yup.

Ayuh!

Why is it that I grin when I hear the name Saddleback Church? Great post, G!

onecorgilover - I had the same thought earlier :) Thanks!

Succinctly said, G. Sand! Sometimes the short statement speaks more powerfully - A+.

Owl - thanks for your kind words, and for reading!

Thanks for posting the definition. But here's my question. Why do we always have to choose the most extreme word. Can't we just say that people who don't seem to be obstinate, hateful, or intolerant are simply prejudiced. Nobody seems to ever use that word anymore. I know it sounds quaint, but I think it's a much more effective word because it addresses the issue, that people's arguments are being influence by emotional and cultural beliefs that they are not acknowledging.

Calling them bigots just backs them into corners and drives them to become even more rigid and emotional. Calling their argument prejudiced forces them to defend themselves in a way that makes them more increasingly conscious of the fact that their argument is indefensible.

Although if it were up to me (and it's not because I'm Canadian, and we already have gay marriage) I would be putting my energy into petitioning the courts, because that's the only opinion that is going to matter in the end.

Juliet - that's why I posted the definition, and that's why I kept profanity and other name-calling out of it. I was trying to be restrained :) Thanks for reading and commenting!

You'll get no argument from me. On this issue, Obama is a bigot and so is Miss CA and Mishima666. monkey fingered.

Yes!

Free speech does not meant intelligent thinking before opening mouth inserting large foot, especially in so called "beauty pageants".

How is not allowing gay couples to marry any different from the abhorrent laws that used to prohibit interracial marriage? There is no difference. None.

A point I've tried to make as well. That one never gets addressed, nor does explaining how it is different from inter-faith marriages.

People need to get their heads out of their asses and realize that "religious-sanctioned" marriage and "state-sanctioned" marriage are NOT the same thing. One is ceremonial, the other is the basis for legal rights and privileges.

Thumbed.

Behind Blue Eyes - the comments on the "defending Miss CA" story were the inspiration for this post...thanks for reading!

Robin - thanks for stopping by!

Buffy - agreed.

Bill - exactly! Thanks for reading!

JLee Davis - thank you!

Yes, it is bigotry, plain and simple. Doesn't mean they aren't valuable people, and even good people, but they are bigots.

and having said that, who isn't a bigot about one thing or another?

What you said, George. Simple, eloquent and to the point. Rated.

Phaedo - I don't believe that anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot. I do believe that only letting a certain part of the population have certain rights is bigotry.

Julie - agreed. I am wondering now what I'm bigoted about. Will have to think on that.

Ash - thanks for reading!

"How is not allowing gay couples to marry any different from the abhorrent laws that used to prohibit interracial marriage?"

It is different because anti-miscegenation laws involved criminal prosecution. In Loving v. Virginia the Lovings actually faced a year in jail, a sentence that the judge agree to suspend in the event that they agreed to leave the state for 25 years. Also, such laws were typically favored by those who also favored all sorts of other racial discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations, and so on.

The debate over gay marriage involves no criminal prosecution, and many who oppose gay marriage also support all other rights and protections for gays and lesbians, including civil unions with all rights typically associated with marriage. If you look at the details the two situations are quite different.

" . . . what conservatives don't seem to understand . . . "

But it isn't conservatives. Even states that are considered to be liberal often don't support same-sex marriage.

"The idea of "sanctity of marriage" is laughable when nearly half (or more than half - statistics seem to vary) of American marriages end in divorce."

A proper statistical analysis would show more like 40 percent ending in divorce; still a high number.

The failure of people to adhere to an ideal is not an argument against the ideal. A corrupt police department is not an argument against law enforcement or against the idea that police should be honest and upright. For example, if a police department had widespread corruption we wouldn't conclude that we should just hire anyone because it doesn't matter.

"Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean that it shouldn't happen."

Of course not. When my fellow citizens or their elected representatives enable same-sex marriage I'll have no problem with that. Advocates of same-sex marriage can and should make their case, and they have the freedom and ability to do so.

"How is legally recognized gay marriage taking anything away from anyone?"

Many people simply feel that the husband-wife relationship is an inherent part of the concept of marriage, that along with a few other elements it constitutes that concept. For them, same-sex marriage doesn't make any sense. There are all sorts of reasons why someone might oppose same-sex marriage that have nothing to do with any perceived personal harm and that are not motivated by bigotry.

"If you believe that marriage in this country should be legally limited to only heterosexual couples, then I believe you're a bigot."

Based on what? Just that one fact?

This is the kind of rhetoric that emanates when situations become polarized. During the Vietnam war if you supported the war you were a "baby killer." If you opposed the war you were a "communist." If you support abortion you are part of the "culture of death." If you oppose abortion you "hate women." If you support Israel you're a "zionist racist." If you oppose Israel you're an "anti-semite."

All this kind of absolutist rhetoric does is to destroy the middle ground, to destroy the possibility of other more moderate options that would involve compromise. But perhaps you believe that there is no middle ground, and that your opinion is the only possible correct opinion, and anyone who disagrees with you is morally defective. If so, I would refer you to the first sentence of your own post.

mishima666 - I laid out what I believe in this post. I don't think it's absolutist, and I stand by what I said. Thanks for reading.

:) sorry Phaedo, that wasn't aimed at you, and it did sort of read like that

true true and true

Mishima666
"If you believe that marriage in this country should be legally limited to only heterosexual couples, then I believe you're a bigot."

"Based on what? Just that one fact? "

yes, based on that one fact- It is bigotry to believe that another group, because of their sexual orientation, deserves less rights than you yourself have.

Amen and Rated

hyblaen-julie...thanks for putting that better than I could've :)

Valid points mishima666. Although I do not agree with you George, I do respect the fact that you are a person of conviction. I may never agree with a liberal extremist, but I always know what I am getting. With fence sitters, you get your butt kissed one day and stabbed in the back the next. I'll take extremists any day, be they liberal or conservative.

Leonde - thank you!

rwnutjob - thanks for reading! My dad and I are opposite ends of the spectrum, politically...so I'm used to hearing differing points of view.

Mishima makes some good points. There definitely is a big difference between not allowing gay couples to marry and the abhorrent laws that used to prohibit interracial marriage.

I support gay couples' rights to have the same government sanctioned protection and benefits as a heterosexual couple that is legally married. I also don't believe the use of the word "marriage" helps us in that fight.

As Bill S. wrote, "People need to get their heads out of their asses and realize that "religious-sanctioned" marriage and "state-sanctioned" marriage are NOT the same thing. One is ceremonial, the other is the basis for legal rights and privileges."

which is why they don't need to have the same name. Let the church call it whatever it wants--for all couples, both hetero and homo. But the courthouse needs to find a new term, again, for all couples. I believe progress would be swifter if such were the case.

I take satisfaction that the tide of history is sweeping in gay marriage. More slowly than I'd like, but the outcome is set.

Edgar Alverson - the means were different, the ends the same: two people who love each other and want to make a commitment aren't legally allowed to do so, or given the same rights as people who can.

And the brouhaha about using the "marriage" simply seems ridiculous to me. The current American religious/conservative definition of "marriage" is a narrow one, and has limited historical basis. It's one definition of many, not the last word.

Stim - very true! Thanks for reminding me of that :)

Being a resident of Connecticut, I can tell you legislative proposals exist, calling for the end of same sex marriage. It's a shame. Why do those who are elected play God? --rated--

Incandescent - many thanks!

Mr. Mustard - I had no idea. You guys are still way ahead of most of the country. Thanks for reading!

I agree and I agree with Stim that the tide is turning. Fortunately, in America we have always ultimately expanded rights and freedoms rather than limiting them. It may take a long damn time, but it happens. And that's why I like it here.

It might seem ridiculous to you, but it's causing the movement to inch along slowly. One step forward, one step back...

Take out the word marriage and the movement has popular support, so its obviously not ridiculous to many Americans. We want the same "end," but you have to realize that it will take some "means" to get there.

JustJuli - I'm hoping that we'll keep expanding rights and freedoms.

EdgarAlverson - I just cannot understand how people get so hung up on a word - especially one that has such a myriad of meanings.

"Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

If you believe that marriage in this country should be legally limited to only heterosexual couples, then I believe you're a bigot. "

While I'm inclined to agree with your point re: gay marriage, that definition of bigotry sucks. Who defines what "obstinately and intolerantly" means?

Personally, I see no point for the state to be involved in marriages at all. Scrap the whole tax system surrounding the marriage institution. If anyone insists on state recognition of any form of "marriage" or union, it should be open to any number of people of any number of genders. To do any less is simply inconsistent.

Aaron writes: " . . . but the point is that rights are not given to people when they make a good enough argument."

Hi Aaron, greetings from Oregon.

Let me ask this: if same-sex relationships have an inalienable right to be recognized as marriage, why is it that polygamous or other poly-relationships don't also have that right, but instead would have to "make a good enough argument?"

Why is it that if I argue against same-sex marriage I'm a bigot, but if I argue against some kind of poly- marriage I'm not?

Aaron: "You're basically saying that if I proposed a ballot measure in Oregon to make gun ownership illegal and got enough people to vote for it that it became part of the constitution you would be fine with that?"

Ignoring the Second Amendment for a moment, of course I wouldn't like the outcome, but the people (in our 2nd Amendment-less example) would have a right to make that decision.

Aaron: "Or how about if we got enough people in Oregon to just nullify marriage all together as it pertains to the state? Would our taking your rights away be alright then?"

Again, I wouldn't agree with it, but it would be within the power of the people do to that.

phm writes: "To me the comparison between gay marriage and interracial marriage is a completely false argument."

I agree. I recently came across the following interesting quotation (and forgot to record the link):

"Moreover, the analogy of same-sex marriage to interracial marriage disregards the whole point of those prohibitions, which was to maintain and advance a system of racial subordination and exploitation. It was to maintain a caste system in which one race was relegated to conditions of social and economic inferiority. The definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman does not establish a sexual caste system or relegate one sex to conditions of social and economic inferiority. It does, to be sure, deny the recognition as lawful "marriages" to some forms of sexual combining--including polygyny, polyandry, polyamory, and same-sex relationships. But there is nothing invidious or discriminatory about laws that decline to treat all sexual wants or proclivities as equal."

applause Yes, yes and yes. I feel as you do about Obama. my hope is that, through examining the evidence for himself, he'll come to a different conclusion about gay marriage in the future. He is at least a man who's willing to listen and consider a point of view other than his own.

Allowing Gay couples to marry takes nothing from any heterosexual couple. If anything, I think they would regard it with more reverence and value it more highly through having had to fight for it.

And I so want to see Prop 8 overturned and defeated. That was really, really embarrassing and awful.

I wonder why those who say that prohibiting interracial marriage and prohibiting gay marriage aren't the same keep saying it's a "false argument." As I've said, the ends of this situation are the same: two people in love, who want to make a legal, binding commitment, and who aren't allowed to do so. Why is that so difficult to understand?

phm said: "Like physical appearance, race is insignificant to who we really are as people and is a shallow difference. "

You know, I think a lot of people would disagree with you on that one. I have friends and family to whom race is not at all insignificant to who they are. You seem unable to see beyond your own experience.

mishima666 said: "Why is it that if I argue against same-sex marriage I'm a bigot, but if I argue against some kind of poly- marriage I'm not?"

I think it's bigotry either way. I believe that consenting adults should be able to enter a legally binding marriage contract, whether straight, gay, poly, or anything in between.

To everyone who commented: thanks for reading, and for keeping this discussion (mostly) civil!

Aaron writes: "Mishima, you're making up an argument to prove your point that is neither here nor there. '

Ok, let me make a point that is clearer. The strongest argument for same-sex marriage is that it is an inalienable right under the Constitution. That argument is basically a "show stopper," because if true, there's nothing more to say about the issue, and whether you or I approve, disapprove, or whatever, is irrelevant.

But that raises a natural question: how far does that right extend? If same-sex couples have an inalienable right to marry, do people in other relationship configurations also have an inalienable right to marry?

This is not a "slippery slope" argument on my part. This is simply an attempt to find out what the argument for same-sex marriage actually is.

It is really an argument ONLY for same-sex marriage? If so, what is it about couples such that they have an inalienable right to marry, but people in poly-relationships don't? Or, if everyone in every type of relationship configuration has an inalienable right to marry, then it's not an argument for same-sex marriage, but an argument that goes far beyond that.

In her most recent comment, George Sand is clear that that's her position: "I think it's bigotry either way. I believe that consenting adults should be able to enter a legally binding marriage contract, whether straight, gay, poly, or anything in between."

Well, at last we find out what the real argument is. But it does rather change the dynamic of who is or is not perceived as a bigot. A lot of well-meaning people support same-sex marriage, and they take comfort in the fact that they are open-minded, compassionate, and not at all bigoted, unlike all those religious fanatics and horrible people like me. Imagine their surprise when they find out that they are just as bigoted as all the rest of the bigots because they don't also approve of Fred marrying Jack, Martin, Julie, and Ruth, while Julie also marries Patricia and Henry, all of whom have an inalienable right to do that and more.

So my point is only that it's important to know what the argument really is, and what is the vision of society and marriage presented to us by George Sand and others. In that regard George has been very clear.

mishima666 - it's not as black and white as you'd have it be. I am fully aware that many people don't feel the same way I do; what I wrote is simply one view of many. When you say things like:

"This is simply an attempt to find out what the argument for same-sex marriage actually is."

(THE argument? There's only one?)

OR

"Well, at last we find out what the real argument is. "

OR

"A lot of well-meaning people support same-sex marriage, and they take comfort in the fact that they are open-minded, compassionate, and not at all bigoted, unlike all those religious fanatics and horrible people like me. "

I think you're putting words in peoples' mouths (on peoples' pages?) and taking it far too personally. Who here has called you a horrible person? I feel like we have been disagreeing vigorously, but civilly.

You are seemingly inflexible on this issue. Neither one of us is going to change the others' view, and I'm not going to argue just for the sake of arguing. Thanks for reading.

George writes: "Who here has called you a horrible person? I feel like we have been disagreeing vigorously, but civilly."

On this post, yes, the conversation has been civil, inasmuch as being called a bigot is civil. The situation is quite different elsewhere. Recently one fellow wrote an entire post directed toward me, in which he essentially accused me of being complicit in virtually every evil that has ever happened to gays and lesbians throughout history. This post was warmly received and had a number of positive comments, though the writer later deleted it. Other posts ridicule religious people and remark on their stupidity and ignorance. One recent warmly-received post called Catholic bishops -- clergy to one-sixth of the population of the U.S. -- "men in dresses." Given the alternatives, your post and the subsequent comments have been models of decorum.

George: "I am fully aware that many people don't feel the same way I do; what I wrote is simply one view of many."

Your view is very common, not at all unusual. Many supporters of same-sex have no interest (that I can discern) in what I would call traditional marriage. They want the whole institution thrown out, or reworked into something that many people would no longer recognize as marriage. Yes, it is just your view, but you are in good company and many share that same view.

Amen!

My feeling is that if a church doesn't want same-sex marriages, simply refuse to have them in that particular venue. Don't tell other churches or secular places whom they can allow to give equal rights. I'm divorced but have seen same sex couples stay together longer than I've been alive. If marriage is so dang sacred, outlaw divorce. That would be an eye-opener.

Ditto everything what you said about Obama as well. Thank you for saying this.

Dang, gal. You hosted quite a party over here.
::picking up half-empty bottles::
Any refreshments left?

Applauding and hoping more states join soon! (sadly, mine will be one of the last, no doubt:( but it will happen, bein sur!

mishima666 and phm - thanks for keeping things polite, even as we disagree.

RenaissanceLady - I agree! Thanks for reading!

dharmabummer - let me find you a glass and we'll toast to getting there someday! :)

I love when a post like this lets us have a discussion, heated or otherwise, about something so fundamental to our values and our way of life. I am totally with you on this one G. Sand, and am more firm in my support of marriage equality everytime I read one of these discussions.

mamoore - I've been interested in hearing these responses...thanks for reading and commenting!

I'm a bit curious about something and I am having trouble finding an answer. People who are opposed to the marriage of same sex couples frequently cite religious reasons as the basis. Are churches being forced by the government to perform gay marriages? Even those that don't believe in it? If not then what is the problem? We are gaurenteed our right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The government cannot, under the first amendment, regulate or make a law that respects any religion. Citing religious opposition would make any law against the civil aspects of marriage for any two consenting, informed adults unconstitutional. If a church chooses not to perform the religious ceremony for couples of the same sex then they are within their rights. This would, however, make the opposite true as well and any church that wants to perform a marriage cermony for a same sex couple has the right to do so as well. Religious morals are not the basis for law in the U.S.. Our laws are based upon the conditions set by our governing document, the constitution.

I am unapologetically heterosexual (not that it matters), but I do think our Founding Fathers set forth as absolutes "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I can't fathom how any state's failure to recognize same-sex marriage can be construed as to NOT reign in the pursuit of happiness for those who want not only the rights inherent to married couples, but also simply some recognition that their bond is not second rate.

Rated for a pithy and effective argument!

@mishima666

" 'How is legally recognized gay marriage taking anything away from anyone?' "

"Many people simply feel that the husband-wife relationship is an inherent part of the concept of marriage, that along with a few other elements it constitutes that concept. For them, same-sex marriage doesn't make any sense. There are all sorts of reasons why someone might oppose same-sex marriage that have nothing to do with any perceived personal harm and that are not motivated by bigotry."

This has to be the lamest justification I've yet heard for why straight people are deprived of something by gay marriage. Because their "concept' is challenged.? Please. Many [white] people were aggrieved by the advent of black civil rights because whiteness was inherent to their concept of what it meant to be a fully vested citizen or even a fully human being. So what?

Feeling that something has been taken from you, based on your own warped attitudes, and having something actually taken away from you are two very different things. All you have explained is why certain [bigoted] people feel they lose something by legalizing gay marriage, not why anyone really does lose anytthing at all.

bobbot - YES.

Jess - agreed, and thank you!

Aaron - good points.

libertarius - yes! Gay marriage is not taking anything away from anyone. Thank you.

Stellaa - yes. Thank you for reading & commenting.

Aaron writes: "Mishima, I clearly laid out the difference between homosexual marriage and polygamy from the perspective of rights. You are reading more of a comment than simply the first line right?"

Yes I am. i think it's a rather weak argument, since, even as you point out "I'm sure there are very responsible men who would be great for multiple wives . . . "

But let me give you a couple of examples closer to home. A few months ago an OS member published a post describing his family situation. He is legally married (in Canada) to another man. In addition, both of them have male lovers living in the same house. Question: if all consented, should each man in the married couple be able also to legally marry other male lovers?

Another situation. One OS member is a bisexual man, legally married to a woman, and he also has a male lover living in the same house. Same question: with all parties consenting and willing, should this man be able to marry his male lover in addition to his female wife?

Or putting the question in your terms, is there an inalienable right for them to be married to more than one person? If not, why not? Everyone loves everyone else, everyone consents, and the additional potential spouses aren't married to anyone else, don't want to be married to anyone else, and have no legal protections or benefits that legal spouses would have. They are very much in the minority, and as you say "It's not up to majority to decide which rights which citizens are allowed to exercise." So do they have an inalienable right to marry?

stellaa writes: "In this time. In this place, being against gay marriage makes you a bigot."

I think it cheapens the word. It puts 65 or 70 percent of the country in the same category as the "God Hates Fags" group, making no distinction.

As I have explained many times, I support civil unions for same-sex couples, including all the rights and benefits that come with marriage. I support all other legal protections and rights afforded to gays and lesbians.

If that's bigotry, then bigotry must not be so bad after all.

mishima666: I'm glad to know that you, as you said, " support all other legal protections and rights afforded to gays and lesbians."

But I cannot understand the whole marriage vs. civil unions debate, though. It simply doesn't make sense to me. Bobbot made some very good points about separation of church and state, and how neither should be involved with the other; the government should not be able to tell churches/religious groups what to do, and vice versa.

So basically, it seems to come down to one word - marriage - a word that has a much deeper history and many more permutations than anyone who opposes the idea of gay marriage seems willing to acknowledge.

George writes: "But I cannot understand the whole marriage vs. civil unions debate, though. It simply doesn't make sense to me."

Permit me to make a confession here. I have thought long and hard about the same-sex marriage issue, especially about my opposition to it. In particular, I find myself in the very strange position of being a "liberal" who on this issue is a conservative. So I ask myself why it is that in contrast to so many others in this venue, I come down on the other side of the issue.

Unfortunately I do not have a good answer for that. All I can say is that when it comes to these moral - and dare I say it -- spiritual issues, we all come with our own personal history, ideas, baggage, and experiences. My experience is not yours; yours is not mine. You and I offer "arguments," but ultimately it's not about arguments but what resonates with the deep things of what makes me "me" and you "you."

I have to be true to who I am, and you have to be true to who you are. Is there a way to reconcile the two? I don't know.

But thanks for hosting a very polite discussion. We may differ on the issues, but I think you and I would agree that civility and mutual respect are what make true discussion possible.

phm - the "meaning of the word marriage in its traditional forms" has had many different aspects. What do you mean by changing it? It's changed countless times over the years. Marriage has meant political alliances, women as chattel, polygamy, etc. - a whole host of things that people don't consider "marriage" right here and now.

Romantic love, and marriage as defined by people who take the view that marriage means one man/one woman, is a relatively recent development. It's not the end-all be-all. It' s not even anything with a whole lot of "tradition" behind it. This is why it's entirely incomprehensible to me that our government shouldn't recognize same-sex marriage; there's simply no good argument against it, in my view.

mishima666 - there's probably no way to resolve our differences, but I'm glad we can discuss them politely.

Aaron writes: "The point is that men who abuse their power as polygamists do not have an inalienable right to deny the rights of women. I don't understand how this is a 'weak' argument."

It's a weak argument because there are already laws prohibiting abuse. If a polygamist man commits incest, has sex with a minor, or abuses an adult woman, those are crimes. If no crime is being committed, and a woman freely enters into polygamy, then it's hard to see how that constitutes abuse.

Bu let's go back to my original question. Do participants in "poly" relationships have an inalienable right to marry? Or in an era of same-sex marriage, would two brothers or two sisters have an inalienable right to marry?

What I'm getting at is this: there are many different kinds of potential relationships in which the participants love each other, are committed, etc., yet cannot legally marry. Out of all of those many relationships, do only same-sex couples have an inalienable right to marry? If so, why only them, and not others?

I've asked this question in several different venues, and so far no one has been able to give a satisfactory answer, and some end up saying that everyone should be able to marry everyone else in whatever relationshp configuration they want.

The problem is that most people who support same-sex two-person marriage DON'T support legal marriage for poly- relationships. But when they try to explain why, they end up sounding very much like the people who don't support same-sex marriage. They start appealing to "tradition" and "natural law" and the "concept of marriage" -- the very things that they reject when it comes to same-sex two-person marriage.

Well, if tradition and the concept of marriage are relevant in rejecting poly- marriage, then they are relevant in rejecting same-sex marriage.

Or, if what ultimately it being advocated is not just same-sex marriage, but legally married poly- relationships, then let's be clear about that.