Lavender brownshirts on the march

Rod -

I wrote in a previous thread that you supporters of the Yes on Prop 8 campaign have no idea the Pandora's Box you've opened. In this age of mass, instant communication, it's very easy to become very, very vocal, very, very fast. A small, organized group of people can surprise you with their power.

The LDS Church and it's allies poured 37 million dollars into taking away rights granted to a certain segment of California Citizens.

It's members will now feel the pain of a free market response.

You, and other Christian Conservatives, have every right to protest the things you find objectionable. Those of us who support SSM, have that same right.

And we're going to do it.

As I said in the previous thread... Bring it on.

Rod: Honest question here, and I am as conservative as they come. How do you see the California S.C.'s ruling as a threat to religious freedom? The opinion explicitly states that it will have no effect on religious institutions.

Is it a threat to religious freedom when a Jew and and Muslim go to the Justice of the Peace and get married?

As for the "traditional marriage" argument, that went out the window when divorce became commonplace in the pews.

Votes are private, donations aren't.

In many states donations are private, or can be kept that way if the donor requests, and we're starting to see the reason why, this can only be considered as a state assisted violation of freedom of speech.

Rod, I can't believe you tossed this thread under the bus of Godwin's Law in the very first line. How can you tell people like the poster you mention that they're "hysterical" when you refer to "brownshirts" yourself? You should be able to do better than this.

I sympathize with this woman because I've been where she was--stuck between the arrogant demands of my faith community and what was due to the human beings in my life. She obeyed her church and now faces the anger of human beings who feel personally betrayed. I chose the opposite course--defied my authorities, and was ostracized by nearly everyone I knew. I was faithful to one friend, and lost my place in the community. She has lost friends and customers, but kept her place in the Mormon church, which evidently is all-important to her. "Take what you want," says God in the old proverb. "Take it, and pay for it." I sympathize with her, but I think her expectation that she could help a billion-dollar organization bully her customers and not be resented for it is unrealistic.

Btw, to compare this to a Stalinist trial is more hysteria. She was not summoned or forced to the meeting. She called it herself, in an attempt to justify her actions and stave off a boycott. She was free not to meet with them. She was free to apologize. Again, her choice. Religious conservatives are very big on consequences until the consequences are theirs. Then it becomes unfair. Surprise, surprise.

SteveK -

I'm a loathsome thug because I'm using my constitutionally protected rights of legal protest?

I'm a loathsome thug because I'm using my constitutionally protected rights to choose where I shop?

I'm a lothesome thug because I've gotten involved in my community, and using all legal means to stop discrimination?

I'm a loathsome thug because I've decided to help my brother fulfill his dream of living in the USA with his husband, which, under current law, he cannot do?

Do you even know what the word "thug" means?

Hard to claim to that the gay community and it's supporters are being hysterical when the term "brownshirts" is being tossed around?

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/077089.php#077089

Rod,

You display a tin ear with this post. Gays were, after all, put in concentration camps by real brown shirts not so long ago; the pink triangle wasn't adopted as a gay symbol for its aesthetic value. Like Jews, we get a little touchy about tenuous Nazi analogies.

Further, boycotting businesses over their stances on gay rights issues was a tactic pioneered not by gays but by anti-gay folks on the religious right. Disney and Levi Strauss among others have been targeted because they advanced the homosexual agenda by giving health insurance (!) benefits to same-sex domestic partners of their employees back in the early 1990s.

The video of the forum at El Coyote restaurant in L.A. is hardly a "show trial." The event was sponsored by the restaurant itself (not the state), as an unsuccessful effort at public relations damage control. El Coyote has a substantial gay clientele, and I don't see why it is irrational for gays to withhold their lavender dollars from businesses whose owners funnel their profits into opposing gay rights.

As I've said at length on other posts regarding this issue, I just don't see what's wrong with protesting or boycotting? The religious right has been boycotting anything and everything for years and continue to do so. You make a public donation to a cause you're customers find (rightly or wrongly) bigoted and hateful and most likely there will be consequences. Do you want First Amendment rights for some and not others? Freedom of speech without economic consequences?

The other point of concern is the outrage/hysteria of Rod and some others here that Christians are under attack from gays. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Christians make up something like 80-90% of this country, hold 99+% of every elected office, yet somehow are under brutal assault from a group that makes up probably about 3% of the population. For every 1 anecdote you speak or post of of Christians under attack, there are 100's if not 1000's of examples of gays being attacked physically, verbally and economically. The lavender browncoats? That's outrageous.

I guess this gets down to an argument over semantics. Perhaps we need to use qualifiers, such as "Christian marriage," "Jewish marriage," or "civil marriage," such as the use of the term "second marriage" to describe someone who divorced and remarried (and is possibly commiting adultery according to the Bible - Matt. 19:9).

I get that there are valid legal arguments in this debate. But all the fuss over a word strikes me as silly.

I'm with Rod on this one (Oh the Horror!) If people behave like brownshirts they deserve to be called it and what happened to a group of foreigners is really not very important.

No one should be harrassed for a political opinion by any group.

If she's going to "talk the talk" then she should "walk the walk". She wants to exercise her rights to deny gays their equality - gays are free to not spend their gay dollars there and encourage others not to as well. Free market, right Rod??? Cause and reaction.

"Toleration of public stupidity is, after all, a privilege that can be withdrawn, not a right." Now that was breathtakingly stupid, Jillian. I hereby withdraw my tolerance for any other moronic thing you have to say.

Scott -

You obviously haven't followed the previous threads. If you had, you'd realize the stupidity and cluelessness of your comment about my brother.

As for the other whining you do, blah, blah, blah. I'm speaking of legal and constitutionally protected protest. Period. Nothing more.

Boycotting businesses. Openly. Honestly. Agressively.

No personal attacks. No threats of physical harm of any sort.

Just honest boycotting of specific businesses.

You sound a bit paranoid. Stocking up on the guns and supplies? Waiting for the big gay attack? Here's a hint. That's not going to happen. Calm down.

Scott-

No one cares if you consider it a marriage or not. They/we only care about state-sanctioned civil marriage. You, your church, your family, can refuse to acknowledge it as a "marriage." That's not the point. Neither is it the point whether the state should be involved in marriage. Right now the state *is* involved. Period. The "rest of you" aren't affected by Jim and Bob getting married. You injected yourself into the issue and in some cases people such as yourself publicly supported a Prop removing rights from gays and now they are boycotting your interests. Seems like a constitutional democracy in action.

Secondly, you suggest that because gay rights initiatives have failed the supports should give up? The first ballot lost by over 12 points, this one by about 4 and the Prop passed almost soley on the strength of 65+ year olds. You can cross your fingers and pray that we give up, but times are a changing, Scott. As for the "we have the guns" comment...I'm not even sure what that means.

Charles: "No one should be harrassed for a political opinion by any group"

Have you thought this statement through? This means there should be no protests, no boycotts, heck maybe even strongly written letters to the editor come into question. First Amendment rights with zero consequences. Wow.

How many who've posted read the linked article? How about the comments posted to it? Did you also read the follow up posting with videos of the meeting, and the comments to it?

My answer is yes to all of it except the videos (never at work). They will be first on my list of to-do at home tonight.

So, here's my question: which people at the meeting and who posted comments entered the discussion having already decided to punish the woman for her donation?

I don't really care about the answers, but I will say this: one person noted that she is a woman of integrity, who has lived her faith and loved those with whom she shared that community.

Personal note: I have a few beloved friends across all of the parts of LGBT. I would say the following to their faces if it were an appropriate response, though for nearly all of them it would not come up. Ahem: the more you take this political process personally -- and I warn you, do not think to conflate that with taking the issue personally -- the more bullets you'll be putting in your feet and the less likely you will see anything resembling success in your lifetimes. I promise you, my support for your cause will never waver even as I refuse to help you stumble along on your bloody feet. Look at it this way: if a political candidate who was 100% on gay issues turned out to be foul-mouthed, a bully and unwilling to show respect for anyone, would you vote for him or her? I would not, even if it meant waiting two or more terms before getting the other candidate out of office. Think about it.

52% of Californians are bigots. 67% of Floridians are bigots. Religious people (and blacks) in general are bigots. In fact, anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot.

So I'm hereby authorized to force these people to lose their jobs, target places of worship, and intimidate them until they back down. I can take pictures of people going to church, and tell them if they don't stop, I'll post their names, addresses, and photos on the Internet under my new website "herearethebigots.com". I can't be held responsible what happens to them.

They started it! They're stripping my rights by voting against me, so I can do whatever I want to them. They're full of hate, so excuse me while I figure out how to make them pay.

"Do not abstract your neighbor!"

"Lavender brownshirts"

Huh.
Physician, heal thyself.

Rod,
You object to people analogizing those who supported Prop 8 with Nazis, but you analogize those who opposed it to Nazis, and that's okay? I am going to assume you meant to show up how hyperbolic the analogy to Nazis was. If so, you didn't do it very clearly. If not, that's clearly hypocritical. We can call you Nazis, but it's out of bounds for you to call us Nazis. Come on.

Rod also says;

"For that, she is treated like a criminal, and reduced to either renouncing her faith or possibly losing her business."

No, she wasn't treated like a criminal...she was treated like someone who took a stand on a controversial issue. It's called Democracy.

Rod also says;

"If a gay man who'd given money to fight Prop 8 were hounded out of his job by Christian protesters, I'd send him money to help him pay rent until he got on his feet again."

I believe this Rod, I really do. What would be better is to call up the person who fired him (who is probably a Christian conservative) and tell them how small-minded they are. Here's the question, are you willing to talk to the people who believe there Christian faith requires this, and show them, through the Bible where they're wrong. Lots of us on the liberal side of this issue can quote scripture, but its more persuasive coming from you.

Rod also says;

"I would have thought extending all the civil and legal benefits of marriage to them without calling it marriage would be an acceptable compromise, until the culture changes enough to reach a consensus on the acceptability of gay marriage, but obviously not"

Except gays don't have all the civil and legal benefits. They don't have all the rights because primarily social conservatives pushed for the passage of DOMA federally that specifically excluded any federal recognition of any same sex relationship whatsoever. Again, are you pushing for this to be changed. It's all well and good to say we should compromise, but maybe you should take the lead on this.

Finally, Rod, once again says that this puts his religious liberties at risk. Once again, I ask him what he means by this. I still haven't gotten an answer.

Dear "Your Name",

You're incorrect. There are multiple examples of religious organizations being sued (successfully) because they refuse to allow homosexual couples to use their services.

For example, NPR reported that Ocean Grove Camp, a religious site, in New Jersey refused just that, and they lost their tax-exempt status.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

Other examples quoted:

"Yeshiva University was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory. A Christian school has been sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with same-sex couples. The same happened with a private company operating in California."

Law is about *precedence*. One only has to look to other states and countries where this has happened to see the side-effects. It is not a lie when it has already happened. Now, you can say "it probably won't happen here because gay activists here are much more lenient." But we know the legal envelope will continue to be pushed.

>>If Christians and others see their kind literally under assault by gay activists, and come to understand how significant the threat to religious liberty the constitutionalizing of SSM is, we will all -- gay and straight -- be worse off for the result.

I'm with others here ... how exactly is religious liberty threatened here? Here in Canada, where SSM is now legal, religious institutions of all stripes are doing just fine. Nobody is pressuring them to do anything they are not comfortable with. If "Christians and others" really wanted to build tolerance in California, perhaps they should not have taken Prop. 8 to the polls in the first place. What threatens to unleash "demons we can't control" is allowing the majority to vote down the legally affirmed rights of a minority group. Doing this only increases the sense of injustice and makes matters worse. There is a better way and we'll be seeing it soon in court (again).

Gulo Lusco, Jillian had one pretty good comment about Tolkein a year ago. Aside from that, you're right. Eddie, I don't have any guns. Sorry to burst that bubble. What I'm thinking about is the inevitable consequence of loud and abusive temper tantrums perpetrated by a minority of a minority. The "Bash Back" action in Michigan last week is the kind of thing I'm talking about. (Google it) Eventually some short-tempered morons are going to decide that they've had enough, and then they are going to remember that they, unlike me, do have guns. I don't want to see that happen, but civilization is a lot more fragile than you apparently think.

You said it, Daniel.

You really don't want to see what happens when fearful people feel that their families and their churches are being threatened by a loud and obnoxious behavioral minority. Rod said it: you are summoning up demons that you cannot control and that will end up destroying you.____There was a time when every single gay man I knew had been physically assaulted for being gay. Not hitting on a straight person, not screaming at people, not threatening anyone, just existing. Being simply honest about your sexual orientation was and still is considered to be 'flaunting' it. What I am trying to say is that we aren't summoning the demons. They are already here. They have been here my entire life, and actually, they have destroyed or nearly destroyed many gay people. YET, we still believe we deserve to exist, to work, and to take care of the people WE decide are our family. That can not and will not be beaten out of all of us, no matter how hard some have tried to. ____That being said, I do agree that some accomodation needs to be made in balancing religious liberty and our civil rights. Anti-gay churches shouldn't be sued because they refused to perform gay weddings or hire gay people. However, if gay people want to protest outside of those churches or boycott those institutions and businesses that support them, they have that right. Just like abortion protestors have and exercise that right.

"I was immensely interested in reading John Adams's clear forecast of the scrimmage I was witnessing, and his prophecy that "the struggle will end only in a change of impostors." One afternoon in 1900 I listened while a young jewish Socialist was breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the rich. I had asked him just what it was that he proposed to do when he had got them all properly killed off. "We have been oppressed," he said, "and now we shall oppress." I thought he put the matter well, for I could see no other prospect. - Albert Jay Nock, Memoirs of a Superfluous Man (1943).

And just a note about those "lavender brownshirts" so queerly webitching Rod's straight-eye: uh-uh; don't mix the two - so not downtown! Stick with either all pastels or all earth-tones, depending on whether you're mixing in Marin or Madison, Sausalito or Sheboygan. Or so says my Gay-Glo tailor/former tractor salesman at The Haight-Ashbury Hay-Dashboardy Haberdashery...

Don't use same-sex marriage as an excuse when what you really want is to send all gays back into the closet and deny them all rights.

Let me see if I have this right, gays and their supporters can exercise their right of free association in order to choose not to associate with those whose lifestyles they disagree with, but it is the height of discrimination and prejudice and cause for righteous outrage for anyone to discriminate against gays because of their lifestyle. Do I have that right? Seems to be what people here are saying. It just strikes me as a little hypocritical, you know? It seems that some are more equal than others when it comes to freedom of association.

It's a shame because brown just isn't my color.

Look, here's what I think: This divisive issue is causing a lot of nominally good people pain and anger, and in that pain and anger they are hurting a lot of other nominally good people.

If more conservative religious leaders (ie. Tony Perkins, James Dobson et al) took Rod's tone and Rod's nuance in making *their* case, perhaps the anger and resulting hurt wouldn't be so large.

But here's the gist: I see no conservative or religious leader taking ownership of the following:

-- that the history of their movement has been to fight to retain the sodomy laws used to imprison people like me and bar me from certain types of jobs, to boycott establishments that recognize my relationship for the purpose of basic health care and other employee benefits, to support laws and constitutional amendments that are used to strip people like me of their parenthood.

-- that every step they previously fought they now are comfortable accepting.

It sure would help if these leaders owned where they now agree they were previously wrong and actually demonstrated some reflection as to just how much harm had been done.

It would also help if the mysteries of the primal human drives for family and human connection were treated with the respect and care they merit; when oh-so-knowledgeable people casually compare my relationship to "two left shoes", to bestiality, necrophilia, to nonsensical unions between human and tree, human and color, etc., and then honestly say they do not see how they offend my personhood, what sort of discussions can one have with such people?

We can't reach each other; my personhood offendsd their moral sensibilities. Their exercise of their moral sensibilties offends my personhood. We can only co-exist with clearly defined social boundaries to permit our co-existence. Why am I not to strive in every possible way to ensure those social boundaries are fairly drawn?

They marry their life's partner, have families and become part of each other's families. They solemnize this relationship in a religious ceremony called "marriage" and/or a sacrement called "matrimony". They legally take on certain societal responsibilities and gain certain societal protections by declaring themselves legally married.

While I do not seek to force their churches to grant religious approval or blessing to my relationship, my life partner and I wish to take on the same societal responsibilities and obtain the same societal protections by declaring ourselves legally married.

Exactly how am I demanding something unreasonable when the reasons to deny me are grounded solely on religious basis and fear of something new? I certainly have no qualms about acknowledging that this is a new thing; I'd also argue though that the reason this is new, that this is happening now, is because reasonable, rational people realized that I'm just different, not disordered, and that previous societal boundaries and behaviors collectively were cruel, inhumane and unjust; this has given me the safe space to make my voice heard.

I'm afraid there are only two ways to get this gay marriage debate to end; (a) treat me equally in society; (b) convince society that it's time to reinstitute all the societal boundaries and behaviors that kept people like me underground, afraid, addicted, suicidal, apart and own that decision and the impact it has on your children, grandchildren, etc

Larry, are you just being argumentative? Do you really have that much trouble distinguishing between your personal choices of association and treatment by the state (equality under the law)? You can associate with anyone you like and not associate with anyone you don't like. So can I. What you can't do is discriminate under the law. You can't refuse to lease an apartment to a particular race. You can't as a business offer a service to one group and not another. And at least here in CA, you can't offer fertility treatments only to opposite sex married couples or employment only to straight people. Your religious rights end at the line where they begin to step on my civil rights.

"Your religious rights end at the line where they begin to step on my civil rights."

But that's the rub. The religious liberties argument is based on the theory that religious people and groups have a "super-status" under the law and therefore should be allowed to discriminate in any matter seen fit as long as religion can be used as the rationale.

Thus, reasonable accommodations to religious-based bias like the ministerial exception to Title VII (you can discriminate in hiring if the employee carries out a ministerial role) or even other religious exemptions allowing churches to discriminate based on sex and religion aren't enough.

They want a super-class of protections, allowing the individual shopowner to discriminate against gay people just by raising the religion defense. They want to be able to take government money, but refuse to hire a gay accountant or toss a lesbian couple and their kids out of a church-based homeless shelter.

They want to be able to scream "faggot" in a crowded workplace without their being consequence, by playing the "it's my faith and 2000 years of tradition" defense.

Are there compromises that could go beyond what's already available? Sure. The Catholic Charities case in Mass. was a perfect place where accommodation should have taken place. But once we are talking about individual believers and not religious institutions and their public functions, the road gets hazy.

For people who think that gay marriage is not the inevitable, I would invite them to look at the statistics. The future generation voted over 2 to 1 against proposition 8. Furthermore, if you look at some of the social media sites that these youth flock to, you see a blind and complete utter hate for anything religious, as the vast (and I do mean vast) majority are outright atheist (no room for those silly agnostics even). The concept of religious liberty takes a back seat to their sexuality, and you will not be allowed to say that they are wrong. This is not about family for gays, it's about taking away freedom of speech for the believer.

I should say something very important: "their exercise of their moral sensibilities offends my personhood". This is not correct; it sounds like I'm offended if people go to church or preach the gospel or stuff like that.

What I mean by "exercise of their moral sensibilities" is the enaction of civil laws that single me out and/or prohibit me from equal treatment under the law.

For example, there is a simple way to get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" that does not single me out. That is to institute a comprehensive code of conduct policy in the US military that prohibits any sexual activity or sexual propositions between members of the services. Enforce it consistently, whether the offenders be gay or straight. Any straight man propositioned by a gay man can be confident that his harasser will be properly punished, just as any woman propositioned by a straight man *ought* to feel the same security. (That she may not be able to feel confident is a lamentable reflection of how far we have to go in according women the respect they deserve.)

In other words, blocking gay people from service in the military for religious reasons is an improper exercise of religious sensibilities in the civil plane. In the civil plane, I have a right to expect the same treatment as anyone else. I have no right to request the special treatment of only having to deal with people of a certain type.

FWIW, Slate has a good essay up on why racism is not analogous to opposition to same sex marriage: http://www.slate.com/id/2204661/

Excerpts:
Same-sex marriage would transform an institution that currently defines two distinctive sex roles—husband and wife—by replacing those different halves with one sex-neutral role—spouse. . . By wistfully invoking the analogy to racism, same-sex marriage proponents risk misreading a large (and potentially movable) group of voters who care about sex difference more than about sexual orientation. . . National polls show that overwhelming majorities support employment-based gay rights, including equal access to careers in the military, and same-sex civil unions. It's only when it comes to marriage—the word, with its religious as well as civic connotations—that pro-gay sentiment dwindles. . . he sharp differences in the polling numbers, depending on whether the question is marriage as opposed to almost any other gay rights issue, suggest that opposition to same-sex marriage isn't simply the 21st century's form of racism. After all, whites who opposed racial miscegenation in the Jim Crow South didn't support other civil rights for blacks or civil unions for mixed-race couples. . . he sharp differences in the polling numbers, depending on whether the question is marriage as opposed to almost any other gay rights issue, suggest that opposition to same-sex marriage isn't simply the 21st century's form of racism. After all, whites who opposed racial miscegenation in the Jim Crow South didn't support other civil rights for blacks or civil unions for mixed-race couples. . . Gay rights in employment and civil unions don't require the elimination of longstanding and culturally potent sex roles. Same-sex marriage does. . . But many same-sex marriage advocates have been talking past the people they need to convince: the large, moderate opposition that voted for sex difference, not homophobia."

While I disagree with the author's characterization of sex differences as "roles", I think he's spot on. At this point, people who are in a lather about prop 8 aren't confronting actual homophobia; they are denouncing people for supporting gender differences. But, while I hate to see innocent people hurt in this attempted pogrom, these sort of harsh tactics will do more to stop the march of ssm than any rational arguments ever could. So, I guess . . . "bring it on!" as they say.

Hi, Rod:

You don't take civil rights away from people because your religion demands it. And of course people are going to gravitate to the white, brightly-lit, shiny temples of the church that poured time, talent and money into Proposition 8 ($22,200 raised in my Arizona zip code alone!).

Frankly, I'm sick of the whining from the people who voted to take away civil rights from a minority. Protesting is normal, legal and very American. Next time, we're going to vote on YOUR marriage and see how much you like it.

btw, if you write something longish in the comboxes, before submitting it, just copy what you've written, hit submit and then when the software rejects what you wrote, you can just paste what you wrote back into the comment box and submit it without any problems.

Daniel you failed to provide proof or evidence that a shelter operated by a religious organization through out a lesbian and her children.

"they also want the right to kick a gay person out of a homeless shelter or out of a church-run day care program"

once again would you provide concrete examples of what you purport and if not I can assume then that the incidents you allege did not happen. do you have a problem

"Daniel you failed to provide proof or evidence that a shelter operated by a religious organization through out a lesbian and her children."

I'm saying that's what religious liberties absolutists want the right to do. Rod wants a federal constitutional amendment saying churches and believers are exempt from state and federal gay rights protections. IOW, he wants an amendment that would permit a church-based homeless shelter to kick out a gay person.

Larry, I still don't get your point. I don't want the state to make people like me or associate with me in non-business arrangements. I want the state to recognize my same-sex marriage as being legally equal to your opposite-sex marriage. I want tax exempt employer sponsored health insurance for my spouse like you get. I want to avoid property transfer tax if my spouse dies before I do. I want over a 1000 other benefits that you get that I don't. No hypocrisy, just fairness.

Daniel: IOW, he wants an amendment that would permit a church-based homeless shelter to kick out a gay person.

As a matter of fact, I do, though no church that actually opened a homeless shelter would actually kick out a homeless person for being gay. I want an amendment that would permit ACT-UP to kick out a believing Mormon who came to the meeting to try to convert them. I want an amendment that would permit the American Nazi party to march in Skokie. I want an expansive view of the First Amendment.

You want your own church to be forced by the state to violate its own teachings, as long as it benefits gays. You fit the classic definition of a liberal: Someone who won't take his own side in an argument.

I'm saying that's what religious liberties absolutists want the right to do. Rod wants a federal constitutional amendment saying churches and believers are exempt from state and federal gay rights protections. IOW, he wants an amendment that would permit a church-based homeless shelter to kick out a gay person.

Yes, because its only your stupid laws that are keeping them from doing that now. Wait, in most places they can do that now, now why don't they, do you suppose?

You seem to have this idea that Christians, or other religious believers, can turn off their beliefs like they were connected to a light switch. Sorry, that's not the case. I am a Christian in _all_ of my life, not just the parts that you deem "private", and you can pass all the stupid laws that you want, its not going to change anything. Rome couldn't make Christians change their beliefs, why in the world do you think that you are going to be able to?

"You want your own church to be forced by the state to violate its own teachings, as long as it benefits gays. You fit the classic definition of a liberal: Someone who won't take his own side in an argument."

I want my church to follow the public policy of the state when it provides secular services to the public and takes public money. The Founding Fathers never expected that religious liberty contained in the First Amendment would extend to church-run hotels and amusement parks and government-funded public services operated by religious organizations.

How many who've posted read the linked article? How about the comments posted to it? Did you also read the follow up posting with videos of the meeting, and the comments to it? How many who've posted read the linked article? How about the comments posted to it? My answer is yes to all of it except the videos (never at work). They will be first on my list of to-do at home tonight. So, here's my question: which people at the meeting and who posted comments entered the discussion having already decided to punish the woman for her donation?

There is complementary and intelligent perspective, from a pragmatic direct participant, at boxturtlebulletin dot com.

I don't really care about the answers, but I will say this: one person noted that she is a woman of integrity, who has lived her faith and loved those with whom she shared that community.

Personal integrity includings proper regard for all of her clientele as human beings and spiritual entities. Integrity of her personal life with her faith means she sends the token $100 to a deserving part of her church or not at all, not to the ban effort.

Personal note: I have a few beloved friends across all of the parts of LGBT. I would say the following to their faces if it were an appropriate response, though for nearly all of them it would not come up. Ahem: the more you take this political process personally -- and I warn you, do not think to conflate that with taking the issue personally -- the more bullets you'll be putting in your feet and the less likely you will see anything resembling success in your lifetimes. I promise you, my support for your cause will never waver even as I refuse to help you stumble along on your bloody feet.

I think you are misunderstanding this phase of things by buying into the soc con and right wing frames that violence and retribution are the point, are the end sought. True, there is a lot of anger and a building of things said or written in anger and increasing symbolic or physical assault on symbols. Within the American Right these are in fact indicators of their side initiating serious political violence. Within the American Left the initiating of serious political violence has different signs, I think.

I think the intelligent view is that this protesting is an internal rallying, an overcoming of fear and joining in common purpose. For one thing, gay activists are as diverse as the society as a whole with only one thing in common, unlike ethnicity or class or single gender; there has been a lot of internal disagreement and alienation from marriage as a life possibility. (Much of the debate fitting to Benjamin Franklins witticism that all women should marry...but no man.) Many gay people, while personally out to their friends and neighbors and coworkers, have never dared come out in public. The realization is sinking in among Californian gay activists that it has become a necessity if they want to prevail. You can't persuade average people that you as a group deserve a public right if you are not willing to stand up for it in public as a group, warts and all. The NoOnEight campaign leadership famously avoided doing that out of fear. They were told by Massachusetts activists that it was necessary but went into denial and are having some trouble overcoming it.

Righteous anger in groups is the emotional cover under which activist gay people can venture out in some safety, can partly out themselves in public, can overcome one level of fears of losing cover and find unity in purpose and experience. (There is still the cover of the crowd and with it come the generic problems of acting as crowds.) Sure, it's not pretty as a phase. But it will pass and presumably not physically hurt any significant number of people or amount of property. Hurt feelings, sure, but as you see: the Right is cowardly and thinskinned; it can dish out hurt aplenty but can't take a fraction as much. The phase after this one has gay individuals or couples standing in public, probably also still wielding some righteous anger initially. Probably not that pretty either at first.

I'd worry about what right wing violence occurs then, when there are successful SSM advocates that stand out to harass and kill. Because, as Scott Walker helpfully points out, the hardcore Right in all places and all times always reserves itself the right and duty to kill supposed Enemies Of Civilization...with some documented difficulty picking out the real ones.

To your last point, it's pure fantasy that marriage has remained constant for 2000 years.

Please, I never said that, although it hasn't changed nearly as much as you think. Polygamy was out of fashion, in fact was illegal, when Christianity got started and has never been approved by the church. Interracial marriage was only illegal in a very limited geographic area for a very limited time, and was never approved by the church as a whole, but only a by a few neandertalish denominations in the American south. An arranged marriage doesn't change the nature of marriage, but of courtship. Women were never consider property, either. Yes, I have heard of Jacob and Solomon, further, I, unlike you, know that they lived a lot more than 2000 years ago.

Larry, there's no lawyer that can give me any of the benefits I mentioned.

Then you need to find a competent lawyer. And the ones that a lawyer can't get you a marriage won't either. You can't force your employer to extend health care benefits to your partner whether you are married or not, some do, some don't, and some will give them to domestic partners. In any event, I don't object to you, or anybody else, having the benefits, I just don't want the institution of marriage debased to merely being a vehicle for "civil rights".

As to the "public marketplace" I absolutely can and we already have passed laws that forbid you from legally discriminating against me in many ways.

But you seem to think that _you_ can discriminate against religious people, like the owner of the El Coyote, no special pleading here, no sir.

Rod is right--religious liberties are at stake. Legal scholars who support SSM agree that this is true. For an overview of this problem, read a recently released book, "Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts" edited by 3 highly respected legal scholars. Rod is also right that SSM supporters self-righteousness unwillingness to admit that there are genuine and legitimate arguments to be made on both sides will prevent a needed compromise. The problem with self-righteous people is that they think that whatever means they want to use justify their righteous ends, while stubbornly refusing to see that there is a legitimate position that is not theirs. A little humility and charity are in order, please.

Larry, I know when Jacob and Solomon lived according to the bible. I know the bible extremely well in fact. The point is that marriage has never been a constant. Wives WERE considered property and then after that even though they weren't property they had at first no and then very few legal rights independent of their husbands. As to polygamy, it was wide spread in many cultures and still is in some. Your church may not have condoned it but some did. Some still do.

Your comments about the legal implications are completely insulting because you've obviously never taken the time to investigate the real situation. I've lived for 30 years as a gay man (since I realized I was gay at 14 while still going to the Baptist church 3 times a week), 11 1/2 years in a CA domestic partnership and 6 weeks in a CA same-sex marriage. I've taken every legal precaution that's legally available to me.I'm not deceiving you about the FACTS regarding the benefits of marriage. You can look them up! My employer did not offer domestic partnership benefits because they were self-insured and didn't have to by federal law. Now they do offer same-sex spousal benefits because they have to. The irony is that I didn't accept the benefits for my husband because it would cost me over $100/month in federal taxes. If my husband were my wife there would be $0 federal taxes. I'm not making this up - it's the kind of inequality I really face.

It's not even worth commenting on your offensive use of the word "debase". My marriage is meaningful to me and I don't care what it means to you other than the legal implications I've been discussing.

Nobody is discriminating against the owner of El Coyote. They are merely taking their business elsewhere and encouraging others to do the same. Are you suggesting that if a restaurant in your area welcomed Christians but you knew they were giving money to an atheist organization that was actively fighting against your church, you'd happily eat there? She runs a business in a predominantly gay area. She has every right to follow her religious convictions, but you have to admit that it was a bad business move.

Scott Walker, I'm glad you clarified that you don't sympathize or approve of attacks on your fellow citizens. It was worth it to me to induce you to come out of your corner and say that straight up--because you did leave room for ambiguity in your original statement.

I don't think you're off the hook yet, though. And when I say that, I'm using you as an example of a general class, not as one individual. As an individual, I credit you with good intentions. But you're advocating a point of view that I don't respect. This is how it goes: "You (insert disfavored minority here) had better make yourselves agreeable to us, the majority. Don't get uppity and don't ask for more than we're willing to give, and don't make a fuss . . . because if you do that, the dogs might get off the leash and we'd just have to stand by and watch them tear you up." Can you not see that, when stripped of its coy circumlocutions, this is nothing more than the old protection racket? "Pay homage to my organization, or the real thugs might get you."

Tell me again, why is it that you, the majority--and the Christian, benevolent majority, too--would be unable to provide gay people with simple justice and the protection to which their citizenship entitles them? Why won't you be able to stop violence from happening? Do we no longer have a police force or a court system? Have you really given up on America that fast?

Rod, you misunderstand. It was not out of objectifying Marjorie Christoffersen that her customers became angry. She was not a characature, an abstract. It was precisely because they know Margie and thought her a friend and ally that they are so very angry.____Unlike most restaurants, Margie is a presense in the restaurant. She is a symbol of the personal service it offers. And for many many many years this restaurant has profited off its image as a funky fun place that was gay-friendly and casual. Celebrities dine there in peace, along with young families, aging hippies, young singles in the industry, and pretty much a slice of everyone.____Except for Mormons. And conservative Christians. And those who don't much like to be around gays. Those folks just don't go.____Over the last 19 years I have personally dumped thousands and thousands of dollars into that restaurant. I'm there at least a couple times per month. And while I've been there with gays and straights, Republicans and Democrats, young and not so young, I'm absolutely certain that the vast overwhelming majority of Margie's customers found the proposition abhorent and a violation of civil rights.____I we all know that the profits on our purchases were then used to fund a campaign of (you have to admit) complete lies that removed from a fundamental right from a part of the citizenry.____And even after she had contributed to the campaign back in September, there was Margie smiling at her customers and telling no one what she had done. A family member said that she didn't think anyone would know - and they didn't until now.____It wasn't the contribution that inspired the anger and the boycott. It was the betrayal. You don't get angry at the farmer in Tulare, you get angry at those that you believe truly see you as an equal citizen worthy of the same rights they enjoy, the theater director, the restauranteer you know,... and then you find out they don't.

Margie had the courage to stand up for her convictions so good for her. Unfortunately there are consequences to every action we make, both good and bad. I understand the anger of SSM supporters and I sympathize but violence against people who disagree with you is completely inappropriate. Boycotting a business isn't violence and is a perfectly legitimate way of protesting her decision.

All that being said, no agreement on this issue is possible until both sides recognize the other as human.

Chris Mills

I'm a gay man, and I'd be find with civil union. I don't need my love relationship defined by the state or any of your churches.

But I will mention something about Mormons. Obviously, I'm not one. But as soon as I was diagnosed with a serious illness a few weeks ago, I got a note from a Mormon friend that I'd been put on their Temple prayer list.

Mormons and I don't agree on much of anything. But I have to appreciate anybody who takes the time to pray for me, not just to change me.

Larry, and by "The Church" you obviously mean only your church. What about the religious freedom of churchs that wants to conduct SSM? BTW, you full well know that marriage is both a civil and a religious institution. I've been clear all along that I am only fighting for civil marriage. The CA Supreme Court was clear about that too.____As to wanting every thing to go only my way, wrong again. I owned a business for 10 years. As a business, I couldn't discriminate based on sex, race, age, sexual orientation and other factors. As a customer, I can do or not do business anywhere I like. I would defend your right as a Christian to be served in any restaurant in America just as vigorously as my right to be served in any restaurant in America as a gay man. Too bad you won't return the favor. Your last comment pretty much says it all. I know you don't care about me. That's the whole point. As a Christian and as a thinking American you SHOULD CARE about me. You should care when injustice and inequality exists. Instead you choose to deny it, belittle it, ignore it, and defend it. Jesus must be so proud.

John S., you and Elton John (who's British and is making an uneducated guess about the comparisons between British and American law) are both wrong. First off, CA doesn't even have civil unions, they are called domestic partnerships. They're not quite equal under state law, such as my employer avoiding domestic partner health benefits as I discussed earlier. And they are not and have no chance of being equal under federal American law. This is absolutely about equality! I agree that it's unfortunate that the state and churches both use the same word, but that's the reality. I don't want your church's blessing, but I do want every last benefit that comes with civil marriage. I also want my legally recognized relationship to be called the same thing that every other relationship recognized by the state is called. If you think you can change the federal government and all fifty states to refer to all civil marriages as civil unions, be my guest.

Let me ask you something, Public Defender. If someone had expressed the opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman last April, would you have felt "attacked"? I assume you would not because this was the law in California and people do not generally feel "attacked" if someone expresses an opinion that concurs with a longstanding law. Now, people's ideas about marriage are very deeply ingrained from childhood on. They are taught about marriage, surely, but they also absorb their ideas about it from the world around them. Do ideas about marriage change? Well, yes, over time they do, but these changes usually happen very gradually and organically. In other words, the changes happen in a bottom-up fashion. Yes, I know, the courts have mandated changes to things like interracial marriage in the past and civil wars have not ensued, but this is a much less momentous change than mandating a change to the sexual make-up of the partnership. The California Supreme Court did a great disservice to the state by not allowing a seismic shift in marriage practices to happen in a bottom-up fashion. Maybe it would have happened, or maybe it wouldn't have, but by forcing the issue we are reaping a whirlwind. I beg you to understand that no one has attacked you. Deeply ingrained understandings of marriage and its place in the culture and the family cannot be changed overnight or in six months. There are serious issues at stake here and they need to be considered much more deeply than a debate in this political climate has allowed. I understand that you are upset. I don't blame you for being upset, but I do blame you for refusing to see that there were legitimate reasons for voting yes on 8 and those reasons need to be respected. If SSM supporters cannot respect people who voted yes for legitimate reasons then it will be impossible to live peacefully together in this state while this issue resolves itself as it should have been resolved in the first place, gradually. I don't know which way it would have gone and I do not, of course, know what will happen now, but I am certain that the CA supreme court did a grave disservice to this state by forcing the issue.

Jim, it's fine that you're happy on the back seat of the bus. I'm not and I don't think that makes me militant. I was given the opportunity to have a legal SSM and I took it. Then the majority, in a vote that never should have happened, took it away. I can't sit back, relax, and enjoy the view from the back window.

Larry, and by "The Church" you obviously mean only your church.

There is only one church, one holy, apostolic, catholic (little c) church, as it says in the creed.

What about the religious freedom of churchs that wants to conduct SSM?

They can do what they want, but don't expect me to call them marriages.

BTW, you full well know that marriage is both a civil and a religious institution.

Marriage has only been a "civil instituion" in this country since the end of the 19th century or so. Prior to that the government had no involvement. As I have pointed out in other posts the point of the original civil marriage statutes was to prevent certain marriages.

I've been clear all along that I am only fighting for civil marriage. The CA Supreme Court was clear about that too.

And I've been equally clear that I don't have a problem with as long as you a) don't call it a marriage, and b) don't force people to recognize it against their own freedom of religion and c) don't force religion into the "private" ghetto.

____As to wanting every thing to go only my way, wrong again. I owned a business for 10 years. As a business, I couldn't discriminate based on sex, race, age, sexual orientation and other factors. As a customer, I can do or not do business anywhere I like. I would defend your right as a Christian to be served in any restaurant in America just as vigorously as my right to be served in any restaurant in America as a gay man. Too bad you won't return the favor.

Your the one that won't return the favor, you expect the business man to deal with you whether he wants to or not, while reserving the right of boycott to yourself. I neither want nor need your support as to where I eat. If a business owner does not want my business I won't patronize him, nor will I indulge the fascist impulse to force him to serve me.

Your last comment pretty much says it all. I know you don't care about me. That's the whole point. As a Christian and as a thinking American you SHOULD CARE about me. You should care when injustice and inequality exists. Instead you choose to deny it, belittle it, ignore it, and defend it. Jesus must be so proud.

Please, the hyper-sensitivity is just too much of a stereotype, and that's quite a job you did of twisting my words around. I do care about injustice, but I care about real injustice, not the infantile temper tantrums of those who real aims are not legal equality, which they already have, but the perversion and subversion of an institution that is older than civilization. As for Jesus, Jesus is the one who said "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning made them male and female, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

Larry, I've given you multiple examples of real tangible inequality faced by the gay community. You can deny it all you want, but that doesn't change the reality. I get that your denial helps you rationalize that your bigotry is okay.

Larry, I've given you multiple examples of real tangible inequality faced by the gay community.

You've given me nothing. You have the same right to marry that I do, that you don't want to exercise it is not my problem. Mainly it seems that you want roommates to be elevated to the status of being married and you don't care what you destroy in order to get your way.

"Calling gays--who were documented victims of the Nazi Holocaust--"brownshirts" is contemptible."

Not nearly as contemptible as gays acting like brownshirts.

FTR, I was never a supporter of the religious right's boycott of Disney, Coors, etc.

However, I find it interesting that while the RR boycotted multi-national corporations, the gay brownshirts seem to prefer going after mom and pops businesses. Low hanging fruit, if you'll pardon the expression.

Gay Fascism on the march

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryID/578/Default.aspx

"Watch the news, Larry. I'm on the side of history and you're just temporarily in the way."

Now that sounds like gay fascism on the march. But I'm not really worried till they start firing up their Easy Bake Ovens.

Another Todd
November 15, 2008 12:02 PM
Larry, calling my husband "my roommate" is beyond ignorant and insulting. It says it all - you don't think I know how to love the way you do.

****

You may know how to love, but I would say calling your roommate your "husband" means you don't know how to mate.

"Not nearly as contemptible as gays acting like brownshirts."

Interestingly enough, most of the top leadership in the SA (aka brownshirts) was gay. Roehm, the leader, was a well known homosexual.

Rod,
I am looking forward to your column tomorrow. Your willingness to permit those of us who disagree with you on many points to participate in an open, public discussion speaks highly of you.

Reading the postings here on the many controversial topics you touch upon, I am struck by the large number of conservative Christians who have no problem with the wonders which modern science have revealed to us. Their faith seems, to my eyes at least, to have freed them to embrace freedom for those who are not like them.

Unfortunately, there are also those who seem immune to any argument but that which reconfirms their own private interpretation of God's will.

My profession requires of me that I be open to other points of view, that I work fairly and freely with those whom I would never welcome into my home privately. It isn't easy at times, often I fail. I keep telling myself that when some of the commentators here speak disparagingly of my relationship, when they voice their joy at my being stripped of civil rights, then they are also searching for a truth which they have yet to find.

Right at the moment, I do confess, my heart is beginning to tell my head that that little voice of reason I am hearing is not a good sign. I don't know. When I draw the comparison between stripping rights out of the constitution and the last major democracy to do so, many become furious. OK, to what shall we compare curtailing civil rights? Shall we pretend there are not many in the religious right who have said their next step is to have existing SSM dissolved (that's Same Sex Marriages, in case the acronym is new around here). Shall I ignore the refusal of the congressional republicans to extend to me the same protections against being kicked out of my home, fired from my job, having my children taken away from me...simply because I am gay? I need not even state or hint that I am gay in the state in which my parents live...all that is needed is the mere belief that I might be gay, and I can be fired.
My partner is my legal heir here in Europe. In the 'States, my brother and his family moved to have me blocked from recognition as holding my parent's medical power of attorney on the grounds I am a homosexual...and the hospital acquiesced until a court took notice.
They have already engaged legal council to have my parent's will disputed, as my partner inherits should I predecease them...

These are all real, existing aspects of life for gays in the US. They are the driving force behind our desire for full human rights and the same civil rights and full citizenship status accorded by default to heterosexuals. As shocking as it may seem, I am theologically far closer to Larry than to the LDS people who post here. I would defend their right to their religious freedoms none-the-less...simply because this is the only way to co-exist.
When I die, I do not want to have the Lord ask me why I stood in judgment over others instead of doing my best to make life for others here on earth as good as I could. I surely do not want to be held accountable for all the time I invested in worrying with the moat in my brother's eye...while providing nesting space for several birds, honeybees and the odd squirrel or two in my own...

Sig,

Very nice post.

Particularly: "I understand that conservative Christians like you, Scott, believe that this family is destructive and perverted. I've been forced to accept that, because apparently nothing that anyone says can convince you otherwise. I just don't understand why."

Reflecting on this observation of your's I couldn't help but think that you and I occupy different sides of the same coin.

Without any snark, I understand the certain people, like you, Sig, beleive that homosexual based famies are constructive and normal. I've been forced to accept that, because apparently nothing that anyone says can convince these certain people otherwise. I just don't understand why.

Sig, hope you don't mind my cribbing your words, but they hit the nail on the head.

Nevertheless, I suspect that like me, you will still be compelled to call 'em like you see 'em.

BFF (Best Frenemy Forever)
Max

And, before you even bother to write it, I don't give a damn how your church with a "c" of any size judges me. You aren't the judge.

I've never judged you, and have no intention of judging you. All I have ever said is that you and your "friend" are not married and can never be married. Words mean things. And before you jump to any more conclusions about me, I'm not married, so I don't enjoy any of the privileges that you and your "roommate" want, either. In this we are exactly the same and equal before the law, neither of us are married, so neither of us enjoy the benefits of marriage. It's not a question of unequal protection, or lack of due process, or any other civil right, its just a narcissistic minority threatening to hold their breath until they get their way. I drove by your protest here in KCMO just a few minutes ago. Out of a metropolitan area of 2 million or so they managed to draw maybe 2 or 3 hundred, and I bet probably half of those are people who just like to protest and would have shown for just about anything. It looks like there's still a lot of history to come.

Larry: I've never judged you, and have no intention of judging you.

Larry (same post): its just a narcissistic minority threatening to hold their breath until they get their way

Good job keeping that intention, Larry :-)

And Sig, as always, my deepest respect and admiration for your writing.

Max, you choking on vomit or bile, my friend?

Good job keeping that intention, Larry :-)

I never judged his worth as a human being, his standing before God, or his ultimate fate. I will make judgments regarding his actions and the actions of his fellow agitators, how can one not?

The conservative church has been on the losing end of almost every civil rights fight in US history. Women owning property, women's right to vote, desegregation and interracial marriage.

That pretty much flows from the definition of "conservative", especially if you define conservative in political and not theological terms. Plenty of theologically conservative Christians were on the other side of those issues, in fact I would say all of those issues had far more support from the church, taken as a whole, than the other way. In fact it was churchmen and churchwomen who were in the vanguard of most of those issues. The suffragettes were nearly all Christian women, who based their politics on their theology. Of course most of the leaders of the modern civil rights movement were also Christian men and women (and who generally take offense at the gay rights people equating the two movements). Now, I know that many here have probably pegged me as a "fundamentalist", many without even knowing what the term really signifies beyond being negative, but in truth I am not, I'm not even particularly conservative, either in politics or theology.

There is something fundamentally different between the gay rights movement and the earlier movements liberating women and racial minorities. The gay rights movement seeks the status of a persecuted minority based on the behavior of the supposedly persecuted class, while the earlier movements were based on immutable characteristics of people as people, whether it be sex, skin color, ethnicity or some other characteristic. Furthermore, these previous movements simply wanted admission to the institutions of society on a even footing with those who were already there, the gay rights/SSM movement wants to fundamentally change the character of some of those institutions. It's as if the suffragettes or the civil rights movement sought not equal access to the voting booth, but to fundamentally change what voting was, say by advocating a movement from a representative republic to a direct democracy (and then demonizing any who thought a direct democracy was not a good idea by calling them racist or sexist).

If we are going to base civil rights and the right to enter into traditional institutions based on behavior, particularly based on behavior that is in diametric conflict with what those institutions stand for, where does it stop? Is there any group or behavior that we as a society can say "no" to? Where does the nihilism end?

(Rejected again, Rod could you harass Beliefnet into fixing their their crappy software? I used to develop software and I would find this junk to be embarrassing if I had written it.)

"The gay rights movement seeks the status of a persecuted minority based on the behavior of the supposedly persecuted class,"

Like religious belief. I mean, we'd never protect people from discrimination and bias based on the fact that they choose to go to a specific church. We'd never protect someone from discrimination and the stripping away of their rights for going to a Jewish temple, or a Mormon church, or a Catholic mass, or an Orthodox service.

Oh, wait . . .

Great, now you're equating the right to marry your shack-up partner with the historic right of freedom of religion. BTW, many "religious" behaviors are tightly regulated and controlled, particularly when it comes to sexuality. No polygamy, for instance, no matter how strongly you believe in it. No marrying your daughter or your dog, regardless of the depth of your conviction. Also no marrying someone of the some sex.

I think that the reason this issue is so heated is because it touches on a couple of foundational issues which we haven't made peace with in modern Western culture. The first being gender. Does gender matter? Should it matter? THANK GOD, the whole "gender as a social construct" nonsense has been completely discredited. However, we're still not sure where socially prescribed gender norms begin and biological tendencies end. And to what extent social expectations of gender norms infringes on individual liberty. SSM sweeps aside the whole issue as irrelevant. Which to most of us it most certainly isn't. Since we are already conflicted about gender differences and to what extent they matter, trying to simply insist that we sweep them away as irrelevant is bound to cause a lot of upset.

The other issue is the rights of the individual vs the needs of society. In the past, the needs of society were primary and often at the cost of severely limiting human freedoms. Today, the rights of individuals are sacrosanct to the extent that people often have a hard time even understanding how - except in instances of immediate harm to another - the exercise of individual rights even could harm society. However, the ancient norm of sacrificing at least some human autonomy to protect the integrity of a society's normal functioning isn't completely dead. This is another area where we do have a lot of conflict. SSM marriage does represent a fundamental change of what marriage has historically been about (that being creating a norm of and supporting the creation of nearly unbreakable biological family units designed to ensure the proper upbringing of responsible, productive citizens). We have enough experience with changing historical norms to allow for greater autonomy of individuals in unusual circumstances (think single parents) and found that the results are rarely as harmless as we like to think they are going to be. So, we're still wrestling with the balance of individual liberties and desires vs the potential harm to society. Again, since we have not yet come to a consensus on the issue (and really are only starting to even understand the issue), simply sweeping this unreconciled issue aside to enact SSM is bound to cause alarm far beyond what may seem justified by gay couples simply receiving public recognition of their relationships.

I could probably add in issues of gender as relates to whether men are actually needed or if they are optional and the importance (or lack thereof) of biological ties between family members. These are also unsettled matters which would be swept aside as irrelevant if ssm comes to be seen as being the same as hetero marriage. All of these things: gender, individual liberties vs potential harm to society, the role of men and biological ties are matters which most people, if they stop to think about it, care about deeply. Coming down on the side of ssm marriage would necessitate resolution on these matters which does not exist, and do it in a way which would be a serious affront to most people's thinking on these matters. This is why the reaction to the matter tends to be outsized. It's not homosexuality per se that poses the real problem (hence the wide spread support for virtually every other bit of gay rights policies), it is changing this particular institution and with it our societal ideas about matters as weighty as gender, society and the individual, men and biology which causes the problem.

I would add that although I know some gay families myself and do recognize that they are often boringly normal, the simple fact is that committed gay couples with children make up a tiny proportion of our society. Which is not to say that their needs don't matter. However, they do represent the proverbial "hard cases". People are probably familiar with the old legal maxim that hard cases make bad law. Unfortunately, no matter what we do as a society - even things which seem perfectly harmless will cause harm to someone (again think of the terrible results for many kids of societal acceptance of single parenthood). Sometimes the best we can do is make reasonable accommodations for hard cases to minimize harm but refrain from writing laws (or creating norms) around them. No, it will not create a perfect situation, but life is never perfect. Which is all to say, I guess, that contrary to what sig says, sometimes the abstract really does give one a clearer picture than the concrete. Or rather that we ignore or dismiss either at our own peril.

me, if you've read many of my posts, and endured my sometimes recondite reasoning, I think it should be clear that I don't disdain the abstract. ; ) Nor do I think a theory or principle should be flung away at the first hint of an exception. However, when observed experience repeatedly contradicts theory, I think one needs to ask if something might be wrong with the theory. But if you've assumed that the theory comes down from God and thus can never change, then you end up with the 6000 year old Earth, and the curse of Ham, and the dilemma that we find ourselves in today. There now, is that abstract enough for ya?

And btw, I am wholeheartedly in agreement with Scott Walker about this captcha system, which is a tool of Beelzebub and no one shall ever convince me to say otherwise, here I stand I can do no other per omnia saecula saeculorum. (Er, unless Cardinal Fang threatens me with the rack and the comfy cushions, and then I'm likely to say anything.)

sigaliris,
I guess that if your theory is based on the idea that homosexuals are a bizarre aberation bent on evil and libertine lifestyles, then sure repeated exposure to gay families would undermine that. (Although I do find the casual dismissal of monogamy common between gay male couples truly alarming.) However, if your theory is based on the differences between men and women being important and a fundamental part of what a marriage is, then the gay couples I have known do nothing to dispel this concern. (Garrison Keillor once commented that it was really only proper that gay couples have to fight to be married since marrying the same sex was like playing a baseball game without an opposing side.) If your theory is that men matter (or more accurately, both sexes matter to all of us - children, parents and society at large) and that biological ties are important, then the fact that gay couples raising kids, even good kids, without the benefit of experiencing a permanent, dependent relationship with both mother and father is still problematic. If your theory is that societal norms are important, and that society depends on kids being raised in stable marriages between their mother and father in order to have the best shot of growing up to be responsible citizens, then anything which seeks to create a new norm or undermine this norm is cause for alarm. Now, one can argue that gender doesn't really matter, that men can be optional in procreation, life and parenting, that biological ties aren't particularly important and that societal norms will either be unchanged by gay marriage or aren't that important anyhow. However, if anything, my experiences with gay families has only heightened my concerns about these particular "abstractions". It's not that they are so strange (although some I have known have been extremely strange). It's that they live as if my concerns about gender and biological ties and the importance of men and society's needs are piffling nothings to be swept aside like yesterday's refuse. The thing is that to me,they are vitally important - not just as abstractions, but as concrete realities.

I think that at the end of the day what it comes down to is that any relationship in which gender differences, biological ties and the necessity of both sexes doesn't play a primary role is fundamentally different from marriage as it has always been practiced (and yes, this includes polygamy, group marriages and political marriages). And that difference will matter to society in ways which may be more harmful than we anticipate. Homosexual relationships can be good, real and even important. But it is not the same thing as a heterosexual marriage. It is the denial of these differences which I think alarm and provoke many people.

This shows that civil rights protection goes beyond immutable traits to include choices and behavior.

Not really, religious belief isn't really chosen to begin with, it is much more like an immutable trait. One cannot simply choose to no longer believe. Just doesn't work. For another discrimination statutes are written in terms of membership in a religion, not actions or beliefs(to do otherwise would put the state in the position of determining what is acceptable doctrine in a particular church). There is certainly no statutory protection for religiously motivated actions in general. And even if you want to claim that the anti-discrimination ordinances protect behavior you are still equating SSM with one our deepest and most profound freedoms and the one of the very bedrocks of our western heritage.

"If someone had expressed the opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman last April, would you have felt 'attacked'?"

Not personally, but yes. I know a lot of gay and lesbian couples. Many are raising their children together. Marriage gives a ton of legal and societal protections to the children. Just a few examples: Child support upon divorce or separation. Death benefits for the child. Health insurance. Legal adoption (in some states). Etc. By taking away the legal right to marriage, the anti-marriage movement is very much "attacking" the marriages of these families. In states where same ex marriage is not legal, the anti-marriage movement is very much "attacking" these families.

Look, this battle was lost when we lost the strong societal stigma on premarital sex. Once that stigma was lost, people can get away with pretty much all the sex outside of marriage they want. The question then becomes, do we want gay people to have lots of partners and lots of extramarital sex, or do we think society is better off if gay people settle down in monogamous relationships?

The Religious Right condemned promiscuous homosexuality for decades. Now many gay people want to be non-promiscuous and settle down, and the Religious Right says, "no, we prefer you to stay promiscuous."

Also, given that many gay couples are raising kids together, the question becomes, do we want to deny those children the legal protections of marriage?

Finally, in order to get some of the protections of marriage, gay couples are normalizing a whole set of legal contracts, estate planning techniques, and non-marital child support theories. Call this, "Marriage Lite." Marriage Lite doesn't get them all the way, but it gets them closer than just living together. Marriage Lite is available for heterosexual couples who don't want the full responsibilities of marriage. And the techniques become more normalized the more they are used. So,ironically, *denying* marriage to gays actually hurts heterosexual marriage.

Hurting children. Encouraging promiscuity. Weakening heterosexual marriage. I guess you could call that a "triumvirate" of success for the pro-Proposition 8 movement.

me, there's a lot to talk about in your last couple of posts. I regret that this particular topic is about to fall off the screen, because that would be an interesting discussion. I think I'm going to save it for the brand new post on the same subject that Rod has just put up. But I did want to acknowledge the thought and effort you put into explaining your position on this. I appreciate that and it has clarified a couple of things for me--assuming I understand you, of course. Perhaps we'll get into that later! ; )

1:24 post was me.

Religious faith is not a choice. I cannot choose to believe or disbelieve (though one can, as I once did, to deny what I believed or disbelieved).

You personally know how much of your beliefs you assert or hold onto by willpower. Willpower being desire that some particular article be true, coupled to crippled or deficient intellectual analysis of its actual truth content.

Id say that on the evidence of the latter, a good amount of the former can be safely inferred.

Right now, the faith of some that "gay marriage" is part of "connecting souls" is limited to the point of proscription in the state of California.

You could, you know, actually ask some bisexual people and judge the proposition on the basis of concrete evidence. Smarm is fun, but so cheap and degrading.