A thought experiment

Rod writes: What if traditional Christians, Jews and Muslims got the list of Californians who donated to the anti-Prop 8 campaign, and began to boycott businesses where they worked on the grounds that these people gave money to a cause that would take away a substantial part of their freedom of religion?

Would that be okay? If not, why not?

Yes. It would be okay. Bring it on.

Yeah--those Mormons are some really tough cookies. It couldn't be that they are a group some on the left and right think are a bunch of freaks.

If the gay protesters had any cajones, they'd go down to south central L.A. and shout ni--er over and over.

Where do you get this idea that gay activists are "threaten[ing] or ruin[ing] the livelihoods" of people who donated to the Yes on 8 cause? Those folks brought it on themselves. It must suck to be them right now, of course, but it's not their "right" to get to keep patrons or customers whom they offend. It really is that simple. This victimization ploy is more than a bit rich.

I think that all of the parsing of words is interesting. The "Yes on 8" group basically believes that there is something WRONG with gays.

PERIOD.

They can mis-quote the bible (I'm catholic, went catholic schools for 12 yrs, worked for the church for six), mis-state family law, mis-state Educational requirements, but the elephant in the room is that they are fearful of gays.

The demonstrations against the Mormans (who funded the campaign) are out of LOVE - trying to show them the error of their ways.

Yes, other groups (such as the KOC, some Black / Hispanic churches) were active. But the Mormans are an easy group to show LOVE to - it's a start.

XOXOXO

"Yes, other groups (such as the KOC, some Black / Hispanic churches) were active. But the Mormans are an easy group to show LOVE to - it's a start."

No, Lapin, it's just that you're too much of a coward to go down to their neighborhoods and call them ni--ers and sp--s. You make sure you're out of their neighborhood when you do that.

Read the papers, Steve Walker. Obama was strongly against Prop. 8, and intends to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, as well as passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy to allow gays to serve openly in the military.
Mr. Dreher, you assert without any justification that the effort against Prop. 8 would have taken away from religious liberties. How does Prop. 8 protect religious liberties? No church was ever under any risk of any penalty for refusing to perform same-sex marriages, since the court ruling only affected civil marriages, and church marriages have no legal status. Prop. 8 doesn't affect in the slightest what is taught in public schools. All Prop. 8 really does is encroach on the religious freedoms of those Christian and Jewish denominations that do bless same-sex marriages. Of course, Prop. 8 also takes away substantial civil rights from gay couples, including tax benefits, immigration status and acceptance in public institutions like hospitals, and puts a crushing burden on California's economy in the midst of an economic depression. Tell me, Mr. Dreher, what does any of this have to do with religious freedom?

How do we get that list? I think it is only fair to see that it is published.

Don:

If I'm dense, maybe its from the guy who smacke me in the face with a bag of rocks while calling me a faggot. But those things don't really matter in your world.

Those who are disappointed in the Prop 8 vote shouldn't waste
their time flaming those who voted for it.
From laobserved.com:

"A group called the Courage Campaign said they have begun a bid
to go back to the ballot in 2010 with an initiative that would repeal
Prop. 8. ... So far, that online petition has more than 118,000 signatures."

As a Californian I will simply sign that petition and hope
for an outcome in 2010 that supports equality under law.

All this yammering about "rights" is goofy.

Many states have statutes authorizing civil unions between same-sex and unmarried opposite-sex couples, just as France and other countries do. Many churches will perform a "marriage" ceremony. It is possible to accomplish both.

Tolerance of the lifestyle is widespread. What gays are seeking is approval and acceptance through the word "marriage", but the sort of behavior described makes that less likely rather than more.1

But to answer the question, NO, as your mother told you, two wrongs do not make a right.

There's nothing wrong with withholding your money from a business that works against your values. I've been doing it for years to firms that bankroll right-wing politicians and causes.

I'd love to see politically active churches -- of all stripes -- lose tax-exempt status. Never happen, of course; but imagine the bite that would take out of the deficit.

"Mr. Dreher, you assert without any justification that the effort against Prop. 8 would have taken away from religious liberties. How does Prop. 8 protect religious liberties? No church was ever under any risk of any penalty for refusing to perform same-sex marriages, since the court ruling only affected civil marriages, and church marriages have no legal status. Prop. 8 doesn't affect in the slightest what is taught in public schools. All Prop. 8 really does is encroach on the religious freedoms of those Christian and Jewish denominations that do bless same-sex marriages. Of course, Prop. 8 also takes away substantial civil rights from gay couples, including tax benefits, immigration status and acceptance in public institutions like hospitals, and puts a crushing burden on California's economy in the midst of an economic depression. Tell me, Mr. Dreher, what does any of this have to do with religious freedom?"____I agree with all of this. I've always not quite understood Mr. Dreher's views that allowing gay marriage would affect the religious liberties of religious institutions that disapprove of homosexuality. Mr. Dreher has stated repeatedly that he fears that if gay marriage is legalized nationally, then churches that preach against homosexuality will lost their tax-exempt status, as well as religious adoption agencies that refuse to place children with same-sex couples. ____Another side of all this is that if the Bible is against same-sex marriage, then it is most definitely against interfaith marriage (it speaks pretty clearly about how Jews should only marry other Jews in the Torah, and how Christians should only marry other Christians in the New Testament). The Bible also speaks clearly against divorce and remarriage, as Christ himself defines someone who divorces one spouse and remarries another as an adulterer (while he never spoke against gay marriage). I am sure that most conservative Christian ministers and Orthodox Jewish rabbis refuse to perform interfaith marriages, yet their churches and synagogues are in no danger of losing their tax-exempt status. And most Catholic churches would refuse to marry people who have been previously divorced, yet they are in no danger of losing their tax-exempt status either. So why would a church that refuses to marry a gay couple be in danger of losing their tax-exempt status, if they can refuse to marry an interfaith couple without losing their tax exemption?____Mr. Dreher, the Bible talks about interreligious marriage and divorce and remarriage as much as it talks about homosexuality. Why don't you talk about Christians marrying non-Christians,and people getting divorced and remarried, as much as you talk about gay marriage?__

"I guess you have your answer, Rod--no compromise. It's settled--the OCA, Catholic Church et al--we're all the KKK. Even though we aren't the ones using the terms that define that organization."

I'm still waiting to hear the compromise from the religious commmunity, which stands in the way of gay rights. How are social conservatives prepared to compromise on this issue? Do they want a blank check to discriminate, or they willing to accept that there are certain kinds of discrimination that are unacceptable regardless of the alleged religiosity backing it up?

Daniel,

Skin pigmentation is trivial and irrelevant, gender/sex is not.

The paternal dynamics of people with different pigmentation is not something that changes due to biological differences. Gender, however, profoundly affects the dynamics of a relationship (80+% of Gay male couples self report non-monogamy at some point since the start of their relationship-that's a result of male-male dynamic that's not seen in any other pairing) You see gender matters Daniel. So next time you decry discrimination make sure it's the bad kind, I don't want blind people getting pilots licenses.

"Skin pigmentation is trivial and irrelevant, gender/sex is not."

Today we can say that. However that was not always the case. Going back to the years before the Civil War there were Christian ministers who attempted to make the case that slavery as practiced in the South was supported in the Bible. Other Christian ministers attempted to make the case that interracial marriage violated the will of God as expressed when he struck down the Tower of Babel.

These were not fringe groups that made the arguments. These were positions held by major denominations at the state level. Whether it be the South Carolina Baptist Convention of 1823 (facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/rcd-fmn1.htm) or the statements of a major Christian university in the 1990s (archives.cnn.com/2000/US/03/04/bob.jones/), skin pigmentation was most certainly looked upon as a significant factor in decisions on what marriages to permit.

Furman, Jones, and those who allied themselves with their views felt every bit as stongly about it as those today who oppose same-sex marriage. They believed that their position was founded in Scripture and had the best interests of our nation and families at heart. They believed that their opponents were trying to destroy what they saw as years and years of tradition and practice, and that failure to uphold this standard would result in yet another danger to the American family.

Today's opponents would not hesitate to speak against bans on interracial marriages, even as they pick up some of the same deficient arguments in their opposition to same sex marriage.

"80+% of Gay male couples self report non-monogamy at some point since the start of their relationship-that's a result of male-male dynamic that's not seen in any other pairing)"

50% of male-female couples self-report non-monogamy. Only 30% of female-female couples report non-monogamy. So if monogamy is your gold standard for a relationship, then lesbians--who represent most of same-sex marriages--are the ideal relationship pair.

Sessions, it's very easy for you to say that we need to ease each other's fears since you really have not lost anything. It's easy to sit in judgement of the Gay community's anger when you have absolutely no idea what it feels like to have your rights stripped away from you. It feels to me like we are living in pre Nazi germany just as the Jews had their rights stripped from them one little bit at a time. We won't be letting that happen to us. It's just not in the cards this time sweetie.

Answers from a gay Californian:

"...if the gay boycott of businesses that employ or are run by people who gave money to Prop 8 to take away the right of gays to marry is okay, why is it not okay for pro-Prop 8 people to similarly threaten or ruin the livelihoods of anti-Prop 8 donors?"

It is OK. Don't patron the musical theatre, don't go to the gay-owned restaurant or your cousin's commitment ceremony, avoid virtually all fashion, most forms of entertainment and otherwise choose to spend your personal time and money as you see fit. Nothing is legally stopping you and no one has seriously suggested otherwise unless the consequence of being ill regarded somehow consitutes effective prohibition, in which case the principle would seem to be suspect even to its supporters, would it not?

If however, as is frankly quite clearly the case, what you wish to claim is that religious people and their organizations should be able to opt out of certain or all anti-discrimination laws, then have the courage to make and defend that case, as well as suffer the consequences of breaking those laws.

"...when the gay rights protesters move from the Mormon churches down to black or Latino churches or institutions, let me know."

When there is a black or Latino church that possesses wealth exceeding that of many nations with millions of congregants unified under leaders whose revelations and edicts are directives as a matter of faith and governance, and that church then exploits these powers to affect specific electoral or legislative outcomes in clear and cynical violation of the spirit if not the letter of the very laws that protect them from the influence of politics...

Count on it!

Religiously initiated boycotts against secular businesses and institutions is not novel. In some smaller communities it is nearly impossible to do business because of boycotts.

People of a faith or ideological tradition are within their rights to choose where and where not to shop or conduct business for the purpose of supporting or rejecting prescribed and proscribed products, ideas, or even (and often in my experience) the people themselves.

It can be a devastating practice to minority groups. Growing up my father was the only electrician in town who would help a gay owned business get their lights back on. They had to wait 3 days before finding someone to help them.

Once when our heat went out of our rented apartment we had to pay the HVAC owner out of our own pocket to get the heater repaired because as a Fundamentalist Baptist he felt it was wrong to do business with the Mormon building owner. It took us a week to get the money and spent the week without heat during a very wicked ice storm.

The behavior has consequences, some unintended.

Edit to my previous post:
Here is my issue. If we say, right now, "Marriage is now expanded to include one man and one woman", that is flatly unconstitutional.

Should read:
Here is my issue. If we say, right now, "Marriage is now expanded to include two men or two women", that is flatly unconstitutional.

Go for it - you are boycotts have a long established history in the USA.

Gotta say though that you are using a pretty lame rhetorical device when you ask, "Oh yeah, what if we did that - then what about that?" and the majority of the folks who respond say that you are within your rights to do exactly that, so go ahead.

I've been boycotting Coors beer and Domino's pizza for decades now because of their owners' political stances. Of course they sell crap product, so it is no hardship, but still...

torotoro: I do not agree with your equation of gay and interracial marriage. Gay marriage, although historically not absolutely unknown, is highly uncommon across world cultures, including those that tolerate or approve homosexuality. Prohibition of black-white marriage, on the other hand, was a geographically restricted eccentricity of the US South, South Africa, etc. It is quite likely that 19th-century English people were just as racist as 19th-century Americans, but interracial marriage was never illegal in England (or anywhere in Europe, to my knowledge), and did happen occasionally.

Having said that, I am, in a sense, in favour of gay marriage.

On a different issue - why should churches should have tax-exempt status? As far as I can see, that status should only be given to religious organisation when they serve the common good, by, for example, running soup kitchens or preserving heritage buildings.

"Whe was the right of blacks and whites to marry each other 'discovered', Rod? The day before the day before yesterday?"

I really hate reading attempts at argument by people who have no idea of history.

FYI, exogamy has been practiced throughout human history. It's been a lot more common in polygamous societies, where -- as a matter of politics -- the king would have wives from all over the place, but the idea that interracial couples shouldn't get married solely because of their race is a comparatively recent innovation. Skin color has historically been seen as far less relevant than, say, religion. Even Othello's marriage, in Shakespeare's recent play (by historical standards), is accepted by Desdemona's father because Othello is a Christian. Pocahontas converted to Christianity and married an Englishman, with no repercussions AFAIK. Other examples will present themselves if you go back more than a couple of centuries.

On the other hand, I don't know of any society, even those that encouraged same-sex sexual relationships as a social glue, that ever called such relationships "marriage."

What are they teaching them in those schools?

"What are they teaching them in those schools?"

"If it feels good, do it." The bad history, the poor logic, the shallow thought follow naturally.

"On the other hand, I don't know of any society, even those that encouraged same-sex sexual relationships as a social glue, that ever called such relationships "marriage.""

And this is what this all boils down to...a word. A portion of the churches in this country wish to insure that the word is used only in accordance with their definition.

Fine...how about this solution. Expunge the word "marriage" from all current and future government forms. As far as the government is concerned, everything becomes a "civil union". You file for a civil union license, the justice of the peace performs a civil union ceremony, the tax penalty becomes a civil union penalty.

In doing so we give the word "marriage" back to churches so they can define it as they wish. Those churches who wish to do so may define it as the union of a man and a woman of the same race. Others may define it as the union of a man and a woman of the same religious faith. Still others can define it as the union of a man and a woman of the same hair style.

Would that satisfy those of you who supported (either with your vote or your prayers) Prop 8?

I wonder if Rod will have as much outrage over this story as he has over Mr. Eckern's:

FRESNO, Calif.—A lesbian mother in Fresno says she was forced to resign from her position as president of the parent-teacher association at her son's Catholic school after she spoke out against banning gay marriage.
Robin McGehee, who enrolled her son Sebastian at St. Helens Catholic School, says she went to a vigil for the "No on Proposition 8" campaign last Thursday. After that, a priest from the Diocese of Fresno told her to step down because she had gone against church teachings.

The PTA's vice president, Tiffany Rodriquez, confirmed that McGehee was removed. Rodriquez herself resigned in protest of her removal.

The school directed inquiries to Rick Sexton of the Office of Catholic Education, who said he couldn't discuss the issue due to privacy concerns.

symeon
This is so ridiculously offensive that I don't even know where to begin. In the 1950s, blacks were forced to live in separate neighborhoods and attend separate schools. They had to use separate bathrooms. Policital organization was almost entirely outlawed and a black man living with a white woman may well have been lynched on their second day together.

And in the 1950s, being gay itself was illegal for all intents and purposes, so I'm not sure of the point here. As was being transvestite. Citizens didn't need to lynch them when the police would beat the crap out of them if asked.

Hell, it was violent in 1969 enough to start a rather famous riot. Violence against gays happened within the color of law at least a decade after even the most hick town police stopped that against black people.

Gays in the 2000s live wherever they want (and usually in the best neighborhoods) and attend the same schools and bathrooms as everybody else. They regularly march and petition and they can have sex with whoever they want, whenever they want and nobody pays them any mind.

And blacks in 2000 can do whatever they want, including marry whoever they want, so I'm not sure of your point there, either.

Stop comparing yourselves to blacks. Blacks were treated horribly for their first 300 years here.

Dude, are you really this naive? Do you have any idea how an openly gay man would have been treated in, say, 1932? Black people had to 'stay in their place' or would be attacked, gay people literally did not have a place.

DavidTC, I love you.

Oh, and by the way, when the gay rights protesters move from the Mormon churches down to black or Latino churches or institutions, let me know. They're going after the Mormons because the Mormons white and middle class, therefore safe to attack.

In the spirit of this comment, and of thought-experiments in general, I wonder when disgruntled, revanchist conservatives will tear themselves away from attacking gay people and go after the 95% of black voters and 67% of Hispanic voters who put our new President, Barack Obama, in office. Why don't you go visit some black neighborhoods, get out on the street corner, and tell them off for having the gall to think they could put someone like that into the White House. Tell them what you really think of them--go on, you know you want to. Or could it be that you hang out here, attacking gay people, because you know the gay commenters are mostly people like you--predominantly white and middle class?

Some of the comments posted here doubt that recognition of same-sex marriage will have any impact on religious institutions and religious freedom. This opinion is common, I think, and the issue is important, so people shouldn’t be making uninformed judgments.

Think of it this way: If discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (including denial of same-sex marriage) is as irrational and as harmful as racial discrimination, then it is natural to conclude that we should use law and government to eradicate this form of prejudice in the same ways that we have attempted to eradicate racial prejudice. Public schools should deliberately teach that same-sex marriage is perfectly acceptable and that contrary views are an irrational prejudice. Antidiscrimination laws should be applied to eliminate any differential treatment of gays and lesbians, including in the workplace through the maintenance of a “hostile environment” through the expression of offensive opinion: we do that for racial and gender discrimination and we should do it for sexual orientation discrimination. Religious or other institutions that adhere to policies disfavoring same-sex couples should lose their tax exempt status, on the same logic by which Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status because of policies forbidding interracial dating.

On the premise that sexual orientation discrimination is as bad as racial discrimination, this is a logical enough position, and many gay-rights activists (and other) undoubtedly hold it. But this position is very different than the one more often advanced in public debate, which asserts that legal recognition of same-sex marriage will allows gays and lesbians to marry but will otherwise leave religious believers and institutions undisturbed and free to believe and practice their beliefs without suffering any legal disadvantage. It is understandable that opponents of measures like Proposition 8 would advocate this much milder position for purposes of public consumption, and many good-hearted Californians no doubt voted against Prop 8 on just this understanding. But that view is, I think, simply naive.

An earlier commenter mentioned a recent book, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty, that contains essays by legal scholars representing a variety of points of view on the issue. The Afterword, by Douglas Laycock (possibly the leading scholar-litigator of religious freedom in the US today), begins with this summary: “All six contributors– religious and secular, left, center, and right– agree that same-sex marriage is a threat to religious liberty.” It is impossible to predict, of course, exactly what the legal consequences will turn out to be– the essay by Marc Stern of the American Jewish Congress provides a valuable survey of a whole variety of likely areas of conflict– but all of the contributors agree that the conflict is very real and that the consequences will be substantial.

Of course, it is entirely possible to believe that in this area sexual orientation equality should prevail over religious liberty. But it is naive to suppose that the conflict is not real.

I really like the idea of a counter-boycott. Now let us carry it one step further. How about a boycott of the businesses in a given town that allows one of the boycotted business to have its corporate headquarters there?

That would definitely liven things up.

So, two left shoes walk into a bar, and the bartender says, "What is this, some kinda joke?"

R Johnson @ 10:22. Your idea works for me. CS Lewis proposed something very much like it in (I think) "Mere Christianity". I think that middle ground could be found on this issue if the crazoids on both sides weren't busy throwing gasoline and lighted matches around.

Rod,
Here's my answer to your thought experiment. Yes, it would be perfectly okay for you and other religious folks to do this. It will have about as much effect on their bottom line as did the boycott of Ford or Disney.
However, I think the analogy you give is flawed in one way. How would Same Sex Marriage take away your first amendment rights? No one has said we have to close down Orthodox, orthodox, Catholic, or any other kind of church just because SSM passes.

"Marriage, for all of history, has been based on a biological reality that exists exclusively between a man and a woman. It is unique to the sexual union of a man and a woman, and it produces children in most cases. That's the foundation of marriage."______How many wives did King Solomon have again?____Marriage is a social construct, not a "biological reality". It is a construct that has been redefined in many ways in many place and in many eras. It is a contruct that exists to promote and maintain social stability. If you can argue that letting gay folk get married will somehow undermine social stabilty, have at it. But this biology stuff is just retarded.____Mike

""Gay marriage" advocates deny that there are any essential physical (i.e. sexual) differences between men and women."

What? No, seriously...WHAT?!? Where did this non sequitur come from?

I'm pretty darned sure that women who want to marry other women and men who want to marry other men are quite aware of the differences, sexual and otherwise, between the genders. That's kind of the whole point.

Mike

I'm also struggling with the religious liberty argument. Would this be cleared up if religious and civil marriage were legally dissociated? Is this an acceptable compromise?

RJohnson

Re your statement:
"Fine...how about this solution. Expunge the word "marriage" from all current and future government forms. As far as the government is concerned, everything becomes a "civil union". You file for a civil union license, the justice of the peace performs a civil union ceremony, the tax penalty becomes a civil union penalty.

In doing so we give the word "marriage" back to churches so they can define it as they wish. Those churches who wish to do so may define it as the union of a man and a woman of the same race. Others may define it as the union of a man and a woman of the same religious faith. Still others can define it as the union of a man and a woman of the same hair style.

Would that satisfy those of you who supported (either with your vote or your prayers) Prop 8?"

Would you be okay with this solution if some churches ended up defining marriage to include the union of two men or two women?

The comparison between the boycotts being undertaken in retribution for Prop 8 support and Falwellesque boycotts of Disney, etc., is bogus. An organized boycott of a large corporation is a political statement. An organized boycott of individuals and small business owners intended to deprive them of their livelihoods is petty and evil.

"I'm pretty darned sure that women who want to marry other women and men who want to marry other men are quite aware of the differences, sexual and otherwise, between the genders. That's kind of the whole point."

Yes, and at the same time denying that the difference has any meaning, and therein lies the contradiction.

"Is marriage about sex?"

Ah, yes. Didn't you get the memo? Ever hear the phrase, "consumating the marriage"?

"Gay marriage" advocates really are a cross between characters from "1984" and "The Clouds".

NEXT STOP: Cloud Coo-Coo Land

Nope, didn't get that memo. Does the phrase "consummate the marriage" have some legal significance I'm unaware of?

Historically speaking, marriage has always been about both sex and children. To assume that anyone was having sex without being married was to decide that the person in question was a person of loose morals; it may have been a polite fiction to pretend that sex was a property of marriage, but it was a fiction maintained for the purpose of the social order.

And if a man married a woman, he was taking responsibility for her children--whether they were really his or not. The biological reality of fertility was indeed at the heart of the marriage relationship until the day before yesterday, so to speak, as I'm sure the Professor who posted above could confirm.

And that was true regardless of whether we are talking about Christian marriage, with its notions of permanence, monogamy, exclusivity, and fecundity, or of pagan polygamy, or of secular marriage--which, in the post-Christian era, is a rather recent invention, again from a historical perspective.

So marriage isn't only about children--it is especially about fatherhood, about the notion that a man ought to take responsibility for his children. Women, by the biological reality of pregnancy, must acknowledge their children--men have no such obligation, and may abandon them, and the woman with whom he has participated in creating them, with no repercussions whatsoever. Marriage changes that: a man takes responsibility for his children and can't walk away from that responsibility to care for and protect them. And most human societies have stressed the identity and importance of fatherhood in their marriage concepts, whether pre-Christian, Christian, or, up until now, post-Christian.

But two things have already attacked that notion of marriage and its connection to fatherhood, and the redefinition of marriage to include people who cannot as a couple create their own biological children (not as an *accidental* quality like age or infertility, but by *definition* and the reality that they are not biologically compatible with each other in the reproductive sense) will complete that attack. The first to attack that notion was the notion that marriage is about adult happiness and that divorce was thus an expected and approved-of variation, such that a man might easily find himself raising someone else's children during the course of his life and being deprived of his ability to raise his own. The second was the rise of contraception and abortion: if it is a woman's choice to become pregnant in the first place, and if she is perfectly free to kill her offspring at any time up to and including the delivery table, then it there is no particular justification for her to demand financial support and the acknowledgment of fatherhood from the child's biological father should she whimsically decide she'd rather give birth. The decision is not in any sense up to her husband; why should he be expected to pay for the consequences of her maternal impulses? Aside from a more religious, traditional understanding of marriage on the part of the man--and the current legal environment--there is no reason at all; in fact, only our legal system's current schizophrenia about abortion vs. child support keeps our judges from recognizing that you can't insist on a woman's right to an abortion and simultaneously insist that the man who impregnates her should be responsible to pay for what was never his choice at all.

So same-sex marriage becomes the third, and I think final, attack on fatherhood. In the same-sex marriage universe, children do not need either biological parents or adoptive parents who reflect the biological parenthood relationship--that is, that even adoptive parents ought to be a mother and a father, because of the tremendous social and other benefits children gain from being raised by two parents, one of each gender. In same-sex marriage terms, this very notion is merely hatred and bigotry: children don't *need* a father; they don't *need* a mother. They can do fine being raised by two men or two women. It will not in any way warp their ability to relate either to their own gender or to the opposite gender, and any suggestion that it will is also just hatred and bigotry. And that message has to be pounded home by stripping society of all "heteronormative" language, expressions, identifications, and so on. We can't have "mother's day" or "father's day" because some children have two of one and none of the other, and they'll feel left out. We can't read from the Bible that "male and female He created them" because that is hate speech. And on and on it goes.

So why is this a greater attack on fatherhood than on motherhood? Again, the biological reality: a woman who is pregnant (assuming she doesn't wish to kill this particular child) is already known to be the child's mother, but a man need not acknowledge himself the father. And in a post-gay-marriage climate, it is men who will abandon marriage (well, except gay men, of course) because they will come to see society's scorn for fathers and the notion that fathers, in particular, are weak excrescences on a matriarchal social order (such as a same-sex marriage culture must necessarily become) and repudiate the whole idea of both marriage and fatherhood.

And why shouldn't they? Women make themselves available for sex, women must deal with the consequences of pregnancy, the only men really eager to marry will be the same-sex attracted ones, and a man can avoid all the responsibility of fatherhood secure in the positive *blessings* of a society that is insisting that children will do just fine without fathers, that this is actually preferable to maintaining silly outdated heteronormative definitions of the family. Why, aside from religious beliefs redefined by society as hateful bigotry and thus easy to avoid, would a heterosexual male ever want to get married in the brave new world we're busy building?

Erin,

Wow, great post! You stole some of my thunder, but that's no problem at all. I think you are exactly right that the attack on fatherhood has led men to shy away from marriage and avoid their responsibilities as fathers. This of course fuels a whole host of other problems (childhood poverty, emotional problems, abortion, etc.). But to comment further on your remarks, another aspect of the left's denial of sexual differences is an attack on fatherhood, the patriarchy. Radical feminism thus plays a big role in all this.

Perhaps one way we religious conservatives should respond to all this is to fight for a re-assertion of the patriarchy. And I don't mean the same patriarchy that is central to feminist lore. I mean model of a good husband and father that we see in the Bible. After all, Paul tells husband to love and care for their wives as Christ does the church.

rr

Erin Manning: the redefinition of marriage to include people who cannot as a couple create their own biological children (not as an *accidental* quality like age or infertility, but by *definition* and the reality that they are not biologically compatible with each other in the reproductive sense) will complete that attack.

It doesn't matter one bit whether that infertility is the result of an "accident," the natural progression of age, or deliberate sterilization. We don't make fertility a "criterion" for secular marriage.

Anyway, to repeat it again, gay couples can and do have children - just not with each other, which makes them no different than infertile couples who have children with others (artificial insemination, etc., which some oppose on religious grounds, but which makes no difference in the marriage laws.)

Nor is secular marriage a "new" concept - the Napoleonic Code in France in the beginning of the 19th century made it a requirement that all marriages be first regularized by the state, and *then* priests and ministers were allowed to bless them in church. Without state registration, religious-only marriage was a crime. (Now *that* is an example of "denial of religious freedom" for you.)

Max Schadenfreude: "Gay marriage" advocates deny that there are any essential physical (i.e. sexual) differences between men and women.

Uh ... no, they don't. Both gay *and* straight people recognize that there are very substantial differences between the sexes, reflected in which sex they want, and which sex they are indifferent to. The question is, why should the *law* show partiality regarding the marriage laws?

"Yes, and at the same time denying that the difference has any meaning, and therein lies the contradiction."

What the bleep is that sentence supposed to mean? Seriously, what intelligible information is being conveyed or coherent point is being made?

I mean, if gay people didn't find the differences between the sexes meaningful...wouldn't they be just as happy sleeping with the opposite sex? If straight folks didn't find the differences meaningful, wouldn't they be just as happy sleeping with the same sex?

Mike

Another thought experiment. If you had a child who was born intersexed, how and who would make the decision of what gender label to place on the newborn?

Hi Rod,

I just wanted to let you know that THEWEEK.com linked to your article today in a piece we wrote titled 'Comparing struggles: Gay vs. black,' (http://www.theweek.com/article/index/90735/3/Comparing_struggles_Gay_vs._black). We enjoyed reading your take on this subject.

Thanks, and all the best,
Harold Maass
Editor
THEWEEK.com

Erin: I go along with a lot of what you say about the implications of abortion, devaluation of fatherhood, etc. I just don't think it's got much to do with the issue at hand. "Marriage", civil union, legal partnership, official co-domicility, or whatever you want to call it, is not about any of those issues - it's about who gets the house when the partner dies, who gets to visit him/her in hospital, who decides whether he/she should be taken off life support, etc.

The weird thing is that I find myself supporting same-sex marriage despite being, arguably, a homophobe. I don't think the issue is even about the rights and wrongs of homosexuality. I think someone could argue for the recriminalisation of homosexual acts and still support same-sex marriage.

And yes, I think two brothers should be allowed to get "married".

Rod-

I thought Christian/Jewish/Muslim groups have already been boycotting gay friendly things for years (not to mention anti gay literature, anti gay legislation, gay beatings, gay firings). I'm not sure we need a "thought experiment" but instead all we need is a quick glance at real-life history. A "thought experiment" implies that what we are thinking about hasn't already transpired thousands of times. It has. It requires no imagining, Rod.

Joe,
Matt,

The comparison between the boycotts being undertaken in retribution for Prop 8 support and Falwellesque boycotts of Disney, etc., is bogus. An organized boycott of a large corporation is a political statement. An organized boycott of individuals and small business owners intended to deprive them of their livelihoods is petty and evil.

Mike, the vast majority of sterile couples don't know they're sterile until they try to have children. So how can the state, without demanding immorality, force people to prove they are fertile before they marry them?

But same-sex couples are *always* infertile as a couple. It is the nature of their relationship that they are barren and unable to produce their own biological offspring as a couple.

"I'm not sure Rod has got the memo that churches are free to define marriage as they like, regardless of the civil law definition of marriage."

Perhaps, but did you get them memo that the civil law definition of marriage in California is "one man and one woman"? (At least this week.)

"Would you be okay with this solution if some churches ended up defining marriage to include the union of two men or two women?"

Considering the Bible shows us that polygamy was accepted in the past, I would have no problem if a church decided to proclaim it as valid. As long as the relationships are entered into by adults who consent to such matters, I'm OK with that.

Do you think David was wrong to take so many wives?

I'm all for separation of church and state, a traditional Baptist position. The law currently limits marriage to two persons of opposite gender. Earlier in my life the words "and the same race" were included, but we as a society decided (against the religious wishes of many Christians in the South) that such restrictions were not legitimate.

Seems that we are at the same kind of turning point. It seems like each year yet another jurisdiction, either through legislative or judicial means, changes their definition of marriage. As the Connecticut Supreme Court reminded us yet again, if the state is going to create special privileges for marriage, it must be offered to all citizens equally. Separate but similar is not equal.

Actually, it was at one time. Those who were against interracial marriage were concerned about the offspring that might be brought into the world by these couples. The concerns about mongrelization of the race seemed to be among the chief ones put forward when these folks were honest about why they opposed it. The idea of little "mulatto" children running around in their neighborhoods was just too much for them to handle.

Yeah, you know that, and I know that, and possible people who disagree with me know that, but bringing it up is a surefire way to lose the war by winning the battle. :)

So, yeah, this isn't the first time in history that marriage has inexplicably suddenly turned out to already have been about the children...the other time was when we were also attempting to limit who can get married based on rather dubious grounds.

The only differences in "gender" that gays want to acknowledge are based in what they desire.

The "gay marriage" movement to re-define marriage is not a fight for equal rights (as has been said, the rights are already equal). Rather it is a fight for what gays to re-define marriage according to what they desire.

"What if traditional Christians, Jews and Muslims got the list of Californians who donated to the anti-Prop 8 campaign, and began to boycott businesses..."

I don't have to imagine it:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZmLBrL36NObNyMR0ghXN7vB5hYwD940GN1G0

"There is no respectable basis for pretending otherwise: no person with integrity and any experience can sincerely believe that gay people have no souls or cannot connect them in love."

****

Love? Connecting souls via homosexual activity?

What twaddle.

Everyone should love everyone else, but you don't get to, ah, connect physically with everyone you love because of it.

I'm pretty sure they are going after Mormons because they contributed about 50% of the funding... pretty good for a small group.

And, I have to say, as a Christian, I don't shop at merchants that don't support Christian beliefs. So, while I don't like that gays would boycott Christians, a boycott is not an unheard of thing to do. In fact, it sounds like good American way of making yourself heard.