If Gays Get Married What Will I Do?

Maggie Gallagher of the National Review has decided to issue some short term predictions for states that will allow same sex marriage in response to Steve Chapman request:

"But with the experiment looming, some opponents seem to be doubting their own convictions. I contacted three serious conservative thinkers who have written extensively about the dangers of allowing gay marriage and asked them to make simple, concrete predictions about measurable social indicators—marriage rates, divorce, out-of-wedlock births, child poverty, you name it.""Yet none was prepared to forecast what would happen in same-sex marriage states versus other states."

Gallagher:

"In gay-marriage states, a large minority people committed to traditional notions of marriage will feel afraid to speak up for their views, lest they be punished in some way."

So what. How would these people have expressed their views prior to the state allowing gay marriage? Perhaps this minority's views are wrong and the invisible pressure of the majority's views should silence them. If they really want to express their views about marriage they should continue to marry people of the opposite gender.

Gallagher:

"Public schools will teach about gay marriage."

Do schools teach about marriage now. I really don't know or remember being taught about marriage.

Gallagher:

"Parents in public schools who object to gay marriage being taught to their children will be told with increasing public firmness that they don't belong in public schools and their views will not be accommodated in any way."

Again do they teach marriage? I'll assume they do teach it for the sack of this exercise. In the lesson on marriage wouldn't gay marriage be a part added the lesson on straight marriage. Do lessons on marriage currently teach about heterosexuality? If they do teach heterosexuality in schools now and people can learn to be gay or straight why do we have so many homosexuals? There must be schools teaching homosexuality for many years. What about the gay married couples who don't want "traditional" marriage taught? Perhaps we should stop teaching about marriage.

Gallagher:

"Religious institutions will face new legal threats (especially soft litigation threats) that will cause some to close, or modify their missions, to avoid clashing with the government's official views of marriage (which will include the view that opponents are akin to racists for failing to see same-sex couples as married)."

Is there no distinction between civil marriage and a religious marriage. Any legal action against a church or other religious institution to force the services for which they don't agree is not acceptable, but is this really a concern. I have a straight cousin that was denied marriage services in a church because they had not fulfilled all the sacramental rights required for marriage. The rights of straight people to marry is a long standing matter but my cousin did not sue the church, why would gay people? Even if people did sue I think a court would throw out the case quickly. I would assume over time there would be churches and other institutions that will begin offering service to gay couples for simple economic reasons.

Gallagher:

"Support for the idea "the ideal for a child is a married mother and father" will decline."

I am not sure if this bad in itself. I do understand the ideal state being a mother and father but how does that translate to gays would make bad parents. If it is because they will raise gay children just stop now.

So Gallagher really doesn't give any predictions as to how gay marriage will change society beyond the tired statements of her irrational fears. She is correct that "a project to document institutional change should be done in a serious way." I look forward to her serious predictions on this matter.

All I want to know is how do we determine if acceptance of gay marriage is ending civilization or if society's norms are just progressing in a neutral way? Sphere: Related Content

Gay Marriage Opponents Unwilling To Offer Short Term Predictions - Rather Wait For The End Of Civilization For Vindication

Opponents of same sex marriage offer, uninvited, grand scale predictions about the perils that gay marriage will visit upon our society. We know them all. It would be the end of civilization, monogamy will be abandoned and people will marry dogs if gay get married. If any of those things happen it will be because of many reasons I would not pin it on gay marriage.

Before we get to these extreme results what would be some discernible benchmarks to show that these predictions may be true not just bigoted hyperbole. Well Steve Chapman at Reason had the brilliant idea to ask the gay marriage doomsayers exactly that question. With six states have essentially experiments in gay marriage what would the signs that the end of civilization is coming or that monogamy is being abandoned.

Chapman:

"But with the experiment looming, some opponents seem to be doubting their own convictions. I contacted three serious conservative thinkers who have written extensively about the dangers of allowing gay marriage and asked them to make simple, concrete predictions about measurable social indicators—marriage rates, divorce, out-of-wedlock births, child poverty, you name it.""Yet none was prepared to forecast what would happen in same-sex marriage states versus other states."

Of course proponents of gay marriage had no problem saying that there would be no impact on the course of civilization. At least none that will be noticeable by statistics.

Chapman:

"In a few years, we won't have to rely on such forecasts, because the facts will be there for all to see. And they should settle the issue once and for all.

But I have a strong suspicion that both sides of the debate are right. The supporters of same-sex marriage are right in predicting that it will have no bad side effects. And the opponents are right not to make predictions."

Previous posts on gay marriage. Sphere: Related Content

“OKLAHOMA WHERE THE HYPOCRISY COMES SWEEPING DOWN THE PLAINS.”

David Boies’s essay in Wall Street Journal today lead my mind to think about how the courts are going to approach arguments on gay marriage. It seems appropriate to question this through what I heard all week during the hearing on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.

After the grandstanding this past week about the role of judges applying the law not their personal bias I hope judges in courts soon to hear gay marriage cases follow this senatorial dictum.

I agree with the intent of Judge Sotomayor’s statements that our experiences are integral to how we interpret and understand. Experience by definition is “the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation.” It is a filter through which we process all stimuli. No one can escape this pure human function.

Some Senators disagree.

Unfortunately, after purporting that judges leave aside bias, prejudice and personal feelings some senators are hoping to overturn gay marriage rulings in Iowa, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. They also want to stop California’s Prop 8 from being reversed. Ultimately as U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker predicted, "I am reasonably sure that, given the personalities in this courtroom, this case is only touching down in this court and it will have a life after this court," Walker said. "What happens here is in many ways a prelude to what happens later." Supreme Court here we come.

It certainly seems that those hoping to protect “traditional marriage” are dependent upon relying on bias, prejudice and personal feelings of Christian judges. Religion is probably the most fundamental form of bias, prejudice or personal feelings. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) wants “to be absolutely certain that [judges] will faithfully interpret the law and the Constitution without bias or prejudice.” Is it hypocritical to demand fairness in the abstract but hope for bias in the specific of gay marriage? Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) pronounced, I don’t think he was being ironic, “that's why Lady Justice is always depicted blind and why Aristotle defined law as ‘reason free from passion.’”

Other countries are better at separating religiosity from deciding of legal rights. David Boies writes today in the Wall Street Journal,

"Countries as Catholic as Spain, as different as Sweden and South Africa, and as near as Canada have embraced gay and lesbian marriage without any noticeable effect -- except the increase in human happiness and social stability that comes from permitting people to marry for love."

In the hearings for John Roberts nomination to the high court Sen Coburn said, “"If you have somebody first of all who has that connection with their personal faith and their allegiance to the law, you don't get into the Roe v. Wade situation," Coburn said, according to the Associated Press. "I am looking for somebody who is not going to make that mistake again in any other area of life." Let sing a song for Senator Coburn, “OKLAHOMA WHERE THE HYPOCRISY COMES SWEEPING DOWN THE PLAINS.”

Boies also writes,

"There are those who sincerely believe that homosexuality is inconsistent with their religion -- and the First Amendment guarantees their freedom of belief. However, the same First Amendment, as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, preclude the enshrinement of their religious-based disapproval in state law."

Why can’t we agree that religious dogma has no place in our courts and the discussion of our rights. And neither does hypocrisy.

Sphere: Related Content

Another "The End Of Civilization" Argument Against Same Sex Marriage

In today's Wall Street Journal Robert George uses the end of the world as we know argument against gay marriage. He actually makes the claim that gay marriage "entails abandoning norms such as monogamy." He takes it one step further that I have not heard before. He says advocates for same sex marriage are also trying to define marriage to include poly-amorous families.

I have not seen anyone fighting for the rights of marriage also ask for poly-amorous marriage rights. If you have I would be curious to see the arguments.

A related post: "The End Of Civilization" Argument Against Same Sex Marriage Sphere: Related Content

Trial Date For Prop 8 Challenge Is Set

January 11, 2010 is the trial date for the Prop 8 challenge.

The Mercury News reports:

"During a hearing in San Francisco, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ordered lawyers on both sides of the case to gear up quickly for the trial, which foes of California's same-sex marriage ban hope will be the first step in getting the legal fight over gay marriage to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Backed by former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and prominent lawyer David Boies, two same-sex couples sued in federal court this past spring to overturn Proposition 8, approved by voters in fall 2008 to restore California's ban on gay marriage. The lawsuit maintains Proposition 8 violates the federal constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples by denying them the equal right to marry, and marks what is likely to be the first crucial legal test in the federal courts over the issue.

The California Supreme Court this past spring upheld Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage, but the justices left intact an estimated 18,000 gay marriages that took place last year before voters approved the measure by 52 to 48 percent. Those weddings took place after the state Supreme Court struck down the state's previous laws banning same-sex marriage."

In an odd twist the judge in this trial made comments about the state lack of a defense in this case:

"Walker took a swipe at Schwarzenegger's position at the conclusion of today's hearing, saying, 'I must say I'm surprised at the governor's position in this case. ... This is a matter of some importance to the people of the state.'"

I can't wait for the crazy protests.

Photo thanks to http://www.inquisitr.com Sphere: Related Content

David Boies On Gay Marriage

David Boies on Gay Marriage in Monday's Wall Street Journal.

"Countries as Catholic as Spain, as different as Sweden and South Africa, and as near as Canada have embraced gay and lesbian marriage without any noticeable effect -- except the increase in human happiness and social stability that comes from permitting people to marry for love."


"There are those who sincerely believe that homosexuality is inconsistent with their religion -- and the First Amendment guarantees their freedom of belief. However, the same First Amendment, as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, preclude the enshrinement of their religious-based disapproval in state law."

Sphere: Related Content

Andrew Sullivan Asks Conservatives-- What Use Is Conservatism

Andrew Sullivan crafted a remarkably eloquent response to Robert P. George's essay on gay marriage. In contrast to my response to George or my response to Cooper , Sullivan's response is tempered and pleasant. It raises thoughtful questions that George should answer.

Sullivan's response was pleasant and friendly until it wasn't. Sullivan writes:

"Alas, having studied George's work for years, I can tell you his social policy toward me and my kind. It is that gay people should be celibate, and if not celibate, invisible. But this much we know: gays in free countries are neither going to be celibate nor invisible for the foreseeable future. So what is George's prescription except quixotic when it isn't demotic?
Beneath the elegant philosophical language is a blunter message to George's gay fellow human beings: be straight or go away. And since when is that a practical option in the 21st century?"

I enjoy reading Sullivan's blog for his thoughtful writing. He doesn't write responses this long very often, but when he does it is usually excellent.

George's essay has brought Sullivan to the question:

"I repeat to conservatives: we know what you're against, in healthcare, energy, counter-terrorism, taxation, gay rights, abortion. What are you actually for? How do you intend to actually address the questions of our time and place? And if conservatism cannot do that, what use is it?"

Good question. Sphere: Related Content

Americans Are Conservative Until It Has A Cost

Matt Yglesias has an interesting response to Ross Douthat's column.

Douthat writes:

"More than most Westerners, Americans believe — deeply, madly, truly — in the sanctity of marriage. But we also have some of the most liberal divorce laws in the developed world, and one of the highest divorce rates. We sentimentalize the family, but boast one of the highest rates of unwed births. We’re more pro-life than Europeans, but we tolerate a much more permissive abortion regime than countries like Germany or France. We wring our hands over stem cell research, but our fertility clinics are among the least regulated in the world.

In other words, we’re conservative right up until the moment that it costs us."

Yglesias writes:

"I think this explains a lot about the appeal of anti-gay crusades to social conservative leaders. Most of what 'traditional values' asks of people is pretty hard. All the infidelity and divorce and premarital sex and bad parenting and whatnot take place because people actually want to do the things traditional values is telling them not to do. And the same goes for most of the rest of the Christian recipe. Acting in a charitable and forgiving manner all the time is hard. Loving your enemies is hard. Turning the other cheek is hard. Homosexuality is totally different. For a small minority of the population, of course, the injunction 'don’t have sex with other men!' (or, as the case may be, other women) is painfully difficult to live up to. But for the vast majority of people this is really, really easy to do. Campaigns against gay rights, gay people, and gay sex thus have a lot of the structural elements of other forms of crusading against sexual excess or immorality, but they’re not really asking most people to do anything other than become self-righteous about their pre-existing preferences."

The opportunity cost of being a conservative christian is sex with men. On the other hand, the the opportunity cost of not having sex with men is happiness. If you are a gay economist this is an easy dilemma. Sphere: Related Content

Old People Don't Think They Know Someone Gay

Interesting research from Columbia University of attitudes on gay marriage. It is odd that the percentage of people reporting knowing someone gay is so low. I would think that people between 20 and 40 years old would report knowing at least one homosexual. The older folks don't realize they know homosexuals.
Sphere: Related Content

The Daily Dish Follows Up On Maggie Gallagher Predictions O Fear

The Daily Dish's The Horrible Thing That Gay Marriage Will Do, Ctd

My reaction to Gallagher. Sphere: Related Content

The Right On Health Care: Fear The Absurd, Ignore The Present

It seems that much of the debate from the right on many issues comes from a position of wanting paranoia and fear of the next piece of legislation. For example, if gay people can marry each other the next thing people want is to marry their dogs. It is an absurd argument but it has been made. When the bill comes to define marriage between a man and his dog I will join the paranoid nuts and oppose it. I am fairly certain that this paranoia flame is fanned by people who don't actually believe in the fire they are creating. The fear and paranoia is developed to influence less sophisticated people.

In parts of the health care debate the right has succeeded in developing the same paranoia and fear. For instance President Obama took a question a woman named Mary at a town hall meeting last week. She asked, "I have been told there is a clause in there that everyone that's Medicare age will be visited and told to decide how they wish to die. This bothers me greatly, and I'd like for you to promise me that this is not in this bill." Now, Mary has probably heard this dozens of times from people on television, the radio and people she knows who heard it on television or radio. The president answered her question and hopefully calmed her fears.

Pundits from the right continue to promote the fear and paranoia even after they acknowledge that end of life planning is important. Suzanne Fields in the Washington Times tells a story with genuine feeling about end of life planning with her mother. She writes:

"When my mother was in her late 80s, I took her to a lawyer's office one bright sunny day to sign her 'living will.' We read over the questions and her answers and she signed on the dotted line. She had made her decisions weeks before and she was pleased.

We went shopping afterward, and she bought an antique watch that caught my eye in a shop window. This was an appropriate gift, she joked, because she had named me to be in charge of her 'life time.' If the time should come that a doctor asks whether to prolong her life when all hope was gone, I was to produce her living will."

It is nice story that we should all take to heart. We should all follow Fields and her mothers lead. Fields takes this important message and then twists it to the paranoid and fear-mongering position. She writes:

"Trying to allay Mary the questioner's fears, the president offered a flippant answer: 'We just don't have enough government workers to send to talk to everybody to find out how they want to die.' But what if it did? What kind of Big Brother government have we created that makes us feel so small? Collecting information about how the elderly want to die is not the problem. Who manages that information is what's crucial."

Honestly, the people she is trying to scare may not be the most sophisticated but this idea that the only obstacle to creating this big brother hospice authority is the lack of people is sick. It is also silly because there are plenty of people looking for work right now.

An open dialogue and honest debate is not possible if the people with any perceived authority whether it is Glenn Beck or Suzanne Fields continue to agitate and promote fear and paranoia of the next fight. Especially when the next fight is unlikely and absurd as a member of congress drafting legislation to allow me to marry Apple (my dog).

Sphere: Related Content