Hey, gang! Let’s put on a culture war!

I forgot to point out that in the poll cited 69% of the respondents favored civil-unions rather than marriage.

That “all men are created equal” line sounds familiar but I cannot find it in the Constitution.

Thanks for your support Ted.

It’s always nice to hear people in favor of their party doing the right thing.

What the democrats seem to be doing to us gay folk at the national level is treating us like a kid with down syndrome in conformist 1950. Just stay out of sight when we have this party, go to your room and play there, don’t ruin our party, and then after it’s over, we’ll take you and get you a treat.

Of course, when the election is over, us gays will be hearing “Now just wait a minute on this gay marriage stuff, we’ll get there, it’s just not a good time. Maybe after the next election.”

Well, no. I’m not supporting a candidate who doesn’t come out strongly for gay rights. The marriage issue isn’t the real issue here, though, Ted. The issue is homophobia, and this gay marriage stuff is a symptom of it. What I hear from both parties is that, yeah, they hate us faggots and want to deny us our rights, they just differ in how much they want to deny us our rights.

What most people do not realize is how big a deal this is. Gay people are at hugely increased risk of suicide and depression from homophobia. Almost 1/2 of youth suicide attempts are motivated by reactions to homophobia in gay youth. Gay men in urban areas are 3 times more likely to have tried to kill themselves then straight men in those same areas. Homophobia causes both closeted and out GLTB youth to feel huge amounts of isolation, which leads to depression and suicide. When these politicians on both sides of the aisle implicitly pander to homophobes, by opposing our civil rights, they contribute to this homophobia that causes people to kill themselves. The democrats have a huge oppritunity to smash this homophobia with a couragous stance, and they are not going to take it.

I’ve written more on this, at a new blog devoted to gay issues (gayissues.blogspot.com). The purpose of the blog is to take a look at some of the huge amount of research on homosexuals, heterosexual attitudes towards homosexuals, etc, and try and apply that work to current issues related to gays, so that the debate can be better informed by the research. I don’t have much up yet, but I invite you to take a look.

Ah, how soon we forget. In the vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the House of Representatives, 79% of 176 Republicans voted in favor of the bill, while only 63% of 258 Democrats voted in favor of the bill. In the Senate, only 6 of 33 Republicans voted against the bill, while 21 of 67 Democrats voted against it. Obviously, it would never have reached President Johnson for a signature without very strong Republican support.
The effort to defeat the amendment to the Constitution is best made with a defense of the historic perogatives of states and the integrity of the Constitution itself. Make that kind of argument and many conservatives will rally in support of it. Allow the Republicans to handicap Democrat candidates with a gay rights agenda and prepare for a long haul out of power.

I must agree with Joe. Civil Union is not like marriage.
For example, if we say that same sex marriage is the same as the traditional marriage, then imagine that two couples go to an adoptiing agency, one same sex and one not. If both couples are the same under the eyes of the law, then the agency can’t discriminate, and may see itself forced to give the child to the same sex couple(for the sake of discusion, let’s say that the same sex couple arrived one hour earlier than the other couple).
I don’t think that any one disagrees with me when I say that a child must have a mom and a dad and not two moms or two dads. And I think that even a single parent is even better than two-same-sex parents.
I remember a case, with I read in Nylawyer.com, in which a judge in the state of MA. put a father in custody because he told his son about his sexual orientation and about his relationships(he was his biological father, who became a homosexual afterwards). The judge, as I remember, said that this kind of behaviour is not a healthy one for the 10 year-old kid.
So, let’s imagine what effect it would have on the child if he watches his two fathers kissing in front of him at the same age or even earlier.
But, I do agree with civil unions, they would make same sex relationships more accepted by the society.

visit my cool website :)

Isyam says,
“I don’t think that any one disagrees with me when I say that a child must have a mom and a dad and not two moms or two dads. And I think that even a single parent is even better than two-same-sex parents.”
Wow. This almost leaves me unable to write. I wonder if you’ve got any evidence for this, beyond predjudice? Especially I wonder what the force of the “must” is supposed to be. Really.

“In the vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the House of Representatives, 79% of 176 Republicans voted in favor of the bill, while only 63% of 258 Democrats voted in favor of the bill.”

Your knowledge of history is a little shaky. In 1964, there were really three parties: Democrats, Republicans and Dixie-crats. At that time, the Dixie-crats–who were from the south and called themselves Democrats–caucussed with the Democrats, but voted more often than not with the Republicans. That, of course, brought the percentage of apparent Democrats who voted for the CRA down and the percentage of apparent Republicans who voted for the CRA up.

Since then, of course, the parties have realigned along their idiological natures: that is, the Dixie-crats migrated to their true home in the Republican party.

miss r. raises an issue you hardly see brought up much anymore, but it’s a good one. A smart, non-homophobic conservative ought to be delighted that the key issue for gay rights activists these days is marriage–it’s an indication a desire for that their (conservatives, that is) favorite form of social organization has made significant inroads into bastions of counterculturalism such as “the gay community.” Indeed, gays rushing to get married could be interpreted as a culture war victory for conservatives, although not a total one. The only conservative I’ve seen acknowledge this is David Brooks, and he did it in such a clumsy and jaw-droppingly embarrassing manner (As I recall, the first line of the editorial in question was “Anyone with multiple sexual partners in a given year is committing spiritual suicide” or word to that effect) that it hardly counts. But still.

Agreed, Ted. Right side of history. Get on it, gentleman, you’ll thank yourselves later.

(And Joe Carter, the support first goes to civil unions, then, when people realize they’ve got to be legally identical to marriage for the purposes of fairness, it slowly or quickly shifts to support for marriage–civil unions are the front edge of the trend here, but they’re not the end of it).

“All men are created equal” does not appear in the Constitution. It’s from the Declaration of Independence.

It’s a very common error, but CT folk should know better.

Oh, and Ted, you really should be clear about who is starting this battle in the culture war: the litigants in MA and the mayor of SF. Bush has been drawn in (on the wrong side), more’s the pity, but it wasn’t his idea to start the fight.

Robert Lyman writes:
1) Almost all of the “benefits” of marriage are currently available to gay couples through contractual devices. There are a few exceptions—Social Security comes to mind—but almost everything supporters cite (inheritence, hosptial visits, and even health insurance in many companies and jurisdictions, etc) is available.
There are some rights that are very important– albeit to a small number of people– and unavailable to gay people. Immigration status comes to mind. It doesn’t apply often, but when it does, it can ruin lives.

Second, I’ve heard that legal challenges to inheritance claims, etc. are easier if the relevant parties aren’t/weren’t married. So the ‘gay equivalent’ isn’t quite as good. I’m not competent to assert this with confidence, but I’m hoping someone in the learned audience will help me out.

In reference to Iysam,
Best family situation in order of preference assuming no cultural impact on the children.
1) loving heterosexual home, child has the benefit of two parents and exposure to both male and female perspectives. Men and women are different, and being gay does not change your gender, therefore does not have the full advantage of perspective difference.
2) loving homosexual home, child has the benefit of two parents with two perspectives, tho both of the same sex.
3) loving single parent home, child has a single perspective and less attention.
Andything below this would be a non-loving home which is always bad.
The reversing of points 2 and 3 would be due to either religious reasoning, wherein homosexuality is wrong and would automatically make it a bad parenting situation, or social reasoning, wherein a child with homosexual parents would find his training and situation to be viewed poorly by the community. This second is arguable to some extent, but in an ideal world where people arent so critical of each other, would not come into play.

I personally dont care to have the government involved in marriage at all. Whom I marry or have union to is not the business of the government, it should not be defined by the constitution or the courts, there should not even be any such thing as a marriage liscense. If for operation in todays society we are to argue that there must be some legal status (such as to define legal guardians of children, etc.) Then a civil union should be the extent of government involvement. Anything further would essentially be a forcing of government mandate on an otherwise religious practice, which violates seperation of church and state. miss r. makes some excellent points concerning the concept of marriage versus civil union.

How do all these right wing republicans in the US balance their libertarian view that the state should get involved in only the bare minimum with legislation on any form of marriage/civil union?

Jonathan,

You’re right, of course. How embarassing. I’ll change it.

Rob,

I have to respectfully disagree on a number of points.

1. Why can’t it be both? A number of the rights are available if a gay couple has a few thousand dollars to hire a contract lawyer. Quite a few of them aren’t. I’ve been engaged to my fiancee since 1999, and we haven’t made the time to get married yet. So you can guess about how valuable the legal benefits are to me, personally.

To a certain extent, it’s about social acceptance. Personally, it’s more about equal representation under law. Right now, the law offers a bundle of rights to straight people, while refusing to offer them to gay people. It’s a basic question of fairness to me.

2. You’re bothered by the fact that the fight has been through the courts. I can see that, but I don’t know what to do about it. In a nation of 285 million people, there are constant challenges to laws.

Every once in a while, someone goes to court to argue that the income tax or all gun restrictions are unconstitutional. If one of them succeeded, I’d probably gripe about going through the legal system, but I wouldn’t expect the anti-tax or pro-gun folks to, I dunno, give it back. It’s got an aura of spilt milk about it.

3. Iysam didn’t say that a child is better off with a mom and a dad. He said, “I don’t think that any one disagrees with me when I say that a child must have a mom and a dad and not two moms or two dads. And I think that even a single parent is even better than two-same-sex parents.” (my emphasis)

It’s not the same thing. As far as the second point, I’m not an expert either, but I did study homosexuality for my thesis, and I can point to studies that show that a kid is better off with two gay parents than one parent. (Or at least I could when I had access to academic libraries.)

4. That’s a thorny issue that I hope to get back to. For now, I’ll say that I’ve found Stanley Kurtz-style arguments, which try to argue against gay marriage without invoking either scripture or bigotry (note that I am emphatically not equating the two), to be spectacularly unpersuasive.

5. There are obvious differences between the current issue and the 1960s civil rights struggle. No dogs, no buses. Most black people can’t pass, but most gay people can. No one thinks black people can turn white, but some people think that gay people can turn straight. Jim Crow laws were much more punitive than the marriage code. No reasonable person would dispute this.

But people like me think that the underlying issues are similar. Again, equal representation under law, etc. You know the drill.

Finally, I’d disagree that Bush was forced into this. He could have pointed at the DOMA and said “that ought to take care of it”. But he came out and pre-emptively declared the DOMA unconstitutional, ahead of any theoretical activist judge.

If his hand was forced, why not simply issue an executive order to stop the marriages in San Fransisco? The proposed amendment isn’t going to stop them in a timely fashion. It will take at least a year to push it through, if it isn’t simply dropped like a Mars mission.

No, Bush wanted an issue. Well, he’s got one.

“see under Loving v. Virginia. Had anyone thrown his support behind a consitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage, would it have been an excuse that the Lovings had started the culture war?”

The analogy to Loving v Virginia is a good one–so good, that I do not see how Loving v Virginia can survive the proposed amendmnent. After all, Loving v Virginia is an example of the Supreme Court using the equal protection clause of the federal constitution to require that the indcents of marriage be conferred upon interracial couples.

The “stealth racism” aspect of the proposed amendment will make for interesting debate if they don’t change the language before getting the amendment process started.

If his hand was forced, why not simply issue an executive order to stop the marriages in San Fransisco?

Because he doesn’t have the power to do so.

And I don’t mean to say that Bush’s “hand was forced.” I meant to say that he didn’t start it, he just joined a battle someone else started. Yes, he did it for political gain. But every time Newsom says he’ll “sacrifice his career” for gay marriage I want to slap him. I bet he’s just terrified of the SF voters.

I wish Bush had keep quiet, but it’s silly to say that he started it.

I’m probably conflating you with a buch of people who seem to think that he did start it.

“Ralph Luker is a historian himself…”

I guess you have never heard of a “revisionist historian.”

Illustration: who was it that lauded Strom Thurmond–who undeniably was a Dixie-crat–a year or so ago for his stance in 1948, and lost his leadership position in the Senate as a result? (Not necessarily because his caucus disagreed with him–he had, however, become an embarrassment to them.) And what part of the country did he come from.

I don’t recall him being a modern-day Democrat. And I don’t recall him being a Northerner.

The Dixie-crats migrated to the Republican party. Not necessarily all of them individually, but the party certainly did.

raj revises history; I remind him of it. If you think that defeating the DMA won’t require the help of progressive Republicans, keep beating the binary drum.

Right now, the law offers a bundle of rights to straight people, while refusing to offer them to gay people. It’s a basic question of fairness to me.

This is question-begging. Consider a parallel: “Right now, the law offers a bundle of rights to married people, while refusing to offer them to cousins. It’s a basic question of fairness to me. I love my cousin and should be able to sign him up on my employer’s health insurance policy, have him visit me in the hospital, and have the government give me a “Cousinhood” certificate.”

Well, the obvious response is, “Fine, you love your cousin. That’s great. But if you want to establish that it is ‘unfair’ that the government doesn’t offer ‘Cousinhood’ certificates, you have to prove that cousinhood and marriage are really the same sort of thing.”

Same here. If you want to force the government to issue special certificates to homosexual relationships, you have to begin by proving that homosexual relationships are the same sort of thing.

That’s a more difficult question. Yes, a homosexual couple loves each other. But is that the reason the government recognizes marriage? If so, there are a lot of other relationships that involve love of some sort and that the government would have to recognize. Yes, a homosexual couple has sex with each other. But is that the reason government recognizes marriage? If so, why doesn’t the government recognize “Boyfriend/Girlfriend” relationships? “Mistress” relationships? The mere fact that people like having sex is no reason for the government to issue a certificate.

So what is it? How are homosexual couples the same as heterosexual couples in any way that demands government recognition? And more fundamentally, why should the government recognize ANY couple-relationships, any more than it officially recognizes “friendship”? I’d like to see some evidence that people are really thinking deeply about these issues, rather than relying on simple-minded and reflexive invocations of “equality” and “discrimination” and “fairness.”

Matt, I’m not sure what evidence you want or who the former RNC chairman/elected governor is that you are talking about.
I cited the vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But take the Voting Rights Act of 1965: in the Senate, Republicans voted in favor of it by 30-2; Democrats by only 47-17. In the House of Representatives, 82% of Republicans voted in favor of it, a far higher percentage than Democratic congressman.
Beyond that, there is the whole issue of the crmovement’s utter reliance on Eisenhower-appointed federal judges in the South. They were, as a group, far more supportive of the crmovement than were appointees of either Truman or Kennedy.
The complicating issue, of course, is Barry Goldwater’s nomination for President in 1964. He was one of only 6 Republicans in the Senate to have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, consequently, he managed to win only deep South states, which Republicans had virtually never carried before, and his home state of Arizona.
On the primary issue on this thread, take a look at Josh Chafetz’s list of Senators likely to vote for and against the FMA at Oxblog. Sure, Republicans line up in favor of it. But the five Republicans already announced against it are the best evidence that the FMA hasn’t a ghost of a chance of winning a two-thirds vote in the Senate.

Robert is right to point out that, following Lawrence, there is no liberty interest involved here. 40 years ago there were certain liberties that went along with a marital relationship–including the liberty to have sex. That liberty is now fully protected by the constitution outside of marriage. So the best way to think of marriage, it seems to me, is as a spending program where the government has a particular aim and seeks to further it.

The difference in the background legal context is one difference between the current situation and the case of Loving. Another is that the 14th amendment actually bars racial discrimination.

rea simply mistakes an analysis of the proposed amendment for the text of the amendment. While it is true that the proposed amendment would prevent an equal protection challenge from being successful in the context of gay marriage, that is something quite different from saying that no equal protection clause challenge could be brought against marriage laws.

ted, it is very big of you to allow your political opponents, who never win these social battles in court, to take these social battles to court. it might seem more attractive to these opponents if, well, they actually had a chance to win these cases, but, well, you are all for formal equality–you won’t stop them from bringing them.

as for the constitutionality of the DOMA, I’d note a couple of things: The underlying legal context has shifted since the act was passed, and the Supreme Court and the various state courts have shown themselves much more willing to assert rights for gays and lesbians (leaving aside whether the shift is correct as a matter of law). There have always been some doubts about the constitutionality of the DOMA. Those doubts were less important 8 years ago, obviously, when the chance of testing the act may have seemed remote.

Robert, I can respect that position. I don’t share your constitutional (ha ha) aversion to lawsuits, I don’t really think that the reasoning on civil-rights lawsuits is weak (I’m not a lawyer, but lots of lawyers I respect seem to disagree with you, and I have no time for originalism or literalism so let’s not go there)–but I can see how, having those opinions which I see as wrong but not unreasonable, you can think that race discrimination justified an exception but anti-gay discrimination didn’t.
Now, I think you’re understating the seriousness of anti-gay discrimination. It can still be physically unsafe to be gay–remember Matthew Shepard? And the positive right argument doesn’t carry much weight with me–if the gov’t declared that blue-eyed people could go through commitment ceremonies, etc., but couldn’t have the legal benefits of marriage, I would be hopping mad and I trust you would too no matter your eye color. But given your anti-judicial activist commitments, that shouldn’t carry much weight with you either.

I would be hopping mad and I trust you would too no matter your eye color.

Well, of course I’d be hopping mad. That isn’t the same as saying I’d think such laws violated the Constitution (although under current doctrine, such a “facial racial classification”–blue eyes are strongly tied to race–would certainly be struck down).

A brief aside on “having no time for originalism”: everyone has time for originalism. The most radical justices–Thurgood Marshall, Breyer, Ginsberg–were and are delighted to deploy originalist arguments when they support ther favored outcome. No matter how much people disdain it, an originalist argument remains the most persuasive for many purposes.

Robert–The “hopping mad” comment wasn’t intended to get you to think that such laws would violate the Constitution, just that they would be an outrage–even if the blue-eyed faced no other legal discrimination.
Also, I realized that I’ve been confusing the issue. The argument isn’t that gay marriage violates the U.S. constitution–just that it violates various state constitutions. AFAICT, the federal constitutional issues involve full faith and credit.
Ralph–It is ahistorical to treat the Democratic Party of 1964 as fully continuous with the Democratic Party of today, without considering regional differences and the defection of the Dixiecrats to the Republicans; also to identify the actions of the party’s national leadership with that of some of its members in 1964. Jason McCullough and raj were right the first time on this.
As for the FMA, I’m not sure what you’re saying. Sure, there are Republicans who are progressive on the issue, and good for you. I don’t think I ever said that there weren’t–just that the party as a whole isn’t progressive, and the national leadership isn’t. It looks like the majority of votes against the FMA will be coming from Democrats rather than Republicans (38-5 by the current Oxblog tally). Even if Frist could deliver a united GOP caucus, it would be doomed. So it’s fair to say that Democrats rather than progressive Republicans (worthy as you are) are the decisive force in this case.