March 05, 2004
Gay Marriage Debate: Truth & Lies Vol. 1
In the aftermath of President Bush’s support for an Amendment to ban Gay Marriage, I vowed to fight this intolerant diversionary tactic, by educating the public (especially heteros!) and arming like-minded individuals with accurate, fact-based research on wide ranging subjects dealing with the gay lifestyles.
I will also bring to the reader’s attention, examples of lies, misinformation and hatred, perpetrated by those on the Right.
TRUTH
The results of a 2002 Stanford Univ. study of heterosexual attitudes towards gays and lesbians:
73% know openly gay people
98% either have an openly gay family member or feel a loved one is gay
85% of Americans polled support gay rights
56% said gays could even be clergy or school teachers
73% said gays should be allowed to serve in military
From the 1999 Human Rights Campaign Report ‘The State Of The Workplace’:
Number of Fortune 500 companies with sexual-orientation nondiscrimination policies: in 1975 - 2: in 1999 - 260
Number of Fortune 500 companies that provided health insurance to domestic partners: in 1980 - 0: in 1999 - 70
Percentage of employers offering domestic partner benefits to both same-sex and opposite sex couples - 69 per cent.
First US employer to offer health insurance benefits to domestic partners of gay and lesbian employees - 'The Village Voice'
The First publicly held corporation to offer same-sex domestic partner benefits - 'Lotus'
First Major Corporation to adopt and then withdraw a policy offering domestic benefits to gay and lesbian employees - 'Perot Systems'
Number of states where more than 100 employers have policies against discrimination based on sexual orientation - 3
Number of states where no employers have been identified as having such non-discrimination policies - 5
Percentage of Americans who felt that gay men and lesbians should have equal rights in the workplace: in 1977 - 56%, in 1997 - 84%.
An email from a U.S. soldier, posted on journalist Andrew Sullivan’s weblog site:
A SOLDIER IN SPECIAL OPS: "Well ... And so it now begins. My more liberal friends told me a day like this would come, and now I am forced to eat crow. Words cannot express the hurt and anger I feel for the man's blatant constitutional and moral attack on a segment of our population. And for the still wobbly among us, make no mistake ... this is an attack... I realized long ago I am (was) a Republican solely for foreign affairs. But that's not good enough anymore. I've helped feed the Kurds in Northern Iraq, I've slept in the mud and rain to enforce peace treaties in eastern Europe, seated in 100 percent humidity in southeast Asia, and I dodged too many bullets and remote controlled bombs in and around Mosul to count. But I gladly did this (and will do it again) to protect the rights and liberties of ALL Americans, not just those of my family.
I voted for this man ... despite what my family said, despite how many times I was smeared because I am African American and (was) a Republican, despite his joy in being an anti-intellectual ... they warned me, they warned me and I didn't listen ... and now I am ashamed of myself. By all that I hold Holy it will never happen again!"
LIES
An article from the March 1, New York Times, details the efforts to sway the opinions of African-American church congregations on the Gay Marriage debate.
In my opinion, the most hostile sector of the Black community towards gays and lesbians tends to have the deeply religious (and older generation) at the core of its representation. In the community as a whole, homosexuality is much more of a taboo, unacknowledged and unspoken subject, compared to the White community. Therefore, with the exception of those with flamboyant or outwardly stereotypical mannerisms, gays and lesbians are much more likely to move and exist between two worlds.
The article details the efforts of Ms. Genevieve Wood of the Family Research Council, and her ‘impassioned’ plea to Black churches to oppose Gay Marriage. She’s quoted:
“They are wrapping themselves in the flag of civil rights," said Ms. Wood, who is white, as visitors from across the country shook their heads in dismay. "I can make arguments against that. But not nearly like you all can."
Actually making the argument should be the crux of her ‘impassioned’ plea, but she doesn’t (or can’t?). Heritage Foundation funded social Conservative groups like hers, have never courted, wanted nor needed Black support before. So, how honorable is their cause, when they show up at Sunday service, only seeking to exploit and pander to the ignorant, homophobic and intolerant nature of a crowd, they know so well?
Even more incredulous, is a quote from a Chicago minister:
"If the K.K.K. opposes gay marriage, I would ride with them," said the Rev. Gregory Daniels, organizer of the Chicago event, taking a far more provocative stance than the vast majority of black — or white — clergy members speaking out on the issue.”
Like many black churches, Rev. Daniels will find many gays and lesbians among his choir and congregation. I wonder what their reaction will be to his comments? And, I will not hesitate to call Rev. Daniels what he really is – a hypocrite! Here is a man who represents and leads a congregation and community that is ravaged by violence, drugs, alcoholism, infidelity, illegitimate births and an ever-increasing rate of HIV infection.
And, Gay Marriage causes him to make such an outrageous statement?
Posted by Bert M. Caradine at March 5, 2004 11:35 PMBert:
My concern with gay marriage is that it broadens the definition. If the definition is broadened some (as in to include same sex marriage) then there is no way to know that the limit will stop there. There is no difference logically between same sex marriage and polygamy.
I would almost prefer to do away with civil marriage all together, as a civil ceremony. Leave marriage to the churches, and hand out marriage certificates as civil ceremonies. Allowing same sex marriage to me is the first step in destroying marriage all together.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 5, 2004 11:51 PMCraig,
The whole ‘slippery slope’ argument (disengenious, in my book) was once used to uphold the interracial marriage ban.
I suspect you believe we live in such a permissive society, where officially sanctioned polygamy (very hetero!) is a real possibility.
How can the actions of two non-straight people in love, who represent about 10% of our population and who are non-Mormon, fulfill your prophecy? Your concerns should be focused on Hugh Hefner and his seven girlfriends.
Allowing same sex marriage to me is the first step in destroying marriage all together.
Sure, you don’t wanna take this one back? Here’s what beat us to the punch:
Infidelity
Alcoholism
Gambling
Drugs
Violence
Craig said:
There is no difference logically between same sex marriage and polygamy.
Quick logic class: Polygamy is a one to many relationship. It is the condition of having more than one spouse at one time.
Legal marriage is a one to one relationship. Only one spouse.
Logically there is a huge difference.
Now I have a question for you. Precisely how does a commitment between two consenting adults “destroy marriage”? No generalities and over reaching statements please. I want a concrete example.
Why does “Gay Marriage” potentially destroy marriage all together, and not divorce?
The Right has filled this debate with meaningless scare tactics. Just give me the facts.
Posted by: Al Maline at March 6, 2004 12:52 AMBert:
I can’t argue with the last part of your response. I do believe in the first part. I call it “same sex” marriage. From a gay point of view, I can see how you want it to stop there. But from a society point of view, once marriage is opened, you cannot predict where it will go.
Why should two brothers who are hetrosexual have never married not now be married? (incest). They have all of the same legal problems a gay couple does. Or a brother and sister. Why not more that one partner? And if that is the case why not a husband and a wife?? Why does it have to be romantic? Why not for business reasons?
I do think we are moving to a point where marriage will be diminished to the point where it is just a civil union. That is the direction we are moving to, for all the reasons you mentioned plus same sex marriage.
As someone who does faith based weddings from time to time, I may not sign marriage licences anymore. I might write up a faith based “covenant” and then have the couple go down and pick up a license and have someone else do the civil part.
Craig
Craig -
From your end of the debate I hear nothing but the ‘Why?’ of conjecture and how victimless laws should be enforced to it’s fullest.
Ok, I’ll play along. Gay marriage leads to the demand for equal treatment by those who practice incest, polygamy, etc.
Now, put them thru the same wringer of the Right, the Heritage Foundation funded social Conservative groups, Gary Bauer, Rev. Falwell and every Republican dominated Red State legge.
If there was truly a seperation of church and state, treatment as second class citizens would not be trumped by intolerant religious beliefs when it came to the law.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at March 6, 2004 02:07 AMAl:
Your question of exactly how does same sex marriage “destroy marriage” is an excellent one. I for the life of me cannot argue from a civil right or moral point of view why if the definition of marriage if broadened from a man and a woman, to same sex, why it shouldn’t be broadened further. Why not allow two hetrosexual brothers or two heterosexual sisters or a brother or sister with NO ROMANTIC INTENT to get married. They could greatly benefit for many of the same reasons the gay community mentions.
I also cannot argue as to why unions need to be between only two people. Marriage has already been greatly diminished due to divorce, adultery etc. If we continue in the direction we are heading, “marriage” of the future, looks very similar to what we are calling “civil union” today.
Craig
Craig,
Historically marriage rarely had any romantic intent. It was done for political gain, obtaining land or wealth, securing partnerships or fealty. This is why many cultures of the world still practice arranged marriages. How many marriages in the U.S. were done to expedite an immigrants travels. I think it would be very romantic to insist that romance was a requirement for marriage. Just remember that heterosexuals don’t have a lock on romance.
Al
Posted by: Al Maline at March 6, 2004 12:48 PMwhy is it that all my fellow hetero’s always jump to the deviant polygamy, bestiality, etc when talking about gay people getting married?
who are you people?
fact is that we hetero’s get married on tv to strangers for a million dollars, then get annulled,
the divorce rate is over 50% before 5 years of marriage,
usually happening within the first two years of marriage.
vegas….need i say more….
most incest and family sexual abuse comes from heterosexual households
marriage has it’s problems kids….and if two men or two women want to get married….let em….we got our own issues to deal with.
Posted by: rob at March 6, 2004 02:41 PMAl:
I agree. And when viewed from a “public policy” viewpoint, quite frankly “romance” or how people “feel” about each other is none of our business. I use the term “same sex marriages” to define what is happening for the very reason you state. We do not know if people of the same sex who want a marriage license are gay any more than we know if a man and a woman getting married are heterosexual.
My basic concern with same sex marriages is that there are many unintended consequences. The end of the road it seems to me is the end of traditional marriage, and the beginning of civil unions between consenting adults of more than one. (meaning two or more adults in a legal agreement of some sort).
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 6, 2004 02:43 PMCraig,
I think I understand your point better now. But would it be such a bad thing if Marriage was defined strictly as a religious term, while the State only recognized Civil Unions as having legal meaning. There are many reasons that are good for society to encourage non-sexual Civil Unions. For example, un-married or widowed elderly siblings (or friends) who need to establish supportive relationships. But I think these types of relationships strengthen society, not damage “Marriage”.
Also, I think much of the hyped scare tactics of “Men are going to marry boys” coming from the Right are unconscionable. There will still be laws restricting unhealthy or damaging relationships.
Posted by: Al Maline at March 6, 2004 03:32 PM[Immature comment deleted by Editor.]
Posted by: William Junery at March 6, 2004 08:31 PMIf we follow Craig’s logic, then we should have never invented marriage in the first place, since that would open up a whole line of things with the first being same-sex marriage. Come on, that is a ridiculous logic to begin with…
People should stop having kids because if they do then they might grow up to become criminals, right? And women shouldn’t have been allowed to vote because then everyone will want to vote. That sort of logic is the antithesis to what America stands for in the first place.
As for same-sex marriage — why do people feel it is right to discriminate against gays or lesbians due to their sexual orientation. This is very much a civil rights issue at it’s heart. Equal rights for all.
Posted by: Anthony at March 6, 2004 11:25 PMAl:
I think my arguement is that civily marriage has sooooo many definitions. All of which a partcular society might adopt. There is far more case history of polygamy being a part of marriage than same sex marriage. Civily if I have a “civil union” then I get the civil privileges there of. I save “marriage” for my church. That way I can define marriage excactly the way I believe.
Seriously, in a pluralistic society, is there another way to do it without infringing on someone’s rights?
If we grant “domestic parters” and “same sex” unions, then why would we deny a hetero sexual brother and sister who for for there own nonromantic reasons the same privileges??
Just some thoughts,
Craig
Posted by: craig holmes at March 7, 2004 12:11 AMThe messege thread above further fuels my inner beliefs of our ever changing world and that a rooted mentality of my URL is soo instilled in those whom are clingning, fighting, building and hating human evolution.. No matter what a hetro’s opinion is of gayness, it will not detter the beliefs of being gay is about being anti life. rahter, being very confuzed of who we are as individuals and our most basic “root” purpose in the CIRCLE of LIFE of reproducing! Dont get me wrong, i do have gay friends, i work with people whom I know are gay. i respect them in the same ways as i respect everyone else. I’v often chatted about the gay issues, have done more listening, obserbing, analyzing of the opinions of people from all walks of life, and yet always ponder the thoughts and beliefs we have regarding life itself. my belief, is that of life and every single process of it! I am a man, husband —> and father to which my circle of life will be complete when becoming a grandparent, to see my own “genes”, my “own” kin
grow and live on and pass on, that which was essentially passed on to me. for me, gayness does not belong, it does not “fit” into life because it cannot survive a single generation on its own without, in someway, utilizing the one thing that could never happen naturally in a gay only community, reproduction, using your sexual organ for what its most basic and primary purpose of existing, is for, creating life..
although still young, I’v life does manage to weed things out as it mingles with evolution.
byteminer,
I think you’ll find it interesting a former President expressed the exact same sentiment as your last post:
I am certainly not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and
constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the
progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more
enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners
and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must
advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to
wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to
remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
___Taken from a letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816
A quote from Pres. Jefferson, engraved on his Washington monument.
