You captured more or less exactly how I feel. I'm all for gay marriage for the reasons you give.

Permitting gay marriage may do serious damage to the institution of marriage as its opponents argue; I don't really know.

But I find it hard to believe that gays can do half as much damage as straights have done themselves.

Of course, the worst possible outcome is the one which we seem to be heading for: watering down marriage itself with "civil unions" which will weaken the meaning of marriage even further. Personally, I'm more in favor of a compromise solution: full gay marraige in exchange for some restrictions on divorce and the total abolition of extra-marital privileges. Something for liberals and conservatives both.

This stuff really worries me. The legal freedom we enjoy is predicated in part on our own ability to control ourselves and to take responsibility for our actions. Sexual licentiousness may be a ton of fun (to be honest, I wouldn't know), but it has a number of devastating effects, both on individuals and on society. And, of course, the general decline of inhibitions and impulse control is not a favorable development.

On the legal side, the MA decision is an abomination. I used to regularly call my state legislators to encourage them to enact gay marriage; the courts are not the place for this decision.

Good piece.

I'm a bit confused about your friend Steve, though. I understand why his partner wouldn't be able to automatically get his assets. But what precluded Steve's simply writing a will and leaving them to him? If one can leave your one's assets to one's cats, surely it's possible to leave them with another human, even a gay one to whom you're not married?

James -

Because by the time he thought to do so (change the terms of the trusts that held his assets), he was arguably incompetent due to the effects of the disease - or at least that's the argument his parents made, and were making to have me removed as his medical attorney-in-fact.

A.L.

Well said.

My personal favored solution is to get government out of marriage altogether. Privatize it, in effect. For legal purposes, anyone would be able to enter into a civil union, but only churches would actually promulgate "marriage."

I understand why you support gay marriage - I would also like to extend all the legal protection that marriage affords to homosexual couples. But I have difficulty with courts deeming it a 'marriage'.

The best way I can explain my position is with an analogy (not a good one, sorry, but the best I can do.)

Imagine if the Supreme Court of Massachusetts decided that, from now on, obseity and fitness will now be recognized as 'equal' conditions in society. That no negative value judgement will be placed on obesity for any reason, because it hurts fat people's feelings.

Now, we all know that obese people are capable of being loveable, productive, desireable, wonderful people in their own right, and that obesity does nothing to detract from their value as people, and that all care should be taken to protect them from discrimation, but the fact remains that the condition of obesity is not an ideal one for a number of reasons, regardless of how much a court would wish us to be non-judgemental about it.

Similarly, calling a homosexual civil union a marriage is an attempt by the courts to confer some sort of validation to the arrangement that cannot be.

One could put forth that there are many homosexual relationships that are stronger and healthier than hetero ones, and few could argue (in the same way there's many heavy people who are actually more fit than some thin people) but overall it's a condition that, by its very nature of being an aberration, will be viewed by society as such.

It would be like the court telling everyone that, from now on, everyone will consider the color green to be blue.

I say give them all the legal protection of unions recognized by the state, but don't muddy the waters by trying to change the definition of marriage. It's not necessary, and it probably won't work.

Praktike,

Just changing the name will satisfy some opponents of gay marriage, but not many. As one conservative recently said (roughly), "We are trying to protect an institution, not a word."

Anemone,

I take the exact opposite approach. Marriage is an ancient institution which carries much highly desireable baggage (fidelity, devotion, permanance), and despite cultural attacks and modern reality, most people still thing "'till death do us part" means exactly that.

"Civil unions" are new and without cultural baggage; we are essentially making it up as we go along. The meaning of "civil union" might come to be "marriage of convenience," or "marriage without pesky fidelity requirements" or "fraudulent marriage for immigration purposes, only with somewhat less paperwork."

I consider the redefinition of the word "marriage" to be less dangerous and difficult than the redefinition of the concept of committed relationships through a new and unknown kind of relation.

In short, I want to bring gay people in to the highly succesful, if somewhat beleaguered, concept of marriage, rather than let straight people out of it. "Oh, sweetheart, I'm not ready for marriage, let's just get a civil union and see how it goes." That sounds nuts, but I suspect it will happen.

I would consider this to be a very conservative and traditionalist project, which keeps with my conservative and traditionalist tendencies. It places me at odds with most conservatives, I know, but I think, contrary to their expressed sentiments, that they are, in fact, defending nothing more than a word, to the detriment of the institution they want to protect.

Rob -

"Oh, sweetheart, I'm not ready for marriage, let's just get a civil union and see how it goes."

-- You have a point there. I can most definitely see that happening....

What does working out social norms slowly and awkwardly over time have to do with a bunch of unelected mandarins all-too-willing to play lawgiver to the entire nation?

I'm a little confused about what happened with the lesbian wife-of-convenience: was her taking his remaining assets part of the deal, or did he want them to go to his lover, but she had the legal right and decided to hang on to them?

IOW, was she getting the agreed upon payment for her efforts on his behalf or was she a thieving bitch?

I fail to see how the proper role of government is to somehow save the institution of marriage. Call me crazy.

Let gays marry. Let them suffer with the rest of us when paying the "marriage tax", get robbed by Social Security when a spouse dies and suffer legal robbery when a relationship fails.

No, praktike, I won't call you crazy. The libertarian in me agrees that the government's job here is to follow the culture and do what the culture wants.

But, see, in real life, it doesn't work that way. The government is going to shape the culture. It can't help it. The advent of no-fault divorce had a profound effect on the way people thought about marriage. It was a progressive attempt to end fradulent and destructive claims of adultery, cruelty, etc. But it has been profoundly subversive to the institution. I think that most people still think, in their heads, that marriage ought to be for life, but in practice it doesn't work out that way, as we all know.

The government wasn't the whole reason behind the increase in both cohabitation and divorce, but it played a role.

I started, at this point, to argue that marriage is desireable socially and has all kinds of positive consequences: reduced poverty, reduced crime, etc. It would take thousands of words to make that case, so I won't try; if you don't believe me, that's fine. I'll just say that the government's modern fights against both crime and poverty would be substantially simplified and reduced by strengthening marriage and encouraging some kind of sexual restraint. Altering our "follow your dick" culture will allow for a social order which is less restrictive and overbearing, legally speaking. The restrictions will come from within rather than without.

Insofar as the government is paying for cops, welfare, and prison guards, it might as well be attacking the roots of the problem. Or, at least, it should avoid destroying what is left of our culture's self-restraint.

Rob, I'm not sure you have the problem diagnosed correctly, but I agree that marriage is socially desirable in general.

I think the transition from women being wholly owned by their spouses to women being full members of society probably has a lot to do with it as well.

Moreover, I think that urban problems have a lot more to do with the state of marriage in cities than the reverse. The "root of the problem" is poverty, period.

I'm mystified by your suggestion that the government taking an active role in discouraging sex will lead to less intrusive government.

The "marraige" that the cultural right proposes is a fantasy land. I have been reading about the Duke of Wellington. He was considered a happily married man and a credit to the idea of marraige. Yet he had numerous liasons with courtesans.

In those days such behavior was only considered a problem if it kept one from doing one's duties.

So the cultural right's idea of marraige is a bit blinkered in the light of history.

Then we have the gay bit.

Look up what Jesus had to say about the Centurion. (Hint: he found him one of the most godly people he had ever met). Then consider that in those days boy slaves like the boy slave the Centurion had were used for sexual purposes. I have yet to have a Christian explain that one to me.

As to government enforcement of morality - alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition have been stunning successes haven't they?

The purpose of government is the reduction of violence. Period.

As soon as it gets involved in all these social issues it only increases violence (the drug war) and discord. The government is not your daddy. It is not your church. It is not a dating agency. (Except for Bill C.) It is not in charge of social relations. For a very long time churches kept marriage registries not government.

I have the feeling that the major reason why social conservatives dislike gay marraige is their inability to deal with men having sex with one another (they probably like the idea of women having sex with one another, however). :) One can call it the "icky" factor. I also believe it is similar to those who are disturbed by "inter-racial" relationships (keep in mind that I think the notion of human races is a crock of shit).

anemone,

Hmm, "inter-racial" marraiges were viewed as an aberration at one time too; ones which in the US carried criminal penalties as well. Quit trying to limit the ability of humans to grow up.

I always find it humorous when social conservatives start to act like Soviet culture warriors. Its all about individualism until someone exercises that liberty in some way that offends their prudish sensibilities. Conservative political correctness if you will.

In defense of Marriage...

I believe a second tier of 'civil unions' continues the trend of undermining marriage and allowing 'Gay-marriage' has the potential to strengthen marriage as an institution in this country... why?

Marriage has been attacked by the anti-christian lefties with Orwellian laws like 'no-fault' divorce, which in fact makes a marriage no partnership in that there is no accountability... Yet now these same christian bashing activists want the stamp of legitimacy for same-sex marriage and I have to ask... who would be the 'favored' party in a divorce of two women or two men?

Exactly... worse, a 'special' partnership, or 'civil-union', wouldn't force the marriage contract to be reviewed and repaired by re-establishing it's contractual fairness and therefore it's strength.

Certainly freedom of religion needs to be protected, even at the potential cost of allowing many of those religions to refuse to perform gay marriage's... but a special class of non-marriage marriage only perpetuates existing problems with marriage.

Besides... I really can't go down the path of judging the morality of the issue... I just don't believe that happiness should be begrudged and as I believe in the genetic basis for many people's gender issues I think 'normalcy' and 'tolerance' really are the best solution.

I leave judgement to a higher power...

why does everyone seem to assume that the religious argument is one against gay marriage (or that there is just one strong religious argument to be made)?

there are many priests and rabbis that are quite willing to perform gay marriages.

is not the lack of legal recognition for those marriages just as counter-religious as all the stuff the social conservatives are complaining about?

as for the "genetic basis" for gender and sexuality issues, it would serve many people engaged in these debates to learn a lot more about genetics, identity, and cognitive development.

the idea that such complex and intimate behaviors can be boiled down to arguments about being "born that way" vs "lifestyle choice" just blows my mind.

One way to parse arguements about gay marriage is along the civil vs. religious line.
Not: all puns in this comment are intended.

The civil (i.e., non-religious) institution of marriage is niether divorced from nor wedded to its religious roots and existence. It is this not-same, not-different nature of civil marriage which creates one of the negotiating spaces for gay marriage. Because civil marriage carries legal benefits with it, and is part of the services and protections governments extend to their citizens (which religious institutions do not provide), the argument logically runs that under equal protection, gays and lesbians should also have access to these rights and protections like other citizens do.

The religious arguments--all well covered by others, so I'm not going to get into them in depth--are related to sociological history; morality; and legal precedent (i.e. we have never had gay "marriage"), among others. There is also a religious marriage institution, performed by various religious figures in various houses of worship, with creeds, vows, and ceremonies.

You go to a judge to get a civil marriage. You go to a religious house and a religious leader to get a religious marriage. The two intertwine and overlap--some people don't have a religious ceremony, others do--but no matter where you went or who officiated at your wedding, if you're straight you end up married, with full benefits.

It is possible to understand that "marriage" is no longer a singular civally religious, or religiously civil, institution, and has already been split into civil and religious marriages.

Gays didn't do this. It happened long, long before LGBT people challenged the system. This drift began the moment governments granted civil benefits to marriage.

Because of this, however, I support gay marriage. The existence of a differentiated, if not "separate," civil institution of marriage has set a course which allows the courts, in the most recent case Massachusetts, to use equal protection to grant LGBT couples the right to marry. Not separate but equal (civil unions), but equal.

If there are religious communities and leaders which do not believe in gay marriage, they are within their rights to refuse to perform gay marriages, or to support those LGBT couples who may, God knows why, choose to remain in such a congregation.

The separation of Church and State, and the already differentiated insitutions of civil and religious marriages, allows for both gay marriage and religious opposition to exist, although not without great strife and enmity, I fear.

In other words, the false marriage failed. He would have been better off with your legal help.

Under existing law, he had all the protection he needed. He would have had his wishes filled, except that he did not take advantage of existing law and chose instead to trust a stranger.

That story supports keeping marriage as it is.

Less emotion and more logic, please.

Andrew Hagen,

Actually, he could have drawn up all sorts of documents, and these, after his death could have been challenged and his will could still have been thwarted.

Less bigotry on your part, more rationality please.

I submit the following is actually a testimonial to a societal change. I remember when Anna Quindlen was writing a regular op-ed for the NY Times, she observed that she received lots of thoughtful mail on abortion, but none on homosexuality. According to her, the anti-homosexual letters were uniformly hysterical and abusive. (I do believe I've remembered correctly and it was not vice versa. Google, no help, too long ago.)

Andrew Lazarus,

That's because the enemies of homosexuality haven't a moral leg to stand on.

M. Simon wrote:
"Look up what Jesus had to say about the Centurion. (Hint: he found him one of the most godly people he had ever met). Then consider that in those days boy slaves like the boy slave the Centurion had were used for sexual purposes. I have yet to have a Christian explain that one to me."

First of all, you don't know that the slave was used for sexual purposes by this centurion. There's no proof of that. Your argument is a bit like saying that guns are used in murders, so every gun-owner is a murderer.

Second, Jesus didn't say that the centurion was godly. He said that the centurion had faith - that is, the centurion believed that Jesus could heal his servant.

Matthew 8:8-10
The centurion answered and said, "Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, 'Go,' and he goeth; and to another, 'Come,' and he cometh; and to my servant, 'Do this,' and he doeth it."
When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, "Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel."

Praktike,

You could be right that I have mis-diagnosed the problem.

But I'm not prepared to accept that "the problem is poverty, period. Poverty is much lower than it was, say, in the 50's; yet crime is substantially higher. Why? The rise in crime corresponds roughly with the breakdown in traditional marriage. Correlation isn't causation, I know, but what's your explanation?

In addition, at an individual level, it is much harder for a single mother to rise from poverty than a poor couple, and much harder on the kids who have to spend a huge proportion of their lives in day care.

I don't favor government enforcement of sexual morality. But government encouragement is a bit different, is it not?

Jean B -

I see nothing in Andrew Hagen's post that would constitute bigotry.

Rob,

Thanks for responding. You make some good points.

First, I have to admit that I was extreme when I said "poverty is the problem, period." There are in fact many contributing causes to our social problems.

Second, although it rose steadily through the 60s, 70s, and to some extent the 80s, crime (aggravated assault, robbery, and homicide rates) actually went way down during the 90s. Property crime declined pretty heavily as well. Why?

According to the Urban Institute, it's generally thought that the main factors were:

1) Economic trends
2) Community efforts
3) Targeted changed in policing strategies and numbers
4) Gun availability (modest influence)
5) Higher incarceration rates
6) The decline of crack

Now, it may very well be that switching to "no-fault" divorce does contribute to crime. How would we test this? It's not easy. Indeed, it would be very hard to separate out the effect of divorce laws on crime.

I live in Pennsylvania, so I'll use my state as an example. PA enabled no-fault divorce in 1980. In 1980, there were 3,736.3 crimes for every 100,000 Pennsylvanians. By 1988, there were 3,176.4. If no fault divorce were a big problem, we'd have seen different results, right?

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/pacrime.htm

Not only that, but divorce rates themselves didn't actually change all that much. In 1979, the divorce rate was 3.4 (out of 1,000 people). By 1992, it was still, yup, 3.4.

http://www.health.state.pa.us/pdf/hpa/stats/vital/marr-st.pdf

I'm not saying no-fault divorce has no effect. PA could be an outlier. Who knows?

But it's clear to me that it's not the biggest piece of the puzzle.

As to whether single mothers and their children would be better off in stable and healthy marriages, I don't disagree.

As for "government encouragement of traditional morality," I'm fine with that as long as it takes the form of incentives such as marriage tax credits, but not reactionary intrusions into civil liberties such as gag rules, abstinence rather than contraceptive education, etc.

Praktike,

I guess I should be clearer (which means I'll have to figure out exactly what I think before I write.)

No-fault divorce doesn't cause crime (or maybe it does, but that's not what I want to claim). Single parenthood, which underwent a dramatic rise starting in the '60s, is a big-time factor in crime (and in poverty, which is itself a major factor in crime).

Making divorce easy is both the effect and the cause of a gradual decline in the seriousness of marriage. It didn't come into existance out of nowhere; obviously people wanted it. But I think its presence tends to make people less serious about marriage--they don't think as hard about marriage ("We can always get a divorce.") and they don't think as hard about divorce (since divorce doesn't require an accusation of adultery or other sound reason.)

Overall, the problem I'm addressing is more irresponsible sexual behavior than any particular law. AIDS, poor single mothers, angry young crimnal men: the products of following our dicks wherever they lead. I think gay marriage will tend to encourage responsible sexual behavior among gays; I think civil unions will tend to encourage irresponsible behavior among straights.

As for the causes of the '90s drop in crime, there is one procative theory which you didn't mention: abortion. The drop came at exactly the time that children aborted after Roe v. Wade would have turned about 20, when criminality is near its peak.

No comment from me as to whether I think that theory makes sense. I haven't the faintest clue.

Oh, BTW, the liberation of women probably does have something to do with changes in divorce law. But I suspect that liberation has impacted well-off, well-educated women much more than the poor. Thus the impact of easy divorce and looser sexual mores may be different on the two different populations.

I have no dog in this fight, as I'm not gay and it doesn't affect me one way or the other if someone who is gay wants to get married. It also doesn't bother me if they aren't allowed to marry, as marriage is a social construct, not a right. One way or the other, I could care less.

That said, I'm confused as to why gays would fight so hard to be allowed to marry, when heterosexuals are doing their damnedest to devaulue the institution. Is this a club they really want to join? The way things are going, in 20 years it won't even matter.

The thing that really bothers me is that marriage is the closest most people come to a serious, lifelong commitment, one where you truly (should) value the feelings and needs of another over your own. There are people in this world who find other ways to experience a commitment of this intensity, but by and large, John Q. Public is isolated from them. How much can it damage our society if we remove or weaken the one powerful commitment that is closest to all of us?

Rob-

I really don't think you want to talk about the abortion theory. You seem like a nice guy, and it doesn't seem like you've made up your mind, so maybe I can nip this in the bud right now. First, there already was a bit of a youth population bulge in the 90s, and yet contrary to all expectations, crime and youth crime still declined overall. Second, my reaction to the idea that "abortion was a good thing because it killed off a bunch of potential criminals" is one of complete revulsion, recalling Herbert Spencer and Joseph Mengelev. I don't think you would be comfortable with where this leads.

I think civil unions will tend to encourage irresponsible behavior among straights.

I really haven't gotten this one yet, so please spell it out for me. What's the mechanism? Is it that civil unions necessarily lower the "transaction cost" (in general terms) of marriage? If so, wouldn't we see increases in marriage rates with the spread of civil unions? And wouldn't people be getting married younger? Well, the very opposite is happening, and I strongly suspect that it has a lot more to do with women entering the workforce than with anything else.

As for the "thinking with your dick" culture...I don't have any good ideas about that yet. But I don't like reactionary policies in general, and I really don't like government telling people what to do with their dicks.

Finally, what's been lost in this debate is that I actually agree that marriage is a good thing for the gay community. And, several thousand bytes later, that was your original point, I suppose.

Praktike,

I'm not a big fan of abortion; it makes me profoundly uncomfortable. But I'm not a fan of supressing or ignoring ideas because they make people uncomfortable, either. We could go back and forth about the demographic makup of that bulge, the consensual nature of abortion vs. eugenics etc. But let's go ahead and drop that point since it's peripheral.

My point about civil unions is a purely cultural one. The "transaction costs," in literal terms might be identical to marriage (or they might not). The exact legal structure might be the same or different from marriage. If it's different, it makes my point stronger.

Some people would, I believe, prefer a civil union to a marriage, even if the forms and legal rights were identical. They are still carrying what's left of the cultural notion of marrige as a lifetime commitment, and they may seek to avoid that (and what's left of the stigma of divorce) by getting a "civil union" instead of a "marriage." That is, they may come to associate CUs with a lower level of commitment than marriage, and thus, in many cases, may come to prefer them. Cutting down on commitment is a bad thing, especially where children are involved.

I think it will be hard to keep straigts away from CUs, especially if they are imposed by courts. The logic which dictates that gays MUST be permitted to marry can be deployed to argue that straights MUST be permitted NOT to marry, but still to enjoy some of the benefits of marriage. That is quite substantially likely if CUs end up being easier to get into and out of than marriage, with somewhat fewer benefits.

Fundamentally, I don't think people should get the benefits of marriage--sharing of assets, inheritence rights, medical decision-making, what have you--unless they are willing to make a lifetime commitment, and make every effort to keep their vows. Sometimes they will fail; but I frankly think a lot of people don't try hard enough. CUs may reduce the cultural incentive to keep trying.

Now, I don't have proof that any of these undesirable effects will come to pass; possibly I've got it exactly backwards and CUs will save marriage from gays while letting gays manage assets effectively. That's what *Jonah Goldberg* thinks. Maybe our culture will define CUs to be MORE serious than marriage. I don't know.

But I am fundamentally conservative and I don't like strange innovations, the cultural and legal impact of which is substantially unknown. Nobody thought that the ERA would make gay marriage legal, yet MA's version of the ERA is the basis for the recent decision (and was the basis for the Hawaii decion, back in 1993).

To me, gay marriage seems like a smaller innovation than the creation of "marriage-lite."

Thank you, Anemone. Much appreciated.

Armed Liberal wrote: "Ultimately his parents lawyered up and attempted to get me removed. We'd have won, and I'd have gladly spent the money to win, but at the very end. . . ."

To repeat: "We'd have won. . . ."

The man made a bad choice at the end of his life. The law as it existed even then was perfectly capable of fulfilling his wishes, had he simply followed the advice of his legal counsel. If you need a will, hire a lawyer. Then, listen to your lawyer.

Finally, even pertinent anecdotal evidence for gay marraige would not by itself constitute a good argument for it.

Andrew H-

Sadly, you're missing the entire point of my anecdote.

It would have taken $20,000 in legal fees to develop a series of trusts that would have withstood his parent's attack. Why? because he couldn't simply stand in front of a judge and sign a simple certificate giving him and his partner rights that are commonly recognized.

Why? Why should committed couples have to jump through absurd hoops in order to enjoy the rights that I do? If you've got a justification for that, I'd love to hear it...

A.L.

Rob-

You said the ERA was the basis for the MA decision. It was not. Although a separate concurring opinion noted that the ERA made sex-based classifications subject to strict scrutiny, the majority opinion said it was not necessary to even reach that point. The Department of Health had offered no rational basis for the discrimination. Even without an ERA, the state still needed to have at least some rational basis for its classification. You are correct that an ERA was the basis for the Hawaii decision.

Armed Liberal, stand back and look at your anecdotal argument. First you give us one story, which doesn't make you look particularly good. Then, you throw in something about $20,000 in legal fees. You have every reason to want to inflate that figure, because every dollar in hypothetical fees would make your argument better. Even if your guess is accurate, you don't tell us how much the entire estate is worth.

Second, you said "We'd have won, and I'd have gladly spent the money to win." So you were willing to work pro bono? And he turned you down?

Third, why not just write a will? That would seem like the normal way to go, although I am not a lawyer.

In the end, I don't feel like I can trust your anecdote, and even if I could, why should the plight of one or two people force the entire nation to abandon the institution of marriage?

Galois,

Thanks for the correction. I haven't read the decions myself from MA, although I have read the HI one.

I find your characterization troubling for one reason, though: laws can't just be invalidated because they're irrational; usually there is some kind of constitutional basis to even get into court. What part of the MA constitution was involved?

I'll read it when I have time, but it will be some time before I have the free time.

Andrew Hagden,

Wills can be challenged; and are done so all the time. A will is not challenge proof in other words. In the situation of a marraige, even if a will is invalidated, the spouse gets an automatic share of the estate, full if it the spouse is the only person to collect, part if their are children of the deceased.

Gay marriage, ultimately, will not just be about homosexuality and heterosexuality, as so many seem to think. It will be about bisexuality and androgyny, and this is what we should all be asking---where does that lead?

Not to mention the mathematical improbability (not exactly computable, but almost certainly very high) that androgynization of the concept of marriage will be able to last long in any culture, on account of the simplicity of the idea coupled with its extreme rarity in the past, and the fact that so many cultures tolerated homosexuality but virtually none androgynized the concept of marriage.

The talk about the erosion of marriage and the claim that civil unions are the worst of all reactions to the same-sex marriage issue reminds me of the innumerable establishment clause debates. While traditional marriage is not (just) a religiously-based institution, religious, moral, traditional and ethical values permeate and undergird it. Engrafting such institutions on to the civil law, like establishing churches, enacting blue laws and Sunday closing laws, and all sorts of other moral and/or religious strictures on civil laws often has a detrimental effect on religions and the tenents that comprise them -- witness low church attendance in countries with established religions. So to use civil marriage as a means of encouraging committed behavior between partners seems misguided. Those factors which encourage or discourage interpersonal committment -- community support and approval, social and physical mobility, longer life-expectancy, economic security, etc. -- have very little to do with the marriage laws, and can have very little to do with them. Trying to pervent the erosion of interpersonal commitment by tinkering with marriage laws is like trying to legislate against the tides.

I find it interesting that all of you conservative moral "family values" types out there don't have a problem with parents who are actively trying to steal from their child while he is dying.

On the contrary, Mitch, they have a tremendous problem with that. Such conduct strikes right at the heart of any meaningful definition of "family" OR "values" (sounds to me like this crew had neither, in any meaningful sense).

Their question is whether the solution involves changing the concept of marriage, or whether that constitutes the wrong weapon against the wrong target.

Many conservatives are quite happy to go down the road with a "civil unions" solution that would have left Steve's parents in this case with no say whatsoever. They believe this option would work without treading on marriage as they see it, or creating a threat to separation of church and state via the state dictating to churches on questions of religious doctrine. That strikes me as a fair position - one may disagree, but there's nothing dishonourable about it at all.

Other may contend that existing rights were adequate, and that had Steve chosen to fight it in court his parents would have lost. Sadly, we'll never know (and I say sadly especially because I think the tragedy would have been averted if that approach had been taken). A good will and a durable Power of Attorney, they might argue, cover all bases here. I'm not sure they're right, but they do have a case.

Personally, I think it should have been easier for A.L.'s friend to defend his rights and that of his partner against his family's maneuverings, even without an explicit will. I think that should also be true when heterosexual people are involved in situations like this - some are.

Could that be achieved without addressing the issue of gay marriage? Almost certainly.

Which means this is an important cautionary tale (for everybody and anybody!), but its relevance to the question of gay marriage per se is slim insofar as it is not a necessary solution to this particular problem.

But is gay marriage a solution to other problems? Ah, but that's another question, and a separate debate.

Wonderful - I was referred to this from Andrew Sullivan's site.

I love the inclusivity of your argument.

I had no health insurance, and what looked like a major heart condition. I was already out thousands in emergency room bills. What did I do? I got married to my girlfriend/domestic partner. We had never planned to ever get married: just keep our "civil union." We had, and still have, zero regard for marriage as something different from our domestic partnership. It means nothing to me as a social tradition. But it got me health care. Instantly. I can't imagine why someone like me should have the power flippantly abuse the institution when couples who actually have a deep appreciation and desire for it are denied it, despite the fact that they are capable of everything it requires, including being parents.

I will never be angry at those who don't support gay marriage. But I do think that their position is fundamentally immoral. And I I do think it is disingenous to pretend that governments are dictionaries. Governments do not define words: only common usage defines words. You can define "marriage" however you want. What is at stake is the accesibility of a set of civil rights, not a definition.

It is sad that people increasinngly have the idea that culture and religion is something that the government can or should control. We do not need the government to lead us in prayer or tell us what is or is not an acceptable marriage in the eyes of God. In fact, it cannot ever really do so, even if it tried. People battle over government handouts and pats on the head for favored institutions because they for some reason are failing to appeal to what is supposed to be their responsibility: free civil society. Sure, it's harder and scarier to work in this arena. And unlike with government, you can't force everyone to agree with you. But it's the legitimate and honest way. If your church doesn't want to acknowledge gay couples as married, don't. Nobody is forcing you too. But don't restrict their civil abilities.

I'll never understand the people who, when the Cali court ruled that schools could not lead kids in the religious-fringed pledge, started making noise about how they would definately say the pledge anyway. Hello? You always had a right to do that. And indeed, it's inspiring that you care about the pledge enough to say it without being forced to. All that is at stake is whether you can get the government to help you pressure others into saying it.

So too with gay "marriage." It's inspiring that you have a concept of marriage that mandates having man with woman only. Do that. Advocate that. Acknowledge that in your churches. But don't use that as an excuse for unequal treatment under the law just because the government calls its civil unions "marriages" too. Pressure people in civil society, where that pressure is honest, legitimate, and the core of a liberal (in the old sense) western state. Not through the laws.

Dear Anemone,

"I see nothing in Andrew Hagen's post that would constitute bigotry."

Maybe that's because you're a bigot? To say that gay love compared with straight love is what obesity is to fitness is offensive. To refer to homosexuality as an aberration and that it would therefore muddy the water of straight marriage is very hurtful language. It's the same as saying gay love undermines straight love. It muddy's it. Why? Because it's different and not as common? Perhaps because it's not natural due to the fact gay couples can't procreate... does that mean they chose to be gay, then? Would you? The fact is they didn't, not anymore than you chose to be straight. So if it's not a choice, than it's natural my friend.

But maybe that's what this comes down to. If gay people feel the same depth of emotion, what is identified as love, as straight people, why can't they express it the same way if it is the same feeling, in marriage? Because you (and supporters of civil unions, not marriage) don't believe it's the same feeling fundamentally, it's less than. That's the point of civil unions; give gays equal benefits, but don't call it marriage so as not to confuse the fact that gay love isn't really the same thing.

You don't want to believe it's the same thing, it's obesity vs. fitness.

That's bigotry.

I am in a 7 year relationship sharing an address, bills, and rent. Isn't that a common law marriage? Oh yeah, I'm gay. I guess not. It's nothing.

I don't get any of the same protections that straight people have bestowed upon them by our government, so I shouldn't have to pay any taxes that go to support your survivorship social security benefits I don't "qualify" for.

By the way - I am deeply gratefull for the intelligent discussion of this issue here. I have been growing cynical that straight people don't care about what is right and wrong about this issue, since it "doesn't affect them."

Thanks

I do think that the idea of a "civil union" is one that assumes that love between two homosexuals is somehow lesser than love between two heterosexuals. I don't believe that this is true. I'm bisexual, and my attraction to men doesn't feel any lesser than my attraction to women. I could commit either to a woman or a man. It may be difficult for a heterosexual person to understand how a person could be attracted to the same sex, but that doesn't make homosexual attraction something lower than what heterosexual people feel

Some of the distinctions being made in this discussion, between civil and religious marriage or its legal and cultural effects, are very useful. All that is at stake is civil marriage and its legal attributes. Though I grant this may have consequent effects on the culture one should not assume a mechanistic effect that legal gay marriage will automatically make homosexuality normative. Roe v Wade may have actually hardened some attitudes against abortion and definately mobilised anti-abortion as a political phenomenon.

Civil marriage is not a right in any meaningful sense; it is an institution that accords a set of privileges. As a married man I acquire all sorts of authority over my wife's children, for instance, since it is assumed they are mine. Given that the community, in the form of the state, accords us married types privileges it is reasonable that it also demand something from us. In this respect I think that the argument that the extension of civil marriage to include gays and lesbians should be twinned with a higher bar on divorce is totally logical. In Ireland, for example, we have no fault divorce, but one can only divorce after four years of separation. This avoids the danger of fictive divorce suits, retains the no fault structure but does nothing to undermine the seriousness of marriage. Ther eare also a set of provisions that direct any property settlement in a divorce to the care of any children. How could the most crusty conservative object to any couple of whatever orientation submitting themselves to such a set of duties?

The assertion by gay marriage advocates that gay "love" is the same as the love between a man and a woman bothers me. Where's the proof of such an assertion? How could such an assertion be proved? How many gay attractions lead to committed lifetime relationships, compared to the love between a man and a woman that has been at the heart of the human experience since our ancestors came down from the trees? I have a feeling the proportion is totally out of whack. Differential treatment of gays is not the same as discrmination on racial grounds. The concepts are entirely different. What is "gayness" anyway? How does one know when someone is gay? Would potential gay couples have to prove they were gay? How exactly would they do that, since being gay is a state of mind, not a difference in sexual equipment or skin color? Why couldn't two straight people of the same sex get married for the financial benefits? If you could prove they weren't gay, could they be barred from marrying? My basic contention is that homosexuality does not exist.

"Why I Support Gay Marriage, and Why I Will Never Be Angry At Those Who Do Not"

So you will never be angry at people who oppose equal rights for gay people? Otherwise stated, you will never be angry at people who support the fact that the state discriminates against relationships of same-sex couples (so-called "gay marriage") in favor of relationships of opposite-sex couples (so-called "marriage")?

If so, you are a horse's ass.

You insult this man because he is aware of and respects that homosexuality is against the religious values of people?

Since you cannot demonstrate that anything is "right" or "wrong" all you have is subjective cultural values like your, "discrimination is wrong no matter what" versus their, "legitimizing homosexual marriage is wrong"

if you were more adult you would see that while their position is unacceptable to you, they have a right to believe what they do.

My position is that government should be completely out of the marriage business. it is a religious rite for almost every culture. so if one religion wants to recognize gays and another doesnt.. who cares.

the government should not hand out goodies based on such a thing as "marriage". instead we could have for legal purposes a designate spouse or spouses. this being a merely a legal term for anyone you should so designate. after all if it is untenable that "marriage" be just for heterosexuals, it is equally discriminatory to deny it to those who have other alternate arrangements and lifestyles.

which makes this all the more hypocritical and convoluted because gays want their relationships legitimized (naturally) but in their push for this they refuse to acknowledge that their logic demands that we recognize these other relationships. making marriage between two people is just as arbitrary and discriminatory as saying marriage must be between a man and a woman.

in short... no government goodies for anyone based on "marriage" and this problem goes away for everyone... save those who wanted goodies :>

One of the themes of the argument here and Andrew Sullivan's is that marriage is about friendship and partnership and lasting commitment, and it's the far right that make it all about sex and genitalia, due to their hang-ups about sex from years of repression.

Well, if that's the case, then why is the restriction against same sex marriage at all onerous, to the point where it's an equal rights issue and those who oppose it are bigots? It seems like a gay person, depsite being attracted to members of the same sex, ought to be able to form these partnerships with members of the opposite sex. If it's not about sexual attraction, then there should be no problem.

Or is there really a connection between sex and marriage after all?

Robert Speirs,
Currently, two persons of opposite sex can get married. If I could prove they weren't in love could I have their marriage annulled?

Robert Speirs writes,
My basic contention is that homosexuality does not exist.

Thanks for the clarification. I'll have to tell my partner that one....

"On the social front, I'll suggest that we spend all too much time focusing on the wrong part of the body - the crotch - and not enough on the part that matters - the heart - of those involved."

It's more than crotches. Men and women are fundamentally different in many ways, as more and more research shows. If you don't grasp this, I see why you've had trouble with past relationships and fear for your upcoming marriage.

Of course, this does not justify taking away a person's right to handle his own affairs as he or she sees fit. But neither does it follow that every committed relationship is a marriage.

As much as anything, I think many of us are offended by the abuse of language and semantics being foisted upon us. Yes, homosexuals have relationships, and they may be committed relationships. But marriage means something more specific than that, including those qualities that make men and women fundamentally (but not wholly) different creatures.

Peace be with you.

To Robert Speirs:

As someone who has been "gay" their whole life, I can tell you that I've known since early childhood. My sexual orientation was not a choice, was fixed at birth or an early age and is not changable. Coming to an acceptance on this is often a very painful and wrenching experience for the majority of gay people The bottom line is that gays and lesbians DO exist and society needs to accept this fact. In fact, the "homosexual question" rather needs to be the heart of the discussion.

The majority of those that think that oppose homosexuality and see it is a sin also believe it is a choice. I would ask a logical person: Who in their right mind, besides a masochist, would make such a choice and choose to be rejected by family, friends, religion and society? Others, such as the Catholic Church, believe that homosexuality is simply an inclination or temptation that needs to be avoided, like alcoholism, and that celibacy (and staying in the closet) is the only "right" way for them to live. I wonder how many heterosexuals would choose not to enter heaven if lifelong celibacy was mandatory.

The "gay marriage" debate needs to be transformed into a dicussion about the nature of homosexuality and reframed as a human rights issue. If being gay is an innate and natural variation of human sexuality, then it stands that discrimination in any form is wrong.

It is amazing to me the lack of scientific and logical inquiry into the entire issue of homosexuality. For those like Robert and the many other bigots, I wish they could stand in my shoes for just one day.

Robert Spiers -

Well, I tend to have a basic level of respect that takes people at their word (to digress, I'm a hawk in large part because I respect the Islamists enough to take them at their word when they say we're at war).

And to point to the historical lack of committed gay relationships - when social and legal standards didn't permit such - is kind of disingenuous, don't you think?

A.L.

Jimbo writes: It's more than crotches. Men and women are fundamentally different in many ways, as more and more research shows. If you don't grasp this, I see why you've had trouble with past relationships and fear for your upcoming marriage.

Nice, a personal attack on the writer always helps your argument.

And he continues: As much as anything, I think many of us are offended by the abuse of language and semantics being foisted upon us.

Actually, it's the fault of language for not being more expressive. Marriage is used as a religious term, and it is the original basis for the rights bestowed on couples by the state. The state, however, isn't a religious organization. The state grants licences and performs marriages without a priest, minister, or rabbi. Wouldn't you agree that this is a wholly separate excercise that is now more based in rights, tax code and law than it's religious cousin?

Are there differences in men and women? Sure, but in the US at least, we agree that all men and women are created equal, and should thereby be given equal access to any benefits the state may provide.

"Yes, homosexuals have relationships, and they may be committed relationships. But marriage means something more specific than that, including those qualities that make men and women fundamentally (but not wholly) different creatures."

So what does marriage mean? You need to elaborate.

jimbo -

Well, I'll acknowledge the intent to insult, and point out that a big part of what I'm trying to do in my post is move past the notion that you're a bigot for taking that view; I think your beliefs are genuinely held and come from a long history of culture and belief, and I bear you no ill will for them. I'll even point out that I've long acknowledged that there's a germ of truth in what you say.

But...

In short, I want to bring gay people in to the highly succesful, if somewhat beleaguered, concept of marriage, rather than let straight people out of it.

You don't want to do that, that's fine. You don;t want to live in the middle of the Castro Haloween Parade, that's fine too, neither do I. But if the couple next door - the one that waters their plants, mows their lawn, paints their house, goes to work every day and church on Sunday, happens to be two men or two women, I'm missing the problem.

A.L.

John McG posts, "It seems like a gay person, depsite being attracted to members of the same sex, ought to be able to form these partnerships with members of the opposite sex. If it's not about sexual attraction, then there should be no problem."

--- with this logic, a straight guy would be able to form these partnerships with another straight guy, even though he might (for some reason we wont discuss) prefer to partner with a a woman. Wouldn't be very cool, though, if that were his only choice, would it?

Mitch,

Maybe it wouldn't be "cool," but it wouldn't be an affront to his dignity, either. Remember, it's not about sexual attraction, it's about commitment and friendship, if you believe these commentators. So, the sex of the partner shouldn't matter.

Of course I disagree; I think sexuality does have something to do with marriage, as well as do children, which are the fruit of marraige.

The attempts by commentators like AL to divorce sexuality from marriage confirms my concerns that same sex marriage will lead to "marriage" not meaning anything at all.

Actually, John McG, there may be different reasons why someone supports gay marriage. One person might support gay marriage because it provides legal protection for gay couples, for their assets, allows them to use each other's health insurance, make health-related decisions if one partner is incapacitated, etc. Another person might support gay marriage because he/she and his/her partner want to raise a children together.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that same-sex marriage will lead to marriage not meaning anything at all.

Crap. Pardon my typos.

If marriage is mostly about procreation, like many are saying, then why are there so many straight people out there on there 2nd, 3rd, and 4th marriages who are choosing to get married and NOT have children? Sounds sinful to me and an abuse of having sex for reasons other than producing offspring...

Andrew Sullivan also made a good point that if conservatives believe so highly in the "sanctity" of marriage, then why is their mouthpiece, Fox News / Newscorp, producing program after program defiling marriage such as "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?"

And where is the outrage about Britney Spears and others who flipantly marry in Las Vegas on a whim, only to have it annulled hours later?

Claiming a 'moral highground' and hypocritical talk of procreation is just an excuse to cover up their bigotted and repressive viewpoints.

The emporer is wearing no clothes, have you noticed?

Evan

Marraige means (or used to mean) a lifelong committed realtionship between and a woman for the transmission of life.

Same sex marriage explicitly removes the connection between marraige and procreation. Some argue that this was already happening, and I might agree, but same sex marriage normalizes it.

The Armed Liberal's post talks about marriage not being about sexuality, further eroding what we mean when we refer to "marriage."

Now that this is chucked, one can't help but wonder what else is up for grabs.

When I tell my daughter that her mother and I are married, I want it to mean more than that she wants to be covered by my insurance. I want it to mean that she can count on us to stay together, and that raising her is one of the things that unites us.

Yes, how we behave has more to do with that belief than how the government defines "marriage?" And yes, there are other societal forces working against this definition.

But it does make a difference.

James,
To quote Shakespeare
"Would not that which we call a rose by any other name smell as sweet." I have no problem with or without calling same-sex unions marriage as long as whatever they call them carries the same legal benefits and equality as marriage. I shudder to think what would of happened in the late 50's and early 60 if someone had proposed an amendment to the constitution defining whites as being superior to blacks. Why codify prejudice into the Constitution now and make a sacrilege of the most precious document that was ratified to make all of us equal.

Russ

Evan,

Maybe you could actually engage arguments rather than call people names.

If termites were eating away at your house, and you had not yet hired an exterminator, would you be justified in defending your home from a burglar? (Please excuse the analogy, I am not meaning to draw a moral equivalency between homosex and burlary). Using your logic, you wouldn't be, and all your talk about defending your house would be hypocritical.

And to answer one of your points, the Catholic school teacher who took part in "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance" was released from hthat job, in part because of what that show says about marriage.

And while the FNC might have a conservative tilt, social conservatives have never been fond of most of the Fox Network's programming.

Sorry, you're going to actually have to engage some arguments rather than sit back and call us bigots.

Now that this is chucked, one can't help but wonder what else is up for grabs.

John -- you seem to be expressing concern that things change. But society constantly changes. The point of debates like this one is to figure out whether certain types of change are OK or not. I contend (as do others) that gay marriage is an OK change.

When I tell my daughter that her mother and I are married, I want it to mean more than that she wants to be covered by my insurance.

What do you want it to mean? That you and her mother love each other, will always be together, and will always be there for her? Most gay couples who would get married want to do so for the same reasons you do -- love, commitment, stability. Shared health insurance and other benefits are the things that help encourage and reward stability. Sure, a minority of gays who marry might do so merely for the health benefits, etc., but that's true for a minority of straight people, too.

If I'm unclear as to what you want marriage to mean, please explain.

Let's talk about kids. Others have pointed out that plenty of opposite-sex couples who marry will never procreate, either because of inability or by choice. If marriage is primarily for procreation, should these couples be barred from marrying? If not, why deny same-sex couples the other legal benefits of marriage that those non-procreating straight couples enjoy.

Also (and this should be obvious) plenty of gay people do have kids, either "naturally," or by adoption. Anything wrong with this? If so, why? And if not, why not allow them to marry?

This whole argument always seems to go 'round in circles to me with points constantly being re-raised and re-rebutted. I'd like to consider the following point of contention...

A man has met the love of his life, a beautiful charming woman he could see growing old with happily. They're compatible in so many ways, everyone agrees they're a beautiful couple. What should they do? Why, they should GET MARRIED. Or at least that's the reaction I've seen in my experience. "They're in love, they seem to be stable... they should get hitched". Where does procreation actually enter the equation? It's not like you need to get hitched to make babies, after all. To quote Dan Savage, women have been falling down drunk and getting up pregnant since the beginning of time. It's not like most people would consider, on an individual basis, the making of babies anywhere on the top ten list of their healthy reasons for getting hitched. It's about loving the other person and wanting to ensure a good life within that bond. Sometimes that bond, even with gay people, includes kids and sometimes it doesn't.

However, the truth is that conservatives are right. Traditionally, marriage was more about procreation than much else, most especially among the high aristocracy. Look at Henry VIII when he couldn't get a male heir for a good example of a classic reaction. For centuries, IIRC, sterility was a very valid ground for annulment. Of course, during that same time period love didn't factor in at all. Marriages were formed to bond two families for mutual advantage and to beget heirs but if the two people respectively involved liked each other, that was an added bonus. Women were accorded limited respect in the marriage and virtually no power. They were often dead within a couple years anyway, since the mortality rate during child bearing was atrocious. Is this the type of marriage that, say, JohnG would say he has? Because that's the traditional sort. It was the definition for millenia, dating back to the Greco-Roman world at the very least. It's not romantic in the least and I certainly wouldn't want to embrace it.

What we today call a "traditional" marriage, a "romantic" marriage, almost forces pragmatism completely out of the picture. Everything is reversed in priority. You're looking at a match which would, given the health care of today, last the majority of a person's natural span. Love is the main driving force for marriage, compatibility the key. If kids come along and if the in-laws mesh, well so much the better. In such a marriage, there is no fundamental reason to exclude gay people if one concedes the point that they (rather, I should say "we") can love just as well as straight couples.

The most cogent point I've seen so far against that premise is the "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" category of complementarity. Even that falls apart upon analysis, however, because such concepts work only when considered in averages of large populations. It's an overlapping spectrum, not a harsh divide. Some men hold many traits which would be considered as falling on the "feminine" side of complimentarity, and vice versa for some women. So, when considered in a one on one basis, it is not impossible for two men or two women to find as much complimentarity in personality as one man and one woman. Furthermore, we seem to have gotten fixated on the image of a yin-yang as complimenting one another. They do, but real life is not as neat. Sometimes overwhelming difference, even mirror image, doesn't work in a relationship. Opposites attract but they don't have a much better rate of sticking in my experience. We tend to get all swept up in "men" and "women" that we forget we're not talking about that. We're talking about "a man" or "a woman". Men may not find much romantic compatibility with other men, but "a man" certainly could. A woman could find love with another woman. A woman could find compatibility and complimentarity with another woman.

I'd like to consider, in closing, a quote I've heard used many times in wedding ceremonies.

"Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:
Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me."

The words of Ruth to Naomi. Something to consider.

Priam -

The arguments may be going around in circles, but we're covering ground nonetheless.

Look; lots of the comments here are horrified that a gay romantic and sexual relationship could be widely acceptable - they see it as of a pirce with the Wiemar decadence Peggy Noonan talks about in her WSJ piece in the Jackson family today. That's a real issue; I've been to gay discos in San Francisco in the 70's and 80's (and let me comment that for a straight single guy, it's certainly a 'target-rich' environment, to quote everyone's favorite Scientologist) and decadent they absolutely were. If that was the entirety of gay life, I certainly wouldn't be wasting a lot of time on the issue.

But it's not. I know and have known a number of gay couples who are probably better at being couples than either of my marriages (and I had pretty good marriages, as divorces go) - but they don't get the legal wrapping or social acceptance I do.

That's wrong.

But the people who oppose it do so because they are part of a culture and tadition that goes back thousands of years and isn't to happy with the notion that two guys or two women might have sex, much less share lives.

That's changing, and no one should take what I say to suggest that it isn't and shouldn't. But the change will be gradual, erratic, and may require some tradebacks from gays - in greater sexual responsibility, in 'fitting in' better to an essentially suburban society - if they want the acceptance.

I don't necessarily have a problem with that. I'm not interested in living in Weimar.

A.L.

I'm a homosexual who came out at age 17 (I'm now 35). As my coming out at such a young age indicates, my homosexuality was never an issue for me. I longed for the same things straight people did (love, companionship, loyalty, monogamy, marriage). I wanted all these things, but only with a man. The gay community did little to make me feel comfortable with those feelings. I was often ostracized by my fellow homosexuals for my desire to "mimic" the heterosexual lifestyle. But I couldn't help that desire anymore than I could help being gay. Even the pressure from the gay community to reject my mainstream nature wasn’t enough to make me cave and conform to its ways. But something, oddly, is making me turn. Ever since the country has spiraled out of control down this Orwellian path of marriage brokering (and God knows where it will lead--maybe with breeding farms?) I've suddenly had this urge--little conservative, old-fashioned me--to finally pay a visit to the bath house down the street. (At least gay sex is legal.) I've never been one for promiscuous, anonymous sex (my reputation for refusing to kiss on the first date has left me alone many a Saturday night), but suddenly the idea of it seems like a pretty good idea. This is a true feeling of mine, I swear. I’m not sure I fully understand it. But I do feel I have a keener understanding of why so many homosexuals define themselves based on sex and why for many in the gay community sex is a form of civil disobedience more than an act of love. When it's all said and done, for gay people, sex is all we’ve got.

"Gay peole say they want long-term, committed relationshjips in which they share their lives and property - as do straight people (and me, since I'm planning on marrying again and lucky enough to have found someone to take me)"

A.L.,

I never disputed this. I read Andrew Sullivan a lot (daily), and can't disagree with his basic argument that we live in a secular society and can't base laws and rights solely on personal religous and moral beliefs. We would quickly end up with a theocracy. And it's hard to argue that committed homosexual relationships are worse than promiscuous ones.

That's why I aimed my argument at the semantics of the whole thing. Words have connotations and traditions and in the case of marriage this is especially true. I agree with the poster who said that marriage is tied up strongly with religous and cultural beliefs, and the trouble is with glomming the same word clumsily onto a civic construct. Perhaps the answer is to get the state out of the marriage racket entirely, and replace it with something that religously married people would automatically qualify for but others would not be excluded from.

I disagree with the poster who said that differences between men and women are simply a matter of averages. For many things, this is true, but in other ways men and women are simply biologically different, in all but very rare cases. I really should research and post links at this point, but just don't have the time or motivation to do so right now.

Interesting discussion. Peace be with you.

I don't believe that gay marriage is a civil rights issue at all. I think that homosexuality is wrong but I would not hesitate to be friends with or support a homosexual person in need. I believe that people who remain outside the accepted way of life (not just homosexuals) should have the courage of their convictions, and not try to make everybody else change to suit them. One issue that is never addressed in this discussion is the sex act and how it differs for homosexuals as compared to heterosexuals. To me, women partners are rather laughable. The idea that what they share is at all related to the sex act of intercourse is unbelievable. I could myself live with another woman (I am a female), but I would never try to fool myself that the relationship would at all resemble a sexual relationship. As for homosexual men, I look upon their activities as unhygienic but somehow more understandable than lesbian women's activities. In the end, as we grow older, sex itself is less and less important and therefore indicates to me that the prime reason for marriage is that of building a family and reinforcing one of the building blocks of a stable society. Bending it out of shape contributes nothing to society.

When I read comments like Kerry's I wonder, should society allow certain straight people to breed? I mean, Kerry's selfishness is so profoundly pathologically as indicated by her self-absorbed post, I can't imagine what a horrible parent she would make. I think perhaps we need a Constitutional amendment that prevents pathologically selfish people like Kerry from reproducing. Imagine what a burder her disturbed child will be on society.

I agree that Kerry is a self-absorbed egomaniac. I can't imagine wishing to instill my values on someone using the brute force of government merely because I don't do what they do. Kerry is like a spoiled child pulling on her little dolly away from her little sister because she wants it all to her itty bitty self. What a sanctimonious, self righteous, spoiled brat!!!!

Kerry's psychotic rant is the equivalent of saying that because I don't bowl and don't enjoy bowling, those who do shouldn't be granted the same rigths as us non-bowlers. Kerry is truly a nut.

If we are concerned that traditional institutions corrupted by untraditional people can have dire consequences for society, then we need to prepare ourselves to delve into this matter deeper. Consider this issue: Should a husband be allowed to stay home and raise the children while the wife goes off to earn a living? To most, even the most progressive thinkers, this is an untraditional arragement. Some in our society might think such a man an aberration. Some might even think he's gay. But regardless, since we’ve concluded that marriage has profound effects on our society, we need to ask ourselves how does such a personal arrangement between two people taking the tradition of marriage and giving it a twist effect all of society? Does it effect us at all? And if it does, how badly does it effect us? Does such effects warrant draconian govenrment intervention? Allowing the government to make these decisions, whether based on general consensus or not, will have consequences in other aspects of our lives, most notably the lives of women. If government is to take over the role of marriage counselor, then what options will be eliminated in our personal relationships such as divorce? What will women’s rights advocates say about legislation that may make it more difficult for women to get out of an abusive marriage? Currently, the CDC estimates that around 2-3 million women in the United States are victims of spouse abuse—another 600,000 men are also abused by their wives. Should these women and men be prevented from divorcing, and if so, should they be allowed to remarry given their track record of attracting abusive spouses? Perhaps governmet agents will be able to help us decide how we as couples raise our children and balance our household budgets? Have we become so dismayed by our limitless choices in our society we are now willing to give over our free will to bureaucrats?

John McG has a question to answer: He says that marriage is about procreation/"the transmission of life". I'm one of those folks that Huntington and others speak of: A guy who is faithfully committed in a heterosexual marriage where the decision has been made to forego children. Logic dictates that if the bedrock argument one makes against homosexual marriage regards the inability to procreate, then that person MUST also oppose man/woman marriages that refuse to "transmit life". John: Will you argue against my heterosexual marriage?

This thread has been quite enlightening (Priam, Mario, Maria, others)

I surfed over after seeing the link on Andrew Sullivan's website.

I wanted to comment on something Kerry said—well, I'd quote her, but I don't want to scroll back up and re-read her post. Basically, Kerry wondered at the things two women do in bed and the things two men do in bed. Surely these... things... that gay men and lesbians do with each other can't compare to the... things... the glorious things... that straight couples do with each other.

Look, I've always acknowledged that there is something straight sex does that gay sex does not. Frankly, although I'm gay, I've always felt that there is a certain existential hole, if you'll pardon the term, at the heart of gay sex. It is purely recreational, never procreational, it is about what it's about, about the two people involved, and not about creating life. I don't think it diminishes gay sex, or my sex life, at all to give props where props are due. I wouldn't exist if it weren't for straight sex. Let's here it for straight sex -- yippie.

However, what Kerry and other heterosupremicists seem to have a problem with is the idea that, 'cept for makin' babies, gay sex does everything straight sex does: Attraction brings two people together, and if they're sane, healthy people, and emotionally available to one another, something good, lasting, and meaningful--something that is greater than the sum of the genitalia involved-- can come of it, gay or straight.

I've always had a bit of an issue with straight people who seem to think that all gay sex is meaningless or sinful and, by implication, all straight sex is... elevated and infused with spiritual importance. Bullshit. I mean, I write a sex advice column for a living, and if Kerry thinks that straight people aren't having anal sex, eating each other out, and generally getting into all sorts of trouble--including sex-sans-love--then she's more deluded than anyone here has given her discredit for.

Finally, I've been with my boyfriend for nine years as of last weekend. We have a six year old son. We own a house, share our bills, take care of each other. When he's sick, I rush home. When I'm sick, he rushes home. So long as I live and I can earn enough dough to feed and house him, the state won't have to take care of him, and vice-versa. Same goes for our son. We're a family, and we really ought to be married, my boyfriend and I -- social conservatives should want us to marry. If not for our own sakes, then for the sake of our son, the child the state allowed us to adopt.

Amen, Dan.

I think you touch on something else that lots of people who oppose gay marriage have a problem with: gay adoption.

Those who oppose gay marriage need to understand that there are gay couples who adopt and raise children and love them just as much as any other adoptive parents would love their children. And children receive just as much love and attention when raised by same-sex couples as they do when raised by different-sex couples. Many conservatives still, in 2004, are unconsciously wedded (as it were) to the idea that all gay people are irresponsible, bed-hopping, club-hopping drug users. And even if most gay couples did fit this mold (a premise I will not accept without first seeing a direct survey of all gay Americans, closeted and uncloseted, urban and rural, religious and atheist, bookish and stupid, independent-minded and herd-minded) -- don't these particular conservatives realize that any couple that wants to adopt a child must be evaluated by an adoption agency first? Or do they think Bruce and Sven are going to pop into Prada, pick up some shoes and a baby, and head out to the clubs?

Thanks, A.L. for your rational and thoughtful commentary on gay marriage.

I may differ with you on one issue, however. Since there is nothing whatsoever wrong with homosexuality, there is everything wrong with anti-gay beliefs, no matter how weighty the historical traditions behind them.

These beliefs are wielded like blunt instruments by powerful lobbies, and the results have a tangible and profoundly negative impact on gay people.

I cannot take a supportive or understanding view o