mofo, IMO. i started reading up on him and he believes that we should work our way towards a society where homosexuals should be punished by death. lovely!

moving along, to piraeus:
first of all, i appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue like a rational being. i don't find that characteristic of most gay marriage opponents.

there are two things you wrote that i'd like to respond to. the first is "why wouldn't it (a gay marriage ban) be constitutional"? right now the cases being filed are citing the equal protection clause of the constitution, the same amendment cited by those who fought for desegregation. in brown v board of education, SCOTUS ruled that you cannot discriminate against a person because of *who they are* (in that specific case, being black). they ruled that all humans in america have an equal right to education.

the equal protection clause has been cited in numerous court cases which have expanded equal rights in america.

the florida case is being filed in us district court and they are citing the equal protection clause in order to overturn florida's DOMA. they have a good shot at winning, as every discrimination case that's gone to SCOTUS based on the EPC has been successful. so the logical conclusion and historical record shows that the right to discriminate against people is not written into the constitution. that is why a gay marriage ban would not be legal, and why US-DOMA will probably be overturned within a few years.

you also wrote: "But I don’t think the government should give homosexual relationships the dignity of the title of marriage because I believe marriage ought to belong to something else."

would you mind expanding on this? what else should it belong to?

okay, and finally, the last thing i want to respond to is this: "States have always been given the right to regulate marriages (e.g. banning polygamy, granting and deciding terms of divorce)"

i'm glad we agree that marriage is a civil contract issued by the state. but you toss polygamy in there and it bothers me. we aren't talking about polygamy and beastiality or that whole slippery slope argument gay marriage opponents sometimes use to justify their beliefs. one thing that we all agree on - and is rarely mentioned - is that marriage is a union *between two committed people who are forsaking all others*. marriage = two people. polygamy is something else, and i think we all agree beastiality and incest are unacceptable. you are somewhat right, in that the states have a limited freedom to regulate these types of civil contracts. however, as the truth holds, the constitution spells out the powers of the federal government which supercede the states, and everything not specified is left to the states. SCOTUS and american history have judged that there is a specific constitutional guarantee against discrimination. any laws made by the states which attempt to thwart equal protection are unconstitutional.

essentially what i'm saying is that in this country, we have the freedom to marry, and historically marriage has (again) been defined as a committment between two people, forsaking all others. i don't see how gay marriage threatens the institution. if anything, the freedom to marry whom we choose has strengthened american families.

imagine if we lived in a country where you had to marry who the state told you to marry. what if you were forced to marry your ugly neighbor even though you didn't love her? sucks, doesn't it? well that's exactly the problem faced by gay individuals today. the state is regulating their freedom to choose who to marry. it's not right, and nothing justifies the suppression of a human being's freedome of choice (after all, god gave it to us).

No, I don't think we should unquestioningly accept their interpretations. I probably shouldn't have written that part to be honest, but after writing so much, my brain gets tired. :) Still, one should at least give serious consideration to any SCOTUS ruling.

As for your concern about which part of the Constitution a ban on same-sex marriages would violate, I'm not sure it does either when enacted by the states. It could possibly violate Equal Protection rights, but I'm not sure. Maybe our resident lawyer larva has some information on this he will share. I know the Court has ruled that laws against interracial marriages are unconstitutional. I don't see how this situation is much different. Neither the color of one's skin nor one's sexual orientation is a choice.