SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Until Logic Did Them Apart

POLITICS MAY 28, 2009

Until Logic Did Them Apart

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

Beauty pageant contestant Carrie Prejean, asked about gay marriage a few weeks ago, summed up her view this way: "In my country and in my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman." It's a pretty simple answer--what you'd expect, intellectually, from someone who had just successfully completed a bikini walk rather than a dissertation on the topic at hand.

Around the same time, Rudy Giuliani framed his own thinking in similar terms: "Marriage, I believe, both traditionally and legally, has always been between a man and a woman and should remain between a man and woman." (In Giuliani's case, he means a man and one woman at a time, though some romantic overlap may be unavoidable.)

Gay marriage opponents have made that formulation their mantra. It's a really strange way for them to summarize their argument, because it's not an argument at all. If we're debating health care, one side will have a line about big government, and the other will have a line about the uninsured or spiraling costs. If we're debating torture, advocates will mention the need to make terrorists talk, and opponents will invoke American values. Soundbites, by their nature, can't express much logical nuance, but they do tend to give you a reason to agree with the position.

The anti-gay-marriage soundbite, by contrast, makes no attempt at persuasion. It's like saying you oppose the Bush tax cuts because "I believe the top tax rate should be 39.6 percent." You believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman? Okay! But why?

The ubiquity of this hollow formulation tells us something about the state of anti-gay-marriage thought. It's a body of opinion held largely by people who either don't know why they oppose gay marriage or don't feel comfortable explicating their case.

In a liberal society, consenting adults are presumed to be able to do as they like, and it is incumbent upon opponents of any such freedom to demonstrate some wider harm. The National Organization for Marriage, on its website, instructs its activists to answer the who-gets-harmed query like so: "Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that's who." Former GOP Senator Rick Santorum, arguing along similar lines, has said, "[I]f anybody can get married for any reason, then it loses its special place."

Both these arguments rest upon simple tautologies. Expanding a right to a new group deprives the rest of us of our right to deny that right to others. If making a right less exclusive devalues it, then any extension of rights is an imposition upon those who were not previously excluded--i.e., women's suffrage makes voting less special for men.

Another objection holds that gay marriage would weaken the link between marriage and child-rearing, therefore encouraging out-of-wedlock births. If true, this would at least provide some weight on the scale against gay marriage. But it suffers from two massive flaws. First, it's hard to imagine how the tiny gay minority's behavior can materially influence the way the vast majority of heterosexuals view marriage. Second, if you think about it, the causality gay-marriage opponents imagine is running the wrong way.

Suppose we had a social epidemic of young adults who moved back into their parents' houses and watched television all day rather than finding a job. You might want to strengthen the link between adulthood and work. You'd be concerned about anything that weakened this link by letting adults not work--say, early retirement. But you wouldn't be concerned about the social signals sent by teenagers finding summer jobs. That would be weakening the link between adulthood and work, but not in the harmful way.

Likewise, marriage proponents might worry about anything that expands childbearing to the non-married, but they have no reason to fear expanding marriage to the non-childbearing. This is why approximately zero people in the history of the human race have ever expressed concern about allowing old or otherwise infertile heterosexuals to marry, even though they account for a far larger percentage of marriages than gays ever could.

The most striking thing about anti-gay-marriage arguments is that they dwell exclusively on how heterosexuals would be affected. Heather Mac Donald of the conservative Manhattan Institute writes, "I fear that it will be harder than usual to persuade black men of the obligation to marry the mother of their children if the inevitable media saturation coverage associates marriage with homosexuals."

I suppose you could imagine, somewhere, a black man telling his friends he's going to propose to his pregnant girlfriend, only to be taunted, "Marriage? That's so gay," and think better of it. I don't find this very likely. Neither does Mac Donald, actually. "[I]f someone can persuade me that the chances are zero, then I would be much more sanguine," she writes. "But anything more than zero, I am reluctant to risk."

This is the One Percent Doctrine of social policy. If you place zero weight upon the preferences of gays, then all you have to do is suggest a possible harm, however remote, associated with gay marriage. The same sensibility was on stark display in a recent National Review editorial. Dismissing the argument that marriage might foster more stable gay relationships, the magazine's editors replied curtly, "[T]hese do not strike us as important governmental goals." There's a word for social policy that disregards the welfare of one class of citizens: discrimination.

Some hard-core conservatives are willing to openly discriminate like this, but most people aren't, which is why public opinion is warming to gay marriage. Most opposition arises from simple discomfort. When I first started hearing about gay marriage, I didn't oppose it, but it seemed sort of strange and radical--and only after several years did I realize I supported it.

The line "I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman" is an expression of that sensibility--a reflection of unease rather than principle. As people face up to the fact that opposing gay marriage means disregarding the happiness of the people most directly (or even solely) affected by it, most of us come around. Good ideas don't always defeat bad ideas, but they usually, over time, defeat non-ideas.

Jonathan Chait is a senior editor of The New Republic.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 156 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

156 comments

When listing various people who have taken the "I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman" position, Chait didn't mention the most prominent person: Barack Obama. I'm an Obama supporter on many issues, but on gay marriage, I think he falls into the same nonthinking that Chait describes or he's being untruthful for political advantage. In either case, Obama isn't up to his usual standard on gay marriage.

- Joanne Barkan

May 28, 2009 at 12:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait seems to be conflating several issues. For those making a serious argument, insisting on the traditional definition of marriage is a response to the narrow issue of courts imposing same-sex marriage undemocratically in the name of equal protection. Invoking tradition points out that the courts are radically redefining a term that was clearly understood across time and cultures. It would be as if the courts redefined freedom of speech to include freedom of assault, since striking someone is also a form of expression. Never mind that there is a longstanding tradition making a clear distinction between speech and actions. Calling marriage a "right" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the word. Asking the state for formal recognition of an arrangement among individuals is not a right. There is no more of a right to marry than there is for a business to incorporate. Chait is right that marriage has been seriously weakened by factors other than homosexuals. No-fault divorce and the sexual revolution have arguably done more damage. Those that oppose same-sex marriage are defending what is left of marriage. Stanley Kurtz has done excellent research on the social impact of same-sex marriage, studying the consequences in Scandinavia. Summarizing his main points: Same-sex marriage further divorces marriage from procreation, so couples are less likely to see marriage as necessary to have children. The political movements that introduces same-sex marriage also won the full benefits of marriage for cohabiting couples, further reducing incentives to get married. Cohabiting couples break up at twice the rate of married couples. In the Netherlands, over half of children are born out of wedlock, and at this point a majority of young couples choose not to get married, even after having a second child. The effects are a bit indirect, but same-sex marriage leads to a substantial increase in the family dissolution rate. This is sufficient grounds to oppose it as a matter of policy, once you get past the disingenuous rhetoric about "rights."

- TWJ

May 28, 2009 at 1:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Unfortunately, this advancement of homosexual's rights is something that decent American leaders and current administration will not push for. Do this and the cultural warriors in the Congress will start a fight and then paralysis on all policy fronts. Obama won't risk it when there are too many other critical issues. The only way homosexual marriage to become accepted is through people power and common sense. The opponents of homosexual marriages and homosexuals in the army (a very critical issue in my view) only have nothing but prejudice on their side. They might as well come out their closets and say "I oppose gay marriage because I don't like homosexuals and I said so."

- Anonymous

May 28, 2009 at 1:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Since he is such a logical thinker, I am still waiting for Mr. Chait to explain what "gay marriage" has to do with gay poeple's freedom, or even preferences. Civil marriage is an instrument of public policy, not a sacrament. It reflects the state's interest in the family as the founding cell of society. Public policy has no interest whatsoever in people's sexual and romantic relationships per se. Conversely, people's relationships are not in the least in need of being recognized by the state in order to fully express themselves. So tell me again what is the public's interest in the fact that two people live together? Historically, the only motivation for civil marriage has been the fact that IN THE AGGREGATE heterosexual couples serve the social purpose of generating and raising children. Take that away and marriage is a perfectly useless institution. Footnote: I wrote "in the aggregate" in capitals because at this point in the discussion there is always some dimwit who starts hyperventilating that there are heterosexual couples who do not want or cannot have children. To which the rational answer is "so what"? Go hunt them down and take away whatever fiscal benefits they get from marriage if you care. I don't...

- Carlo

May 28, 2009 at 1:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Straw man here. The reason marriage should be between a man and a woman is to provide offspring of the marriage with a mother and a father. There is abundant evidence as to why that is preferable to other arrangements. This little article is self-indulgent, making no effort to understand the position it attacks. It thus misses the obvious.

- Lisa

May 28, 2009 at 1:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Logic does not control this argument. If it did, spinster sisters should be allowed to marry. It is true that they cannot have children, and are unlikely to have sex, but so what: many elderly couples are in the same boat. Why should the sisters be denied the legal benefits of marriage if they love each other and marriage would reduce the societal burden of care and support? This argument fails for some reason other than logic. I'm not sure what it is, but I suspect it has something to do with domesticating men and the instinct that only women can do it.

- Mike Porter

May 28, 2009 at 1:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow, where to start? First, you begin your article by asserting that all people who oppose gay marriage are shallow and/or thoughtless. Your choice of exemplars of traditional marriage suits your construction of a straw man quite well. However, it doesn't hold up when compared with reality. A majority of Californians from all walks of life, political affiliations, religious backgrounds and ethnicities voted against gay marriage. A majority of Californians also voted for Barack Obama. Do the math: not all of us are twenty-two year old blonds or wealthy politicians with questionable judgment. Next, you claim that there is no argument to be made against expanding the definition and practice of marriage in America. Another claim easily refuted. I would argue that governments don't have the right to marry individuals. However, governments do have the obligation to ensure that all citizens have equal rights. Therefore, from this point on, and perhaps retroactively, all marriages issued by any government entity must be re-defined as civil unions. The rights would be the same for all and so would the name we use. Then, if someone wished to be married in a religious ceremony that would be their choice. A positive benefit of this approach could be a rise in church attendance and the formation of new churches and possibly even faiths. Last, you don't ever attempt to make an argument yourself. Instead, you just pulled together some juicy quotes and proceeded to insult anyone who doesn't completely agree with your point of view. I challenge you to write an argument that I can't take apart when I'm half asleep. By the way, I'm a Democrat, I voted for Obama, I donated to his campaign and my hair isn't blond.

- bluebird1787

May 28, 2009 at 3:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You nailed the value conservatives put on gay lives: zero. It is well worth it to them to exclude, harrass, bash, and ban the 3-4% of the population that is gay if it results one fewer person "choosing" to be gay. We all remember how they reacted when AIDS appeared, the smug pleasure they took in gay deaths as proving god's will against homosexual lives. More recently I can't get the picture of those 12 and 13 year old boys who committed suicide from gay taunting out of my head, but people like Heather Mac Donald and the Mormons (who appear to be the primary funders of the National Organization for Marriage) put the value of those lives at exactly zero.

- BigPacific

May 28, 2009 at 6:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bill O'Reilly recently lamented in his column that, with the increasing acceptance of gay marriage, there would now be no way to prevent any and all forms of eccentric unions, from fathers marrying daughters to polygamy. Note to all who share this view: there has NEVER been any social change in the whole of human history -- none, nada, ANYWHERE -- whether for good or bad, that did not have a constituency of some kind behind it. It does not have to be a majority constituency (although that obviously helps), but it does have to be at least a significant minority that is willing to be vocal and tenacious over a reasonably long period of time. Where is there today ANY such constituency for underage or incestuous marriage, polygamy, etc.? The answer is that the ONLY such constituencies are -- ironically, in light of how conservatives tend to bow respectfully at the very mention of religion -- in two religious communities: the hard-line right-wing section of the LDS Church (for polygamy), and the world of Islam (for both underage marriage AND polygamy; the marriage age for girls in Iran is an unspeakably low nine years). But, among non-LDS people and non-Muslims, nothing. So rest assured, O'Reillys of the world: whatever the other merits (or lack thereof) of gay marriage, until you see an actual constituency emerge for the rest of the items on this particular "slippery slope", nothing is going to change. Don't you feel better now? (And doesn't it at least give you pause that -- in a development that would have drawn gales of laughter at the mere suggestion of itself ten years ago -- IOWA has legalized gay marriage before California?)

- helios

May 28, 2009 at 7:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, but heterosexuality is better.

- Proteus

May 28, 2009 at 7:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Human sexuality often flusters people. It rises up out of the deep end of the pool....The murky and the turbulent parts that are the id, the libido....the Dionysian impulses that can unravel an Apollonian life in the blink of an eye. And homosexuality is particularly uncomfortble for many because they refuse to see anything other than the sex itself. Gay men and women are reduced down TO sex. And it is hardly a coincidence the most virulently homophopic people are conservatives. Conservatives fear sex [gay or otherwise] because sexual narratives can and do dangle you over that precipice that is the id and libido...The atavistic, savage, base, beastial urges and complusions that we share in common with all other animals. We are, after all, naked apes. Conservatives then tame this [or try to] with God, with "civilization", with words said to encompass what is proper, tasteful, cultivated, dignified, mannered, sedate, decorous. At the same time, it should not surprise us when the Ted Haggards, the Mark Foleys or the Larry Craigs etc. trip, stumble and fall over their own hypocrisy. I don't believe people should be "outed" for sexual proclivities that take place between consenting adults. But there are ambiguous contexts, right? For example, a man or a women might pursue sexual relationships outside their marriage [or commited monogamous relationship] that results in a STD. They can then transmit this disease to partners who believe they are being faithful. Also, there are situations where someone in a position of power...a legislator, say...champions heterosexual relationships and pursues a political agenda that is detrimental to gays. This sort of hypocrisy needs to be outed, in my view. george walton

- george walton

May 28, 2009 at 8:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yawn. Do you realize that only people you agree with are even remotely interested in your stuff, Mr. Chait. You are Limbaugh. You are Hannity. It would be refreshing to hear what YOU think, rather than how horrible those icky conservatives are. Not holding my breath, though.

- Bob

May 28, 2009 at 9:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait failed to mention one very major, and very valid, objection to gay marriage. For people of faith who believe in the word as stated in the Bible--which is a rather large percentage of the population of the US and by far the majority in the Bible Belt--homosexuality is a sin. It is fatally impossible to leave out the religious point of view of millions of Americans and then say there is no valid argument against gay marriage. What Chait has said, without actually using the words, is that a person's religious belief has no merit. He will get a groundswell of opposition on this one.

- Lrobb

May 28, 2009 at 9:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Another symptom of the contentlessness of the anti-gay marriage position is its vacant historizing, its claim that the institution of marriage as we know it is very very old and so ought not to be tampered with. Which is a bit like saying that because all organized societies have had some form of taxation, we can't make any adjustments to tax policy without risking the ultimate collapse of leadership and obedience. Leaving aside the Biblical patriarchs among their many wives, the rights associated with marriage have been in constant flux through the centuries, even in a narrowly-circumscribed Western cultural context. If there is a tendency, it is toward the elimination of differences - in the rights to own property, initiate divorce, or claim the children - between spouses. The main force of the analogy with anti-miscegenation laws rests not on the abstract coincidence between African-Americans and homosexuals as objects of discrimination - these groups, to the extent that they are distinct, have very different histories and face very different challenges, as is clear enough in the cases where they aren't distinct - but rather rests on the fact that fundamental parameters of the marriage relation were altered within the memory of a generation - over wide local resistance but to eventual general approval. My guess is that most opponents of gay marriage see it as a visible marker identifying a much larger historical process in which the formal abstraction of contract replaces the material substance of lived communal relations. That may be a bad thing - we in the West have been whining about it for quite a while, though we haven't been willing to impede it - but it is a much much larger issue than gay marriage, which, as soon as it appears (in Holland, in Massachusetts) pretty soon stops being an issue at all. What opponents of gay marriage are really conceding is that they need a version of committed love that can't be married in order for marriage to have a discernible social profile. Perhaps this explains the other aspect of this "debate" that is so odd: while activists on both sides pontificate and advertise, a lot of supporters of gay marriage who aren't gay, (such as myself; I'm only generalizing over those whom the shoe fits), actually don't care about it very much one way or the other; we think it's none of our business. Our emotionally empty (though real) support meets their intellectually vacant (though real) opposition, and marriage continues to evolve. That's because marriage is not in fact the heart of society, but a blush upon the surface of its skin. History is made elsewhere.

- Jim McFarland

May 28, 2009 at 9:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I trust Steve Schmidt and Ted Olsen will make use of this line of reasoning.

- Peter

May 28, 2009 at 9:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perhaps you're overlooking the most common underlying reason that many people oppose gay marriage, viz., that their religions and cultures have instructed them that it's morally wrong.

- Tim Graham

May 28, 2009 at 10:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If these anti-gay-marriage people were truly concerned about the solidity of marriage they'd be on a fiery crusade against spousal abuse, yet you never read anything about this. The way it comes off, between spousal abuse between heterosexuals and gay marriage between homosexuals, they'd favor the former, sadly enough.

- kevincollins

May 28, 2009 at 10:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If gay marriage should be legalized on the grounds of 'consenting adults' then what is the principled argument for opposing decriminalization of polygamy and incest. And in case this argument seems alarmist, look at the Netherlands on the polygamy issue.

- Jason

May 28, 2009 at 10:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Some religions also say drinking is morally wrong but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Public policy is not, nor should it ever be, based on religious belief.

- csmiller

May 28, 2009 at 11:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jon: here's a hodgepodge of problems I have with your analysis. You conflate two different points (and I have little doubt that the conflation is intentional): 1) If someone asks me to define marriage, I would say the union of a man and a woman, and 2) If someone asked why I am against gay marriage, I would give a more detailed explanation--just as Ms. California did. She did say, "...that was how I was raised." A reasonable person would quote her more fully. I mean, there were probably some talks with parents and some sermons which formed her opinion about this issue--hence, how she was "raised". Did you expect her to give a dissertation on the costs and benefits of gay marriage when she answered a question in a beauty pageant? In short, maybe we should know what exactly the question is, and, more fully quote the answers given........ Also, as several here have noted, you have decoupled opposition to gay marriage from religion. Uhhh, that would be a fatal flaw. Or, you can admit now that religious folk are idiots--including most of our elected leaders (including the President)......... You ignore social scientists who have provided data to strengthen their opposition to gay marriage. If I wanted, I could find 10 organizations that believe polygamy is a right(multiple consenting adult partners) and is no different, and even more appropriate, than gay marriage....... If you want all the rights of marriage, there is an avenue: civil unions. If a church wants to "marry" you, fine. There are honest people who have differing perspectives on both sides of this debate. Scroll up: I would say a strong majority believe the last three sentences I wrote. But they also believe you cannot appropriate the word "marriage." They're saying enough is enough. Tradition and definitions matter........ I don't believe you approach this subject with an ounce of tolerance for those with whom you disagree. I don't believe you are intellectually honest in your presentation. If you were, you would not selectively scorn today's liberal's favorite pinata and excuse your movement's standard bearer for believing exactly the same thing.

- malwords

May 28, 2009 at 11:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fortunately this is the United States of America and people's individual religious and cultural beliefs have to accommodate those of their fellow citizens. I'm sure there were a great number of people in earlier decades who believed that their religion and culture made it impossible for them to support interracial marriage or the rights of particular minorities, indeed just as many people in the nineteenth century found religious justification for slavery as those who opposed it. Just because certain religious or cultural beliefs are held does not mean they will not change, nor just it necessarily make any discrimination valid.

- Pnaut

May 28, 2009 at 11:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm surprised, and disappointed, at the thinness of your thinking here, Chait. You load the deck with weak arguments, then decry how weak the arguments are. I'd say most folks who deplore homosexual marriage are concerned that legalizing it will debase the culture. As Tim Graham says, they believe it's morally wrong, because it runs against the grain of their religious beliefs. I've also seen eloquent arguments that build an anti-gay marriage case based on concerns for the welfare of children raised by parents of the same sex. The fact that you don't agree with the pro Prop 8 folks doesn't mean their positions are without a certain internal logic. Heck, I don't agree with them, either. Oh, another thing. Your pedagogic, condescending presentation – walking the unenlightened through their every laps in reasoning and mistaken belief – is unappealing. And smacks of self-satisfaction. You're not doing our side, or yourself, any favors by writing a column that is so poorly reasoned. It's something the right can legitimately hold up as a stereotypical product of the blinkered, snide, elitist left. I'm disappointed, as I normally agree with you, and enjoy your writing.

- Joel MaHarry

May 28, 2009 at 11:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is a homosexual couple's love for each other less than that of a straight couple's? I am not gay, but I would believe the answer is no. Is the purpose of marriage strictly to have and raise children, or is it to affirm one's love for another and reap some tax benefits? I would say the later. So by not allowing gays to marry are we reducing their love for each other, and denying them the same benefits that married couples get? It sounds like it. Some people say 'civil unions' are the answer. That sounds a lot like 'separate but equal'. We all know how that worked out.

- Stephen

May 28, 2009 at 11:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree, 16, that the true reason many people oppose gay marriage is because they feel they religion dictates that they oppose it. Of course, no one will ever come out and say this because of that little "separation of church and state" thing. If the anti-gay marriage movement admitted that the ONLY reason why gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to marry is because the Bible says so, then we will see laws banning same sex marriage falling left and right. Consequently, gay marriage opponents have come up with all sorts of pretextual "slippery slope" arguments to defend what is essentially a religious belief.

- Observer283

May 28, 2009 at 12:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As stated in reponse post 13, the most prominent objection to gay marriage is that is a sin according to The Bible. One thing to state as well, God doesn't hate the sinner but the sin. Someone mentioned above the importance of pleasing others and ensuring their happiness. Isn't clear for us to see as a Country the importance of marriage to remain between one man and one woman? The family as we know it will dive into a more serious state that may never be recovered. Others above are more educated than me I can tell; however, I hope I've made clear sense on the issue. Thank you

- JLC

May 28, 2009 at 12:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The people making the religious argument don't seem overly bothered by the other teachings of Jesus of Nazareth that they find inconvenient. The accumulation of wealth placing you further from him (camels and eye of a needle and all that) and gluttony being two that immediately come to mind. In the US, marriage is a relationship, recognised by the state that confers a number of rights that are denied to the non-married. In fact, a number doesn't due it justice, the list is large. It has nothing to do with raising offspring. And letting gays get married is not going to affect heterosexual's decisions to get married one jot; I believe there was a substantial take-down of Kurtz's work in these pages not too long ago.

- Nari224

May 28, 2009 at 12:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow, lrobb is an idiot. First of all, Chait was focusing on LOGICAL arguments. the religious argument, however internally valid it may be, is one from faith and authority, not logic. Further, the same biblical arguments can be made against (trivially) the eating of pork and shellfish, and (more substantively) against most divorce and against all remarriage. All of the above by the way, are what I practice. So if I want to create a law that forces lrobb to obey the dictates of my conscience, as guided by the bible, what's the response? By lrobb's logic, any objection to a religiously-based law must be unfair in some way. Okay. Put down that BLT, lrobb!!!!

- miceelf

May 28, 2009 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Also - while civil unions would serve well from a practical perspective, I understand why a gay marriage proponents are not interested in "separate but equal" recognition. However since the opponents of gay marriage tend to also oppose civil unions, or at least don't strongly propose them as a compromise, it's not clear that it's marriage that they're actually defending.

-

May 28, 2009 at 12:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malwords, I call bs: social scientists have not, in fact, "provided data to strengthen their opposition to gay marriage"- quite the opposite. most social science research demonstrates that gay marriage is, from the perspective of child development, a completely value-neutral proposition. JLC- not really- eating pork is a sin in the bible. Want to outlaw that? Didn't think so.

- miceelf

May 28, 2009 at 12:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But if certain businesses are aloud to incorporate and others aren't based on sexual orientation, that would be unfair; therefore such discrimination is illegal. Getting recognition from the state is most certainly a right. Slaves fought for the right to be recognized by the government as more than just 3/5 of a person. Also, if marriage is a term clearly defined and clearly understood, then why in 2004 was there such a push to define marriage as exclusively between a man & a woman? It's true that in religious arenas, marriage has always been viewed as between man and woman or in the case of polygamy: one man and many women. But our society separates church and state and legally marriage had never been formerly defined as an institution only heterosexuals could enter into... so on what basis do you argue people were trying to "re-define" it? I am unfamiliar with these Scandinavian findings you mention and the alleged "threats" same-sex marriage poses to society and humanity so I can't speak on that portion of your post.

- Carmen Scott

May 28, 2009 at 12:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tradition is a knee jerk excuse for the feeble minded. The "absolute majority of peoples across time and culture believe that it is morally acceptable own other human beings, to kill, rape and pillage enemy civilians in warfare; that the only people who should possess political power are those who are armed; that women exist for reproductive purposes only; that one and only one religious doctrine can be tolerated in a society and anyone who disagrees should be eliminated to the catholic and correct doctrines.

- Jonathan Chin

May 28, 2009 at 12:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait, how do you respond to the religious argument of the first comment--which seems to me the basis for the assertion, "Marriage should be between a man and a woman"? Religious affirmations are frequently (if not always) axiomatic, but anyone religious will make them comfortably. "Why should marriage be between a man and a woman?" "Because my moral, religious, ethical conception says it should." You need a special kind of open mind to crack that response, one that may not agree the argument's tautologous. Or find that reason compelling.

- AR

May 28, 2009 at 12:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Many opponents of gay marriage, especially those arguing the point in the media, can tell you exactly why they are opposed. While their basis for opposition is purely scripture based they will spout off a bunch of unsubstantiated or inaccurate social science arguments. With more than 1 mill children in the US now living in single sex parent households there should be some real data on children in same sex marriages e.g. depression and suicide rates, school grades etc.... My prayer is that those numbers are positive and refute the social science arguement against gay marriage. This will put the faith based opposition in the position of making an undemocratic and child-insensitive case.

- Dan Romanelli

May 28, 2009 at 12:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Stephen: and why, exactly, should people reap tax benefits for loving each other? And why should any intelligent human being feel his love affirmed by getting a piece of paper at the county building? I am still waiting for a public-policy justification of gay marriage (or post-no-fault-divorce heterosexual marriage, for that matter) but I never seem to get one.

- Carlo

May 28, 2009 at 12:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Carlo writes: Public policy has no interest whatsoever in people's sexual and romantic relationships per se. Conversely, people's relationships are not in the least in need of being recognized by the state in order to fully express themselves. So tell me again what is the public's interest in the fact that two people live together? OK-- I will accept the challenge. If 2 gay people live together in a long-term relationship, what constitutes (for purposes of emergency notification, hospital visitation, invitation to social events, inheritance of personal property, etc. etc.) each person's "immediate family" or "spouse" ? I submit that would be the person he/she is (in most states) still unable to marry--hence there is an absence of equal protection or equality. This is entirely exclusive of childrearing, though it can also move into that area. Society apparently has a deep need to define, constitute, reform (as in Family Court) and when necessary demolish (divorce) families, with or without children. It has demonstrated that need for millenia, and the primary way it does so is through marriage. People (fertile or not) have the right, in other words, to say: this person is part of my family, and that right should not be exclusively for heterosexuals. PS- I applaud Mr. Chait for his honesty. Like him, I initially (years ago) found the idea of gay marriage made me uneasy and I went for the safe 'civil union' position. Then one day, like him,I realized it no longer bothered me. (maybe going to 2 gay weddings helped). At that point my previous position looked dishonest. Ergo: people grow, and they stop feeling queasy about new things at some point. Or so one hopes.

- david z

May 28, 2009 at 12:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would just like to point out that America is not Scandinavia, in fact Scandinavia is a collection of countries far removed from this one, and might I just add on completely different wave lengths. In this country the religious beliefs of one person do not beat out the beliefs on another. And this picking and choosing from The Bible is ridiculous, if you are going to follow the supposed word of God along the lines homosexuality then you should probably follow the words surrounding that passage. Which as I am sure you are aware, NO ONE DOES! If you are not aware, read the book of Leviticus. Marriage, today, I'm talking about the year 2009, does not mean what it did whenever you want to claim it came to be. I am pretty sure visitation rights in hospitals, and everything that defines marriage today, was not included way back when it was created. If you wanted to follow the logic on religious ideology then every person, save maybe a total of five, would be living a complete life of sin. Enough with the religious lectures. Find a suitable argument. I am pretty sure the states that allow gay marriage haven't imploded. I don't tell you about my religious beliefs, and I certainly don't want to hear about yours. They hold no water in the United States of America. Separation of church and state isn't just some side note. If you want to live in a place that has no religious freedom, and claims to have no problems with homosexuality, move to Iran.

- Kait

May 28, 2009 at 12:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let us look at the logic of the ignoramuses, bigots and trolls that now sadly blights the TNR forums closely. If marriage exists for reproduction, then informed consent, or for that matter, love, is totally irrelevant. Following this line of thinking, there is no reason not to revive Leviticus in making victims of rape marry their rapists. Divorce ought to be outlawed because irreconcilable differences in no way interferes with breeding. What is our point? It is simply: human beings who have the existential urge to be united with the people they love in a permanent, formal relationship honored by the society. To be deprived of that right is to be denied a foundemental part of being fully human, and that the fact this right is not granted to homosexuals--whose sexual perference for others of the same gender is not a crime under any law--is a mockery on the idea of America as a humane society and an insult to a people that pride themselves in being moral.

- Jonathan Chin

May 28, 2009 at 12:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Artard Chait, Some things are so obvious as to not require any explanation whatsoever - in my family, cow dung is not food. Does this need any further "dissertations" or biological evaluation of why this is so?

- jwl2672

May 28, 2009 at 1:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

First, I want to thank Chait for another good article. The volume of opposition is an indicator of how you hit your mark. Second I want to take a minute to develop the idea demanded by many commentators for an explanation why society should encourage gay marriage. My basic argument in favor of gay marriage is that it is a net social stabalizer that will provide more benefits for society at large because marriage is an inherently conservative social institution. Gay marriage encourages the spread of conservative social values in society as a whole by allowing gay people to mimic heterosexual couples. There are a host of legal rights and obligations associated with married couples, obligation of material support, right to inherit, etc... which on balance will make gay people more conservative, in the descreptive rather than political sense of that word, in that they will be legally able to take care of each other and possibly adopted children, in ways that normal families do. This process of legal care and obligation is a socially stabalizing and inherently conservative process. It will change the homosexual population for the better, make them better citizens and provide a net benefit to society. For a long time the excluded legal nature of homosexual people has made them automatic ennemies of regular social arrangements. They've had to be outliers. Now they can be part of the family network on which society and social trust is built. The strongest arguments I've heard against gay marriage have come from gay essentialists who think that gays must be excluded from the rest of society to keep their creative edge, these gay critics of gay marriage feal that gay culture will be destroyed by the institution of marriage. They might be right.

- Northern Observer

May 28, 2009 at 1:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Human sexuality often flusters people. It rises up out of the deep end of the pool....The murky and the turbulent parts that are the id, the libido....the Dionysian impulses that can unravel an Apollonian life in the blink of an eye." Well said by an earlier poster. It can also fluster us to realize that in spite of our attempts to scientifically control our lives and put everything in a tidy, Apollonian intellectual box, our biology is a fundamental truth that we have not overcome. When men and women enter into loving relationships, children are a likely result. This in spite of the pill, family planning, and all the intellectual abstraction on earth. Only men and women face the possibility of unplanned and even unwanted children. Only they require a commitment to one another that precedes this possibility and provides them and society with protection against the poverty and social problems that result from single parenthood. The risks and benefits that attach to sex are fundamentally different for a man and a woman than for a same-sex couple. Men and women are likely to procreate whether they intend to or not, as teenagers or after they have been together for 20 years. Society has always had to deal with this fundamental human issue. As a result, society has always had an interest in maintaining a father's financial and emotional commitment to his children, whether he meant to have them or not. Likewise, society has a fundamental interest in maintaining a man's responsibility to the mother of those children, who risks her health and her financial well-being to have them, and without whose participation the next generation of children would not be born in sufficient number to replace us. When these relationships break down there is an enormous cost both to the individuals involved and to society in terms of human misery, poverty and entrenched social problems. Marriage is the basic institution which society has used to address these issues. It should continue to be governed and regulated with these policy goals in mind, recognizing the roles and responsibilities of men and women in the marriage institution. (Another hint from the deep end of the pool: it should be recognized that women bear the children and should have certain rights and privileges because of that.) Or we could redefine marriage to be about "long-term relationships." Could there be anything more vapid and less in need of government intervention?

- RW

May 28, 2009 at 1:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

21 is not even remotely correct when (s)he states people's religious and cultural beliefs must accommodate those of their fellow citizens. Many Catholic Bishops have refused communion to legislators who support abortion. Why were special facilities built at significant cost in a school to accommodate a few Muslim students' ritual washing? Shouldn't those students simply be told to "accommodate"? Massachusetts Catholic Charities shut down their adoption services, thus thrusting the burden of cost onto the State, rather than go against their beliefs and put children in the homes of gay couples. How in good conscience can the Government demand an official charged with issuing marriage licenses issue one to a gay couple when that official sincerely believes s/he imperils his/her immortal soul by so doing? Especially if that official is elected by a majority of the voters. While demographics support the possibility of gay marriage a generation down the road, to force the issue before it has a clear majority of support would insure a violent Culture War. Please don't even try to equate gay rights with the Civil Rights battles of the 1960's. I was there, on my knees singing "We Shall Overcome". The majority of the US was solidly in favor of civil rights for all, and the churches led the way. He wasn't Martin King, he was the Rev. Martin Luther King. Right now the US needs to come together not become more ideologically polarized.

- Lrobb

May 28, 2009 at 1:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your religion may not permit me to marry my partner, but my religion allows it, and your 1st amendment right doesn't trump mine just because your religion may be more popular. Not all Christians believe same-sex marriage is wrong. Why do gay people want to get married? The list is endless, but it's about being treated equally in the eyes of the law. Right now, if my partner were on his death bed in a hospital, that hospital could deny me the ability to see him and spend his last few moments together, because I'm not legally part of his family. How can anyone think something like that is right? If I died, he would have to pay taxes on everything I leave to him, while our straight counterparts have inheritance rights. I don't want to flaunt my relationship, I just want to know that my partner is protected if anything should happen for me, and that he can speak with legal authority on my behalf if I am unable to speak for myself. Try as the ultra-conservatives might, denying gay people marriage isn't going to make gay people vanish. Gay people will still exist, we will still be in relationships, and we will continue to fight for equality.

- BL

May 28, 2009 at 1:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course, lots of religions don't recognize plenty of legal marriages. There are plenty of Churches, for example, that don't recognize as valid many interfaith marriages. The Catholic Church doesn't recognize re-marriages of those whose previous marriage was not annulled by the Church. But these religious groups and their members never try to change the legal definition of marriage to meet with their Church's definition. Religion is not a good explanation for resistance in this case, because people virtually never try to make the laws of marriage match up their their religion's view of marriage.

- djw

May 28, 2009 at 1:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I can absolutely defend the no gay-marriage position logically with anyone and with clarity. But why bother? It's like explaining why we call a rock a rock or why our definitional constraint for the term "planet" does not include Pluto. Especially since the other screeching side does not come back with logical debate but instead holds on to its idiotic positions for dear life. But just for the heck of it, a logical defense would go something like this Setting aside the religious aspect of marriage, marriage is a core foundation of society set to protect both male and female members. Were it not for the exclusivity of marriage, men who just had sex would not be inclined to limit themselves to one woman and women would not have the devotion of one man to care for her and her offspring. So men make the sacrifice of being able to mate with unlimited women but ensure that for this sacrifice, the children of his mate are his. To expand this foundation of marriage to include same-sex couples is to weaken its significance and its meaning in society. Admittedly, the bastions of marriage have already been stormed. From women joining the workforce, to the Pill, to casual sex, condoms, quickie divorces, and rave parties marriage is no longer what it meant to our grandparents. If same-sex marriage were to be allowed, it would not mark the beginning of the assault but the taking of the last bastion. Good job liberals, you've been along every step of the way. It's only appropriate that you lay down the final straw.

- jwl2672

May 28, 2009 at 1:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We are a secular society. Yes, religion (of all kinds)is important to a preponderance of Americans. But we live in a society with a secular form of government and secular application of secular laws. Yes, some of our legal thinking is Judeo-Christian in foundation (English common law being developed in a time of assumed religiosity). But our laws are secular. So, yes, religious views do not necessarily have a place at the table here. Sorry if that offends you, but it's a necessary check against the tyranny of a religious majority. And even the religious among us are selective in the biblical directives they choose to follow. For those of you who cite the Bible as a reason that religious folks don't like gay marriage, why don't you cite the Bible and push for laws that outlaw adultery? Why does gay marriage offend religious folks more than people who embezzle from churches or otherwise enrich themselves at parishioners' expense? Why does gay marriage offend religious types more than church fathers who abuse young parishioners? Why does gay marriage offend religious types more than the poverty, cruelty, and graft in their very own parishes? Under their very noses? Because railing against gay marriage is much easier than railing against (and doing something about)actual social ills. It's so much easier to deny others rights that have no effect on you than it is to actually get involved in your community. Between me, a gay man who wants the legal right to marry, and you, a religious conservative who would actively seek to deny that right in a secular society when you could be treating real social problems...I think I like my chances on judgment day far better than yours.

- shaw-man

May 28, 2009 at 1:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What anti- gay marriage people don't understand is the union of two people under the law is a civil affair before it is a religious affair.The union is granted by the state. If two people want to get Married in a church that is their right and it should not be taken away from them but two people of the same sex should and do have right to the same rights of union granted by the state. This anti-gay marriage arguement demonstrates why our Founding Fathers created the separation of Church and state. No country that is a democracy can be ruled by religious law. We are all equal under the law and religious doctrine as law would would make some people more equal than others

- Louis Stadlin

May 28, 2009 at 1:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As if one bunch of holier-than-thou people isn't enough, now we have another. I'm against gay marriage. I'm against heterosexual marriage. I'm against all legal and tax-code bias in favor of married people, period. Get over yourselves.

- Living Single

May 28, 2009 at 1:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Would you all please stop twisting yourselves into pretzels to justify your homophobia? Just admit "I hate faggots" and be done with it! Here, I'll help you. "I hate dumb-ass mouth-breathing breeders!!" All you straight assholes can go fuck yourselves. But please don't tell me about it. I'm a little squeemish and I'd probably vomit if I heard the details.

- Mark Dougherty

May 28, 2009 at 1:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JLC, et al: Would you support a constitutional amendment to felonize adultery? Ban shellfish? Compel women to marry their brother-in-law if their husband dies? Shut down all business on the Sabbath? I didn't think so. We as a society choose which Biblical directives to follow. So the moral absolutism wears a little thin here.

- shaw-man

May 28, 2009 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TWJ: There may be no formal "right" for a company to incorporate, but I think you'd agree that it would be unlawful for the state to only incorporate companies owned by white men. So it is with marriage licenses. When marriage licenses are handed out like candy to any otherwise qualified opposite sex couple -- regardless of the number of former marriages either party has had, regardless of the number of children each party is supporting, regardless of whether the couple met five years ago or five minutes ago -- AND hands out incredible benefits and protections at the same time; in other words, when you look at how civil marriage really works in this country, there is no rational reason to deny same-sex couples the same civil marriage licenses. We want and need to marry for all the same reasons you do: because we love each other, because we have or want to have children together, because we can't afford to pay a lawyer for all the documents that give us a just small portion of the protections civil marriage provides, because of the health insurance, because of pressure from our parents .... Everyone knows the drill. The state trusts opposite sex couples to be make this most important decision for themselves and it doesn't ask the questions your mother would ask about your intended spouse. We, too, can be trusted. Massachusetts has five years of experience with equal marriage. Come visit and see for yourself. Denying us the "right" to marry doesn't help the common good one iota and it won't make us go away and won't make us stop having children. It just makes our lives more perilous and difficult. What possible social purpose is served by that?

- JP Gal

May 28, 2009 at 2:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is in the state's interest to expedite mutual support. When one member of a couple is sick or in hospital, the other obtain care, convey directives, and provide assistance. All of these things reduces the burden on the healthcare system and on the government purse, as well as assists the formerly sick in returning to a contributing member of society. A non-married partner is not permitted to do these things.

- ELD

May 28, 2009 at 2:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I decided to read this Stanley Kurtz Scandanavia study that other commenters have referenced (see TWJ's comment above). "A bit indirect," indeed. His eventual conclusion that the instatement of gay marriage has caused an increase in out-of-wedlock births as well as divorce and couples choosing not to marry is based on a single correlative observation (i.e., gay marriage began in the 1990s and since then, these things have gotten "worse," so it must be the cause). His conclusion is quite a reach, in my opinion. In fact, in his own article, he includes many other potential contributors to the dissolution of "traditional" marriage in Scandavia. Also, the two studies he references that assert that children of single parents are maladjusted or suffer in various ways (one is from the 1950s) are easily refuted by the many studies that contradict these findings, not to mention those that have found that children raised by gay parents are in no way "harmed" by their upbringing. (Not to mention that in many cases, especially in the US as it is largely illegal, these same-sex parents are also unwed.) In contrast, I offer a study by Gregory S. Paul published in 2005. Again, this is simply a correlational study, but the number of factors observed decreases the likelihood of chance playing a role in the findings. Paul analyzed several factors of religious belief and social outcomes in 18 countries, including the U.S., Japan, Denmark, Germany, Spain, Sweden, France, etc. The U.S. revealed markedly high levels of religious devotion according to numbers of self-identified religious followers, degree of belief in creation vs. evolution, etc., significantly higher than any other country observed. (You might have already known this.) However, the interesting result was that the higher the dedication to religion in the country, the higher the rates of homicide, abortion, juvenile/early adult mortality, teen pregnancy, and STDs. The U.S. outperformed all other countries on these stats, and not in a good way. You may also know that the most religious area of the U.S. (the "Bible belt") has the highest divorce rate. Are there several contributing factors to these findings? Certainly, there are. However, I do not feel that a "religiously founded" or supposedly "moral" motivation is a realistic argument against gay marriage, because it clearly isn't working as intended in other areas. Based on Kurtz's thought patterns, I could say that because the length of time gay marriage has been legal is generally negatively correlated to homicide rates in these 18 countries, then gay marriage prevents murder! I hate to use a cliche, but it really is true that if you are opposed to gay marriage, then you shouldn't have one. It doesn't mean a religiously-based opinion isn't valid and true to its host, but that doesn't make it valid and true to everyone else.

- CTBH

May 28, 2009 at 2:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If, in the absence of child rearing, marriage is "a perfectly useless institution," then, why, on earth, do so many infertile couples choose to get married?

- Jeffrey Lamkin

May 28, 2009 at 2:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Then, is it safe to assume that you follow every other Biblical proscription, including restrictions on clothing and diet? If not, why do you hold on so tightly to the admonishments against homosexuality and not the others?

- Jeffrey Lamkin

May 28, 2009 at 2:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

25...I totally support that. I would like to see legislation to strengthen traditional marriage, rather than legalize something like gay marriage. We should require anyone who wants to get married to submit to a fertility test. If you fail the test,you can't get married. We should also have some sort of law that says you're required to have children in the first year, or your marriage is null and void. We should also outlaw divorce completely, and at the same time, implement death by stoning as the preferred method of punishment for those who commit adultery. I also think (and this is my personal opinion of course) that we should outlaw two income families. One income should be enough, and one spouse (the woman of course) should stay home and raise the kids. Oh...and I forgot...of COURSE god hates the sinner. Why would he even suggest death by stoning in the first place?

- Mak

May 28, 2009 at 2:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The basic reason people are anti-gay-marriage overlaps hugely with why people are antigay in the first place. As Ms. Prejean admitted, that's how I was raised. If you want more nasty details to explain, just ask nearly any religion still abiding by its premodern or most traditional (negative) views of (A) what same sex behaviors amount to, (B) what dire consequences stem from gay stuff (we used to claim, floods and stillborn cattle and crop failures, but not lately, for some reasons?), plus (C) an abiding factor which has opponents seriously feeling creeped out, yet increasingly unlikely to talk about it in polite conversation. We don't want gays getting equally married, supposedly because we do not want them parenting, supposedly because the well-being of children who always need a mother plus a father to make it through has no context, let alone no nuance. Okay. One bottom line is that gay married couples will harm children, pretty much directly, according to this claim? Oops. Per colage.org, ten million or so kids of gay parents have already been raised successfully or are now being raised successfully to adulthood - by those gay parents. Ooops. As we all know, not every single child of a single parent is doomed either. Thank goodness or we might as well all head for the hills. Ooops. Even in families which technically still have a mom plus a dad, both parents are often working, and thus even less available to directly care for their children during the day. Even in such families, the majority of child rearing for younger children under, say, ten years, will fall on the mom, not the dad. Traditional views once instructed us that caring for children was beneath a father's dignity. Only when a son got old enough to be trained for manhood, usually later school age if not deferred to adolescence, was a father's direct coaching needed. Before then, mom had to do it. Traditional views once instructed us that men were incompetent caretakers for younger children, period. So moms have to do it. Gays must be legally barred from equal marriage, because nobody who opposes them wants to have to put up with seeing them thrive openly and honestly as either a stable gay couple, or as effective gay parents. Such success is likely, and highly offensive to all of the opponents who hold entirely nasty religious and social beliefs about the gay folks involved. Once upon a time, the traditional argument was loud and long: gays could not be permitted openly in the workplace, business would fall apart, nobody would get any work done, and civilization itself might be damaged or endangered. Back then, nobody knew that they actually worked with a gay person, let alone one that contributed well to the work team or the company. Few people now make that argument out loud. Why not? Well, it's false, the facts say otherwise. Well, it's unfair, since given the facts of gays being competent, arguing otherwise tilts things away from competency, to some traditional negative belief. What once was loudly true about gays at work, is now again suddenly true about gays getting married. Having lost the work battle in many western democracies, antigay campaigns are not staking high claims to be protectors of marriage just as they once claimed to be protectors of the straight workplace. Oops. In places where gays do get equally married, they are doing just about as well with the civic institution as straights ever have or do. Who wants to see that, up close and personal? Certainly not the antigaymarriage campaigners. If those facts get out on the table, widely known, excluding gays from equal marriage will fade just like excluding them from the workplace faded, and this is key - just about for the same factual reasons of gay competency. Ten million or so kids of gay parents are already telling us they are as good as anybody else, and that they resent the falsehoods and misrepresentations (incompetence? danger?) which are loudly being preached about gays, gay couples, and gay parenting. The same folks who do not ever want to see individual gay folks doing well, honestly and openly among us, also do not want to see committed gay couples doing well, and certainly do not want to deal with ten million or so instances of real gay parents doing well with the kids they raised. Claims that gay folks are innately bad, and therefore cannot ever do well are just what they always were - our legacy of inherited negative beliefs about gays and gay stuff. In retrospect, maybe Ms. Prejean's reply in the pageant went deeper than it first sounded: It's just the way I was raised?

- drdanfee

May 28, 2009 at 2:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A few thoughts: TWJ correlation does not imply causality. Consequently, same-sex marriage in the Netherlands cannot be show to lead to pregnancy out of wedlock solely with correlative data. Lrobb, I would imagine Chait doesn't address religious belief because it simply isn't workable. If lawmakers were to take into account religious feeling on marriage, they would necessarily have to choose from among many, many sets of conflicting rules and values. My religious sect has a position on gay marriage, too, but I bet you wouldn't want the government choosing my sect's position over yours, because they seem not to agree. Ask the government to choose the religion, and not just the religion but the denomination, with the "correct" stance and you alienate everyone outside of that narrow band. What if the government goes with Buddhist ideas about marriage? Or Shi'ite Muslim? Pentecostal Christianity doesn't have to be the default.

- LCT

May 28, 2009 at 2:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We have some good reasons for suspecting that the antigay marriage folks do not care all that much, about marriage, or about children in the real world. Why? Well. Excluding gay folks from marriage will mainly only affect the gay couples (and their kids). Everybody else is left distantly affected, if affected at all. Yes I know the claims are otherwise; but common sense suggests that even having gay folks honetly and competently acknowledge in the workplace hasn't affected the loudest religious or social antigay people all that much. So how will gay marriage possibly affect them? Meanwhile, if NOM and other campaigners really cared about marriage, really cared about children in USA, they would redirect their loud voices and their efforts - away from antigay campaigning, and towards three key issues which greatly, deeply affect real couples, real families, real children. What three issues? (1) a national childcare policy. (2)the economic forces which now require two working parents to support a family, when one working parent used to suffice. (3) preventing many forms of family violence (including child neglect and abuse), instead of just waiting to always respond after it has already happened. Note? Issue one might go some ways to affecting how issues two and three play out in real world situations. All three big family issues interact, so changing one will tend to affect the other two issues. I do not expect to hear a peep about any of these three big family life issues - from NOM, from the Roman Catholics, from the LDSrs, from any antigay religious believers - any time soon. Simple provisional conclusion? They care much more about attacking gay folks, fearing deeply that equally married gay couples will actually make it, thriving for thirty or forty years; and of course, that their children, extended family members, and friends from work will all be sitting down to fortieth anniversay dinners with them, smiling all around. Aside from the driven joys and necessities involved in preventing that icky doomsday, the antigay campaigners don't care to address the real big, real real, family issues.

- drdanfee

May 28, 2009 at 2:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that's who." How incredibly stupid. No one has any such right, or anything like it. It's like claiming that you have the right to have things be the way you want them to be! As for MacDonald's "I fear ...", if she really does, then the only sensible response is that she's a cretin; no intelligent person could fear such a thing. As for childrearing, gay couples already do it, and allowing them to marry only makes it better for their children. There is no even remotely honest argument against gay marriage, and people should stop making asses of themselves in public by putting forth such arguments. If you want to go to the polls and deny rights to gays just because you don't like them, that's your right, but you're not fooling anyone with your rationalizations.

- Marcel Kincaid

May 28, 2009 at 3:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"When listing various people who have taken the "I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman" position, Chait didn't mention the most prominent person: Barack Obama." You have omitted the most important fact: Obama has clearly stated that he has no desire to impose his belief on others, and in fact opposed Prop 8 and opposes similar measures that deny gays the right to marry. The consequence of his belief is that, rather than advocating for the right of gays to marry, he advocates for full rights for civil unions and the repeal of DOMA. His position is nothing like that of NOM.

- Marcel Kincaid

May 28, 2009 at 3:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lisa - "The reason marriage should be between a man and a woman is to provide offspring of the marriage with a mother and a father. There is abundant evidence as to why that is preferable to other arrangements." Would you care to provide some reliable evidence of this? In truth there are no studies to support this claim.

- Rodney

May 28, 2009 at 3:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Straw man here. The reason marriage should be between a man and a woman is to provide offspring of the marriage with a mother and a father. There is abundant evidence as to why that is preferable to other arrangements. This little article is self-indulgent, making no effort to understand the position it attacks. It thus misses the obvious." It's stunning just how illogical some people are. The offspring of a man and a woman have a mother and a father regardless of who is allowed to marry. Allowing gays to marry does not affect the gender of the parents of any child. Sheesh.

- Marcel Kincaid

May 28, 2009 at 3:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Chait failed to mention one very major, and very valid, objection to gay marriage. For people of faith who believe in the word as stated in the Bible--which is a rather large percentage of the population of the US and by far the majority in the Bible Belt--homosexuality is a sin. It is fatally impossible to leave out the religious point of view of millions of Americans and then say there is no valid argument against gay marriage." Again an astounding lack of logic. First, *marriage doesn't cause homosexuality*. Gays getting married doesn't make them MORE sinful. Second, according to those with this religious view, it's the act that's sinful, but gays getting married doesn't cause them to have more sex, as far as we know. Third, *religious arguments aren't legal arguments*, not in the U.S. That some group of people have religious beliefs against gay marriage is no reason at all for the state to ban it. Sheesh.

- Marcel Kincaid

May 28, 2009 at 3:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is a great article with sound reasoning and arguments that clearly exposes the frailty of the arguments the anti-equality side uses to support their position. To everyone out there stating that marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of raising children, please refer back to the section in the article about the infertile and elderly being able to get married. For those of you with religious objections, realize that this argument is not about religion, it's about rights and fairness. it doesn't matter if your chosen faith opossed homosexuality, it is not a firm argumnet to base civil policy after. There are some religions that ban the consumption of alcohol but look how that turned out when it was imposed. The fact is that by denying homosexuals the right to marry you turn them into second class citizens. Homosexual partners are stripped of the 1,300+ rights and responsibilies afforded to hetrosexual couples that help them protect themselves, eachother, and thier children. And yes, gay couples have solid families and raise great kids, with no detriment to the young ones (as is illustrated by the results of the court case in florida on gay adoption)

- dragon88

May 28, 2009 at 3:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait dismisses as a mere "tautology" the concern that if marriage can redefined to include marriages of two persons of the same gender then there is no principled reason not to allow marriage between any combination and any number of consenting adults. But even advocates of gay marriage are quite comfortable with limiting marriage to only two unrelated adult persons. Indeed, having gay marriage mirror all the aspects of traditional hetero marriage but the inter-gender requirement is essential to what is the real agenda -- compelling society to legitimize gay relationships. It gains gays nothing if in achieving marriage for themselves, they also gain the right to marry for all others who are presently forbidden by law from marrying who they might want -- polygamists, bigamists, polyamorists, siblings and other blood relatives, etc. Concern about re-defining marriage so that it means anything and thus means nothing is no tautology. It is a very legitimate argument.

- Bill45

May 28, 2009 at 3:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let's face it, all the arguments against gay marriage that are not couched in explicitly discriminatory terms are BS. Every state recognizes the right of infertile heterosexual couples to marry, and all states give those couples the right to raise children via adoption or to try to create them via artificial insemination. Many of those states also allow surrogate parental arrangements for infertile couples. These are all options available to gay couples, and there is no credible evidence from anywhere in the world that gay couples raising children (whether adopted or naturally born) are any worse at raising those children than heterosexual couples of the same educational and socioeconomic status. Similarly, there is no credible evidence from anywhere in the world that permitting gay couples to marry or have civil unions has any deleterious effects on either the gay unions, heterosexual marriage or civil society in general -- in fact, those Scandinavian countries where gay civil unions are allowed have among the lowest divorce rates in Western Europe! The fact that government is permitted to encourage family and social stability by validating marriage and rewarding married couples with all sorts of ancillary tax and legal benefits, while simultaneously denying the right to marry to a whole class of consenting, healthy adults is simply discriminatory -- as discriminatory as laws that prohibited interracial marriage, which were also once defended as necessary to protect civil society from various dangers, of none dare any more to speak their name. As for opposition to gay marriage being religiously based, that is a given but should make no difference in the legal and social analysis -- with the caveat that persons whose religious convictions prevent them from sanctioning gay marriage should not be forced by the state to give religious sanction to those marriages. This is a problem that can easily be solved with well-crafted legislation, as was recently done in New Hampshire. There are a great many things in civil society today that are legal but otherwise run afoul of various people's religious beliefs -- loan interest, personal indebtedness, liquor and ham and cheese sanwiches among them. It is not an infringement of someone's First Amendment rights for any of those things to be legal, and gay marriage should be in the same category. Frankly, most religions (mine foremost among them) have a fundamental problem with interfaith marriage, but no one is standing up and petitioning Congress to enact Constitutional amendments banning Jews from marrying Catholics.

- wildboy

May 28, 2009 at 3:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Some religions also say drinking is morally wrong but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Public policy is not, nor should it ever be, based on religious belief... Nonsense. Many laws are based on religious and moral proscriptions. For instance, all religion say that murder and stealing are morally wrong and society has adopted those proscriptions into law.

- Bill45

May 28, 2009 at 3:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Perhaps you're overlooking the most common underlying reason that many people oppose gay marriage, viz., that their religions and cultures have instructed them that it's morally wrong." No, their religion has instructed them that *homosexuality* is wrong ... but a gay couple is gay whether married or not. The missing argument is that state recognition of gay marriage normalizes being gay. Well, yes, but for the state to fail to do so would be discrimination based on specific religious doctrines, which is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

- Marcel Kincaid

May 28, 2009 at 3:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If the state mandates homosexual marriage then no longer may persons of faith act on their faith in the public square. And this is no hypothetical concern. After Massachusetts sanctioned gay marriage no longer could Catholic Church affiliated adoption agencies favor hetero couples over gay couples in making adoption decisions. As a consequence those agencies are no longer doing adoptions. So, Mr. Chait, here is an argument against gay marriage: State sanctions gay marriage would make it unlawful discrimination for an adoption agency to favor hetero married couples over gay married couples when making adoption placement decisions. When the question is presented that way, I think most Americans are very, very comfortable with hetero couples being given priority over gay couples when it comes to adoption.

- Bill45

May 28, 2009 at 3:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I've also seen eloquent arguments that build an anti-gay marriage case based on concerns for the welfare of children raised by parents of the same sex. " No you haven't. First, gay couples raise children regardless of whether they are married. Second, the evidence does not support these concerns. There are no honest arguments for banning gay marriage. There is only personal bigotry, and religious-based objections that are not legally valid.

- Marcel Kincaid

May 28, 2009 at 3:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In response to bluebird1787, I (and almost every gay person I know) would be entirely satisfied if the Federal Government issued "civil unions" to both straight and gay couples in lieu of a "marriage license," and left "marriage" solely in the hands of religious institutions. We'd be overjoyed, in fact. The point is that we want to be treated equally. Separate is not equal, and everyone knows it, and - as you are likely aware, there are over 1,000 rights and privileges bestowed on married couples that are denied any same-gender couple, even those married in Iowa, Massachussetts, Connecticut, Vermont, or Maine. The primary "right" is the right to define your own family. Same-gender couples have no relationship in the eyes of the law, and one of the best and most heart-rending examples of the consequences concerns hospital visitation, and the ability to make medical decisions for one's spouse. During the AIDS crisis, I heard story after heartbreaking story about parents who wouldn't allow their sons' partners to see them on their deathbed, to say goodbye, to attend their funerals. This couldn't happen to a heterosexual married couple, and it shouldn't. But it happens in my community, to this day. It's not fair, and it's not just.

- Red Seven

May 28, 2009 at 3:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am 100% confident that my marriage is strong enough, and important enough to me, that if every single gay couple in America were allowed to get married tomorrow, it wouldn't erode anything between my husband and me. Maybe all of these families that are going to collapse if gays can marry should search themselves. If their committment to each other is so tenuous and weak, perhaps their arrangement was a mistake in the first place, and they should stop pointing fingers at gays.

- Arouet

May 28, 2009 at 3:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Glad to see you don't have the nerve to post a dissenting opinion. Where is my original post? Cowards

- bluebird1787

May 28, 2009 at 4:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Where do we stop? Polygamy? Beastiality? Men marrying automobiles? (have you not seen the BBC special where psychologists have identified people with disorders in which their love for their car is equal to others' love for their spouse? Or the man caught making love to his bicycle?) Where then, do you draw the line? Consenting adults? Well, in a polygamous relationship, they're all consenting adults. And how about the mature child genius 10 year old who wants to marry his also mature 10 year old girlfriend? Who's to say that's wrong? Or the man who would genuinely be happy to share his life with his car - are you going to "deprive him of his happiness? " As Sen. Moynihan said, this is "defining deviancy down. " The dumb (negative standard deviation) are made out to be normal. The queer are made out to be normal. And the rest of the weirdos with "alternative lifestyles" are portrayed as somehow not weird by left-wing liberals. And for what? To tear down establishment and have anarchy? Are there any rules to the left that ARE sacred? It ain't freedom cause we see that they'll happily give that up to any koran-waving imam screaming for sharia law. It ain't human rights cause they'll happily ignore Hussein, Mao, and Stalin's massacres. Is it "collective goodwill?" Perhaps, except that they'd willingly sacrifice millions of lives to establish this false "utopia" for which the remaining millions cannot stand. It certainly ain't God because every card-carrying liberal I know thinks religion is the salve of the ignorant. It must be the "planet" then or "Gaia. " Or peace at any price, even if that means no peace at all. I have not met a single liberal who can explain their principles to me coherently and be able to defend the inconsistencies in their position.

- jwl2672

May 28, 2009 at 4:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tim Graham (#16): "Perhaps you're overlooking the most common underlying reason that many people oppose gay marriage, viz., that their religions and cultures have instructed them that it's morally wrong." Which is why they shouldn't become gay and get married. But why should they care about anyone else? If more married gays go to hell, that's more real estate in heaven for them.

- Ritebrother

May 28, 2009 at 4:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A gay relative of mine and I had a heated discussion about marriage and Gay Right's. I said I believed his sarcasm against Straights opposing Gay marriage was based on his inability to accept their right to believe as strongly in it being wrong, as his was to believe it was right. The conversation then went south and we called an armistice. Gay’s can’t expect the majority of American’s to discard their own moral or religious belief’s to suit Gay self-interests. Frankly, I’m over listening to either side of this debate.

- Kelly M

May 28, 2009 at 5:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jon, Are you actually posting these replies under pseudonyms? Because every anti-gay marriage reply here seems to prove the point of your post. I particularly like #20, who ignores the central part of your argument, that it's ridiculous to use "marriage should be between a man and a woman" as a logical argument. It's abundantly clear to anyone who follows this debate that Jon is correct, this is precisely the argument repeated ad nauseum by anti-gay marriage forces. But #20 decided that all the while these people were actually answering a different question, how do you define marriage. This is an obvious lie, but he then goes in for the kill, to say that his side really thinks "that's how I was raised" is the compelling argument against gay marriage, as if that's an improvement over their usual definitional silliness. No particulr reason to pick on #20, but I'm tired of arguing the main point of the other posters, that the Bible says so, so I guess in this crowd, #20 stands out as the serious thinker. Oh, and going way back to #2 (who I actually suspect is also #20), the Stanley Kurtz "study" is perhaps the single most ridiculed work on the whole subject, as #2 seems to know since even he says the relationship is a bit indirect. In fact, there is absolutely no relationship between gay marriage and the statistics Kurtz cites, and more importantly, the statistics he "researched" are completely wrong and marriage strengthened and divorce dropped. Do a minute of research outside the bizarro world of Maggie Gallagher and Focus on the Family.

- Brian

May 28, 2009 at 5:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

lol, found it, my bad.

- bluebird1787

May 28, 2009 at 5:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Did I sense some anti-semitism in at least one of the responses?

- Boutros by Golly

May 28, 2009 at 5:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Man-woman love is humanly better than same-sex love, which is why I support civil unions but oppose gay marriage. The two forms of partnership are indeed separate and therefore unequal, but the inequality is warranted: man-woman love is better. I have yet to read an argument that convinces me otherwise. Until I do, my position--that of an educated liberal Democrat and an atheist--will remain unchanged.

- Proteus

May 28, 2009 at 5:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The rights part doesn't have anything to do with propensity or inability to procreate. It comes with the perks given married couples by the state. Disallowing those recognitions, benefits and responsibilities to one class of couple while denying them to any other class of couple is selective application of the law. Everyone has the RIGHT to equal protection under the law. Says so right in the Constitution. Any separation between first class citizens and all other classes is unconstitutional, unethical and Un-American.

- Nathan

May 28, 2009 at 5:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The political movements that introduces same-sex marriage also won the full benefits of marriage for cohabiting couples, further reducing incentives to get married. It's not the extension of marriage benefits to same sex couples that's increased the dissolution of cohabitating heterosexual couples' family units, it's the extension of marriage benefits to non-married, cohabitating heterosexual couples. They're two different issues, and blaming dissolved unmarried, cohabitating heterosexual couples' partnerships on same sex marriages is like saying everybody who witnessed JFK's assasination is guilty of firing the bullet simply because they were there at the time.

- Nathan

May 28, 2009 at 6:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Uh, Lisa, stop being disingenuous. You just don't like gay people.

- JRB

May 28, 2009 at 6:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I response to your religious views...your religion does not trump my reality.

- Brian

May 28, 2009 at 6:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is abundant evidence, and more accumulating monthly, that the nurturing role model need not be female, and the breadwinning or dominant role model need not be genetically male. What's necessary is a warm, supportive, loving guidance for the children to flourish in. Same sex marriage ensures and protects this environment for the children involved with single sex parenting partnerships. There is great, ongoing success among same sex couples concretely raising well rounded, healthy heterosexually oriented children. You gotta pay attention to more than what you want to hear.

- Nathan

May 28, 2009 at 6:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I find the opposition to marriage equality absolutely disingenuous and insincere. All this talk about the sanctity of tradition, or what is "natural," etc.... Why don't those that oppose marriage equality simply say what they think: that they hate gay people?

- JRB

May 28, 2009 at 6:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The constitutionally guaranteed separation of church and state, which has been ruled to mandate an absence of church doctrine in the establishment of law so as not to impinge on non-believers' right to be free of church doctrine, implies that the contention that homosexuality is a sin is not a valid LEGAL argument against gay marriage. That's why the courts, as with Iowa's decision, must acknowldege that inspiration for anti-gay descrimination as they strike down statutory prohibitions to equality.

- Nathan

May 28, 2009 at 6:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How about the argument that homosexual conduct is immoral, and that by allowing persons to enter into gay marriage, we are encouraging them to engage in immoral behavior--and that we are making it harder for them to walk away from it? We enact laws based upon our moral convictions all the time.

- Peter

May 28, 2009 at 6:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"man-woman love is better." I most vociferously disagree. I've tried both. Have you?

- Nathan

May 28, 2009 at 6:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch. Oh and about religion having a place in politics: For us Europeans it is already hard enough to make out the difference between the religious nuts in the middle east and the religious nuts in America. Please don't make it harder. Please.

- Jean

May 28, 2009 at 7:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mike Porter #6: Obviously, Mike Porter, you don’t have sisters.

- Kelly M

May 28, 2009 at 8:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch. Concerning religion in politics: Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan etc. are countries where you might feel more at home if you feel faith should have an influence over politics. If moving there is not an option, I recommend looking into the US constitution from time to time and forgetting about imposing your faith upon others.

- Jean

May 28, 2009 at 8:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Proteus, like you, I am an educated liberal Democrat and an atheist -- so, in some respects, I find your post most disturbing of all. How is man-woman love humanly better? I don't even know what that means. And what is the basis of this argument? Sure, heterosexual love is the vast majority, and only it can lead to procreation, but the love aspect is equal, not superior. I wish that people would realize that that whole gay/straight thing is really not a big deal. Why must it all be blown out of proportion? There's no reason for it to be taboo; it's human nature. This country has been perverted by religion.

- James C

May 28, 2009 at 8:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To TWJ: Your arguments, even if they had a principled basis, are based on the rational problem called conflation: it is far more likely that Scandinavia and other countries already gave less of a thought to "traditional marriage" before they legalized other forms--not that legalizing such forms led to such a dissolution. But I digress--the only real thing a government can or can't do is, in our country, protect or incentivize. Both require funding, either because someone pays for police/courts/legal systems, or because someone doesn't pay for them (because something's been incentivized) and thus, someone else picks up the slack. Marriage "benefits" as we call them are incentives--the government doesn't magically help you out because you decided to be an actor or direct a show, they help you when you get married, a specific kind of relationship commitment. The government is not a tribal leader--its place is not (and the founding "fathers" never intended it to be, for those who are originalists) to be one. If a person insists on incentivizing one kind of marriage, then I would argue you are stealing from people who choose to not partake of it. You are stealing from people who don't get married, who don't have kids, etc--you are making them pay for your desire to get married. I don't think such benefits should exist--people can choose whether or not to be married without the government, and if you don't like their choices, deal with it-- a free state does not incentivize certain forms of action with abstract harms. A harm is violence to another person--a harm is not some abstract, existential threat to children--that sort of harm can always be extrapolated if people are willing, and is a semantic way of getting around the need to demonstrate a harm at all. My point? That if marriage proponents insist upon having their relationships incentivized, then gays shouldn't have to pay taxes. Or was that not the very same argument that (perhaps rightly) millions of conservatives used, and use, against the endowment for the arts every time it goes and funds something like the mapplethorpes?

- Max

May 28, 2009 at 8:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The peculiar writing styles & odd expression of most of the "I'm against gay marriage, this I know, 'cause the Bible tells me so" typists here are a fair indication of the quality of their reasoned arguments.

- M. Bouffant

May 28, 2009 at 9:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Proteus -- your post is laughable. What makes man-woman love "better" than same-sex love? Because it's what gets YOU off and what YOU prefer? You call yourself an educated liberal, yet you come up with probably the most unsubstantiated, uneducated response on the whole board. I wasn't even going to leave a comment until I came to your post, but it was so far out in center field that I had no choice. Please give me reasons why "man-woman love" is better. Some potential reasons might be: the 50% divorce rate of man-woman love or the high spousal abuse rate in man-woman love, etc. etc. I can't wait for your answer -- I won't need to watch Comedy Central tonight.

- boards4life

May 28, 2009 at 10:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am on the outside looking in. I have known open gays since 1965. I served with gays in the Nam. I went with a friend, whom i did not know was gay, to the 1st annual celebration of the Stonewall riot. He just asked me because he knew I was crazy and that if a riot should happen, I would be on his side. (We had gone to a big rock show and saw a car park illegally and a couple of cops get out and put a cardboard sign in the window. While we were waiting in line, two of the cops pulled a black guy out of the line, drug him across the street and beat him with their clubs. I just said, I've got to go. He caught up with me at the corner. I asked him to help me find a liquor store that carried Everclear or Ron Rico 151. Got it, screwed my handkerchief into the neck and shook it. Went back to the cop's car smashed out the window and firebombed it. Never got to go to Fillmore east. I've bumped into people at Gay Rights Parades, who would come up all smiling and say "I didn't know you were gay." All of them, that I can recall, handled it well, when I said,"I'm not gay, but you need all of the allies you can get." Was asked to leave a parade in San francisco for going up to a spitter and telling him flat, spit on me. That is what I feel now. Stop the nice. Screw them. Got a credit card? Go to Walmart, buy the biggest bullhorn you can. Every time smiley the obama bot shows up, Scream through the bullhorn "What about us?" When 10 people wake him up at the White House every damn morning until he gets the idea that we are all equal or your life is going to be composed of screaming bullhorns, he'll shift his lying ass over. He don't like not nice, well, fuck him. That proposal to put another catholic on the supreme court cut me and him forever. 5 catholic assholes on the supreme court is about 5 too many. 6 hey, fuck you. After the shit gets cleaned up return the bullhorns to Walmart as defective and get a refund. Let the Waltons pay for a little justice.

- joe

May 28, 2009 at 10:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The whole married man/woman for child-rearing argument is dissuaded this way - we two gay men (shutter) are raising four legally adopted children. The four children are well adjusted, doing well by all emotional, educational and spiritual quantitative measures, and one is performing military service to a country that denies her parents simple and entrinsic rights. We are part of the minority 18K California Married-Limbo couples and oh, the children we adopted came from one of those failed man/woman sanctified relationships that gay marriage opponents so rigorously uphold as virtuous, righteous and sacred!

- Gay and Married in California

May 28, 2009 at 10:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

#74: Polygamy creates a lopsided relationship that makes much of the legal benefits unclear and confused and would create numerous legal wranglings about which wife has which rights, and so on. Marriage as a contract between two equal people has none of those problems. #80: But how is it better? Because you practice it? That is seriously unpersuasive.

- Sean Micheal

May 28, 2009 at 11:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@Proteus - The entire point of this article was that those opposed to gay marriage provide no logical reasoning as to "why" they oppose gay marriage other than "they do". Likewise... your statement that "Man-woman love is humanly better than same-sex love" fails to provide any reasoning. You feel that the love between a man and a woman is deeper than that between two members of the same sex. You're obviously straight, so how would you know? Unless you're gay how would you possibly know which is better. As an educated liberal Democrat and an agnostic who happens to be gay, I can assure you that a complete lack of attraction to women makes sex with men much better in my book. So... please answer the question "WHY is heterosexual sex better?" You stated multiple times that it is, but fail to provide any reason whatsoever other than that you haven't read an argument proving the contrary.

- Mike

May 28, 2009 at 11:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@Ritebrother - Re: "Which is why they shouldn't become gay and get married." - You don't "become" gay... you either are or you aren't. I know for a fact my sexuality wasn't a conscious choice. Most straight people would see it's not a choice if they had to go through the constant torture most gay kids face when growing up. There's a reason suicide rates among gay teenagers is much higher than their heterosexual peers. You choose your hairstyle, not who you're attracted to. When was the last time you "chose" to be attracted to Roseanne Arnold? That's what I thought.

- Mike

May 28, 2009 at 11:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting comments from all. I always figured that gays and lesbians have had the right to marry all along. Plenty have married in Hollywood as a "cover". That gays and lesbians don't "want" to marry a person of the opposite sex is irrelevant to the fact that they've always had the right to marry any other eligible person of the opposite sex - the same as any hetero/bi/asexual person. With this expansion of the marriage definition, where could one logically defend any rules for marriage? It is a reasonable question, folks. In my ideal world, the state would be out of marriage, and a helluva lot of other things. But as long as people look to self-actualize with the blessings of the "biggest bully on the block" (government) it pretty much assumes the authority to create the rules of the game.

- Bill Meyer

May 28, 2009 at 11:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting comments from all. I always figured that gays and lesbians have had the right to marry all along. Plenty have married in Hollywood as a "cover". That gays and lesbians don't "want" to marry a person of the opposite sex is irrelevant to the fact that they've always had the right to marry any other eligible person of the opposite sex - the same as any hetero/bi/asexual person. With this expansion of the marriage definition, where could one logically defend any rules for marriage? It is a reasonable question, folks. In my ideal world, the state would be out of marriage, and a helluva lot of other things. But as long as people look to self-actualize with the blessings of the "biggest bully on the block" (government) it pretty much assumes the authority to create the rules of the game.

- Bill Meyer

May 29, 2009 at 12:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Brian……One: maybe a lot of people answer with "Man and Woman," because they are actually asked to define marriage. But how can I say that? Your research is so extensive and I’m just a liar. But my main point was that Chait picked two opponents of gay marriage who made easy targets: a beauty queen and a three timer. Why didn’t Chait quote a prominent black preacher or a hispanic priest—surely, they are part of the throng who chants the “Man and Woman” mantra. For the same reason he gives no context to her answer (mentioning how she was raised). Because then he might need to mention religion. He doesn’t want religious context. Why is it a fatal flaw? How can you reasonably propound an argument which aims to discredit everyone who says “A man and a woman” and then discredit your own argument by not mentioning the largest single reason why people say “A man and a woman?”…..Two: many who oppose gay marriage get deeper into the weeds: Kurtz's research (which I have not read and never endorsed. Notice I said, "their opposition." Maybe the research is faulty. Maybe it is not.), the polygamy angle, the religious angle (which I believe), tradition and language (I also believe this). Many people have had many reasons to support traditional marriage and for over 5000 years, they have been considered valid reasons. Now, Jon Chait and a lot of folks do not believe they are valid. Indeed, Jon Chait has deemed that those who do not see this as he does cannot do so on principle because their arguments are not principled; they are non ideas. Man, that is hubris……..Finally: you shouldn’t be so quick as to lecture the homophobic masses on how to structure their position on matters that concern them. Unless, of course, your next article on abortion will deride pro-choicers for always getting back to, “A woman’s right to choose.” I mean, you could pound the hell out of someone for hours with the science on late term abortions, but it always seems to go back to “Woman’s right to choose,” doesn’t it?

- malwords

May 29, 2009 at 1:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is Kant right or is he wrong, when he says that the basic principle of ethics is that human beings should be treated as ends unto themselves instead of means to an end? The rhetorics of antigay "thinkers" are simple: Human beings are reproductive vessels and nothing, including their happiness, should interefer with that purpose. I as a hetereosexual, refuse to be a breeding stock. That's what religious conservatives think we are, and anything higher that we aspire to be damned.

-

May 29, 2009 at 2:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bill45: This is exactly the thing I have posted several places in regards to this. I find it very hypocritical that those in favor of gay marriage think that it is A.O.K. to re-define marriage to fit their needs so that people who love each other can freely marry BUT have no problem in limiting it to COUPLES ONLY. Once it is re-defined where is the line drawn? Look at what a polyamorists marriage COULD BE: ANY combination and number of women and men (or women only or men only). Where do you then draw the line? 5 people, 10? 100? 1000? People in favor of gay marriage are just fine to ignore those people and I have even heard some use the same arguments against polyamorists that are used against gay marriage.

- Phil G.

May 29, 2009 at 3:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here are 80 comments from on the whole well-spoken and educated people vehemently committed to both sides of the gay marriage debate, and not one intellectually viable argument against gay marriage has been made. There's a great deal of dogmatic commitment to God's will - no doubt sincere, but forensically vacuous; there's the conflation of matrimony with natural mating, which begs the question why we need marriage as an institution at all if it's already in our animal natures to pair up in this way; there's the bald assertion that "man-woman love is better"; there's the charmingly hysterical concern that men may take to marrying automobiles; there's the family squabble over an allegedly inviolable right to believe that someone else is wrong; there's the confident observation that cow dung isn't food. In other words, any number of variations on the primal anti-argument: I just think so, and I'm not going to change my mind. No doubt you do and no doubt you won't; but why should I agree with you? Which, as I take it, is Chait's point. The reason there aren't any arguments being produced can't be because these posters or the millions of other Americans who agree with them to one extent or the other are less thoughtful than the supporters of gay marriage. OK, the man-car thing isn't exactly brilliant, but on the whole none of these people sound stupid. Their problem in making their case, though, is that the framework of an Enlightenment political philosophy of citizenship as an abstract contractual status has no room for the kind of substantive collective dogmas that opponents of gay marriage want to preserve. Which is what these supreme courts - hardly populated by fiery-eyed atheists or giddy advocates of man/car love - keep discovering, and why the anti-gay-marriage efforts have been forced so quickly to attack the Constitutional level of legal organization. That's the whiff of inevitability about the whole thing; it isn't that gay marriage advocates are better financed or better organized or better positioned to assert their will (though they may be; I don't know). It's because they're making an argument that is congruent with the entire tradition of political theory sustaining our public institutions, while their opponents are insisting on something for which that tradition not only gives no purchase but against which it was expressly developed over several centuries to preclude as a consideration when defining the parameters of legal contract, namely, traditions of unjustified dogmatic authority. Those traditions are not necessarily despicable or irrelevant in a practical sense, but they enter the enlightened public sphere without the benefit of rational argument, as the gay marriage "debate," here and elsewhere, continually confirms. Which doesn't mean that talking to cross-purposes won't continue for quite some time. But it isn't an argument.

- Jim McFarland

May 29, 2009 at 5:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The rational basis for rejecting same-sex marriage goes as follows: o "Marriage" is sought by "gays" as a badge of their normality. o But homosexual feelings are not normal, no matter how prevalent they may be. o They result from faulty bonding and identification with the same-sex parent, starting in early life. They indicate deep-seated gender self-alienation. o They are preventable and treatable. See www.narth.com. Why the Right won't make this case is complex. Reasons include: o Not wanting to embarrass the Cheneys and other prominent Republicans. o Unfamiliarity and discomfort with depth psychology. o Not wanting to attract even more accusations of "bigotry" for calling "gays" "sick." o The problem of closeted Republican leaders (see film OUTRAGE). Cultural brainwashing with lies will not be borne by the American people. There remains the recourse of civil disobedience.

- Sharon Kass

May 29, 2009 at 5:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

David Z: thanks for the thoughtful response. I still think that the notion of family implied by your argument is so generic that it does not deserve to be the object of public policy. And that certainly it does not deserve that we split the country in two by messing with a concept so loaded as "marriage" (I mean loaded with religious, cultural, moral connotations). Red Seven: while I can understand your concern for "equality" I think it can easily become ideological. For instance, there is one thing I never understood about the whole gay marriage movement: are you forbidding A PRIORI that the state may develop any policy devices dedicated to encourage men to support the women they impregnate and to take responsibility for their children? Conversely, if you accept that society has a special interest in regulating fertile relationships (do you?), then why not call it "marriage"? (Disclaimer: I mean "fertile" potentially and in the aggregate. Spare me the refrain about infertile heterosexual couples...)

- Carlo

May 29, 2009 at 6:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As if you ever did listen Kelly M. Bigots like you aren't capable of it.

-

May 29, 2009 at 6:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So if I have an overwhelming desire to have sex with my dog I should be able to marry it, and receive special status and tax breaks because I have weird sexual desires? This is incredibly stupid. The only real reason for the government to promote marriage at all is to promote father-mother-child families.

- DJL

May 29, 2009 at 7:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I partially agree with poster #2, but we are already losing this argument as a matter of law, since states are usually expected to recognize legal contracts of other states. It is only a matter of time before marriage is federalized into virtual meaninglessness. If same sex partners can marry, why can't Mormons practice bigamy? Liberals have no rational argument against this. Polygamy? What about consenting adults who engage in incest? Brothers and sisters can simply contractually agree to in vitro fertilization, as can fathers who sexually abuse and brainwash daughters into believing sexual intimacy is appropriate. Yes, statements like marriage between one man and one woman seem like silly, contrived assertions, and no fault divorce has done much to erode what marriage has signified for centuries, but if the traditional closet in America is breaking down, then the traditions that placed meaningful limits on autonomy have no rational basis.

- Jozanny

May 29, 2009 at 9:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Marriage is a religious sacrament. Get the government out of it. Let it only do civil unions. A married couple could register their civil union. So could a gay couple. Problem solved - or handed over from government to the churches.

- AlanDownunder

May 29, 2009 at 9:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I still don't see how what Miss California said is actually anti-gay. She did not say, "I don't believe in gay marriage", "I don't think gays should marry", "I don't believe gays should have the ability to marry." Not to mention that there was nothing said against gays. She simply told the media what she believed, that a marriage, in her eyes and in the popular opinion of her state and of America, is between a man and a woman. The media is attacking her because that statement doesn't support what they want America to think. The media and many celebrities (who I don't believe should be asked their opinion on this or any other political issue) are calling her anti-gay without her saying anything AGAINST gays. She only supported the idea of marriage in the traditional sense. I am very proud of her for such an answer because it stays true to what she believes and that she didn't just give the easy answer to the media. I am also glad that she still holds her ground and that Donald Trump is supporting her. Its called freedom of speech, the ability to say opinions without legal repricussion but unfortunately I guess that doesn't cover the media's caustic opinion. I'm not happy with this article because I takes too few sides to the arguement, actually what arguement was the author trying to make. The article should have been about some people who disgree with gay marriage or who just support traditional marriage and how they pose their arguements. The author takes those arguements and tries to invailidate them. One, that falls under the editorial section and two, he doesn't cover all the views. Like any sort of religous view. That's where the concept and word Marriage comes from. I am a Christian and therefore I believe that God decreed that Marriage is between a man and a woman and that it is valid and sacred in his eyes. If you change the definition to just a bond between two people, it is no longer within the sacred definition in which it was set. I am not against civil unions and I agree that more rights should be given to those within a civil union but I wish to keep the word Marriage sacred.

- Jordan

May 29, 2009 at 10:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The reason President Obama gets a pass on this issue when others like Ms. Prejean don't is because they know he is lying, playing politics in the most cynical fashion. I have a new theory about global warming: it's caused by liberal hypocrisy.

- Peryno

May 29, 2009 at 10:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chiat meant to say there are no non-religous arguments and separation of church and state is clear that religious values are individual and cannot be imposed upon others-therefore no clergy will every be forced to officiate at a gay marriage nor should any group be able to prevent gay people from marrying in a civil ceremony. The civil certificate is for all of the legal protections, the religous ceremony is for recognition by the community to which one belongs. Is it really so difficult to understand? As a person of faith I have no trouble making the distinction.

- ajames

May 29, 2009 at 10:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The key word here is "believe". They are making an assertion of their religious beliefs, and as such, they are unassailable. The only problem here is that these beliefs are the law of the land, and that's a violation of a fundamental American principle of a secular government. The main objection that people have to gay marriage is that it legitimizes a behavior they find morally objectionable. They realize that when gay people are legally married, it's difficult to stigmatize them. The "threat to marriage" is that their holy union is now on par with the mortal sin of homosexual intercourse, and their spiritual state of matrimonial union is being shared by sodomites. These are all strong arguments for excommunication, but not for government policy in a non-theocratic state. By asserting "I believe that...", they are saying that they find gays objectionable to their religious beliefs. Why should those of us who don't share their religious beliefs be subject to them via official government policy?

- AxelDC

May 29, 2009 at 10:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@Sharon Kass - Reparative therapy to "cure" gays of something which needs no cure is whack science and simply does not work. We do not yet know what causes homosexuality, your statements to the contrary simply can yet not be proved through science. The "cure" you speak of simply brainwashes gay folks into believing they will receive eternal damnation if they don't suppress their sexual urges. Eventually, human nature (it IS natural to be attracted to the same sex if you're gay) wins out. Just ask John Paulik.

- Mike

May 29, 2009 at 10:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think Mr. Chait is correct that opponents of gay marriage have been reticent to share exactly why they oppose it. For many, myself included, the reason is a deeply held, religious belief. If you had several days I would be happy to explain exactly the ins and outs of why I oppose and what I believe to be the consequences of legalizing gay marriage; however, the very moment I share my reasons, great liberal and open minds (like yours) eviscerate me for holding such a view, calling me close minded and intolerant. Well, as much as I'd like to have a serious conversation about the topic, I choose not to "cast my pearls" before those that would trample on them. It seems to me as though this whole thing comes down to two opposing, deeply held beliefs. Short of convincing me my God doesn't exist, you will not change my mind. Short of convincing you that my God does exist (or yours is wrong), I'll never change your mind. Thus, we are left to battle and this issue will only be resolved in the supreme court or by constitutional amendment. Until then, why don't we take a step back and realize that, while we disagree at a deep, emotional level, there's no reason to be mean about it. We can and should still treat each other with respect. P.S. Of course, those deeply held beliefs greatly influence how we interpret the constitution. You see it as a "living" document. And we find your understanding of that term to be unconstitutional. But that is, perhaps, neither here nor there.

- Who Knows

May 29, 2009 at 10:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Correct, ones religious views have no merit in the creation of public policy. No laws against blasphemy, etc. Muslims can't ban bacon either. If you want to create a law you need a secular purpose and a secular effect. If your church does not wish to preside over the marriage of a gay couple then they should...not preside over the marriage. Your religious beliefs do not give you or even the majority the right to decide for others. Furthermore some churches do not oppose gay marriage. Who are you and the government to tell them they can't perform these marriages?

- ThatPirateGuy

May 29, 2009 at 11:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's not like proponents of gay marriage make much of a case that gay marriage is necessary for the common good. The main response to Miss Prejean seems to be, "She had breast implants!" Saying gay marriage is a right isn't an argument either. If you think something is a right, you ought to explain why, rather than merely making a claim. Anyway, as far as making an argument against gay marriage, I'll give it a try: 1. A same sex union isn't the same as different sex union. A different sex union naturally lends itself to children. It presupposes sexual intercourse between man and woman. Heterosexual intercourse can either be socially positive or socially negative. Marriage attempts to direct heterosexuality toward a socially beneficial end. There is no scenario under which homosexual intercourse can be socially beneficial, hence society has no stake in it. Society has a huge stake in heterosexual marriage and no stake in homosexual marriage. Therefore, for society to say the two are equal is simply untrue. 2. Marriage is society's attempt to keep a specific man with a specific woman. Since a heterosexual marriage generally leads to children, and since studies show that children are better off raised by their own father and mother (see studies about the enhanced danger to children who live with a man who is not their biological father), society wants to keep specific couples together. Since homosexual marriage has no necessary relation to children, there is no societal need to keep a specific gay couple together. Society simply does not have the stake in a stable homosexual marriage that it has in a stable hetersexual marriage. Therefore, for society to say the two are equal is simply untrue. 3. Civil marriage is not an inherent right but an arrangement that society makes for the common good. Public benefits are given to marriage because marriage accrues to the common good. We can tell that is true because most or all societies historically have instituted some form of marriage. Marriage could not be so widespread without providing a societal good. But homosexual marriage re-orients marriage away from the common good and merely to the private good of the individuals. Historically, even in societies which accepted homosexuality, they did not recognize homosexual marriage, since there was no societal reason to do so. Since heterosexual marriage is a public good and homosexual marriage is only a private good, for society to say the two are equal is simply untrue. 4. For society to say that homosexual marriage is just as good as heterosexual marriage is to say that children do not need both a father and a mother, just two caregivers in general. Since mothers tend to be caregivers more than fathers, this is a statement by society that children do not need fathers, and that someone else can take over for fathers. Insofar as society wishes to encourage fathers to care for their children, homosexual marriage sends the opposite message. 5. If society says that homosexual and heterosexual marriage are equal, it certainly raises the status of homosexual marriage, but it also may decrease the status of heterosexual marriage. As mentioned above, heterosexual marriage is vital to society while homosexual marriage is not. Saying the two are equal could lead to the conclusion that heterosexual marriage is no more important to society than homosexual marriage. 6. If you think that homosexual and heterosexual marriage are equal, then you have to believe that society would do equally well without heterosexual marriage as it has without homosexual marriage. If you think that a society not recognizing heterosexual marriage would cause more societal disruption than not recognizing homosexual marriage, then you have to acknowledge that the two are not equal. 7. Homosexual marriage breaks any link between marriage and children, and even any link between marriage and any particular sexual act. Since homosexual marriage is merely a private good relating to the happiness of those involved, then any marriage which accrues to the happiness of the participants should be recognized by society. This turns marriage into relationship that any number of people wish to enter into. Once marriage is everything, marriage is nothing, and so the essential character of marriage is destroyed. 8. If homosexual marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage, then marriage laws must be changed to reflect homosexuality. For example, since there is no logical reason that homosexual brothers or sisters cannot marry, the law could not ban heterosexual consanguinity either, since laws must be identical for homosexual and heterosexual unions.

- Clark

May 29, 2009 at 11:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Carlo: I appreciate the questions. The tax benefits are reaped from a marriage, not from love. There is a big difference (think pre-arranged marriages). The piece of paper from the courthouse confirms a marriage (and therefore allows you to reap those benefits), it does not necessarily affirm love - though some may argue that it does affirm a love in the presence of God. Your argument seems to be 'Why should there be tax benefits for ANY marriage - gay or straight?' I'm having a hard time answering that question. My argument is: since there ARE tax benefits to being married, by denying gay marriage we are denying gays those benefits. That to me is discrimination. AND - even if there were NO tax benefits to marriage, simply denying a group of people the equal right to participate in the institution would also constitue discrimination.

- Stephen

May 29, 2009 at 12:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jordan: We're talking about the SECULAR and CIVIL recognition of marriage. As a gay man, I'm not going to walk into St. Mary's Cathedral here in SF and demand that I be married by the Archbishop. I know perfectly well it goes against Catholic teaching But if I walk into City Hall, there is NO legal reason to deny me a marriage certificate in a secular and civil context. You can think that homosexuality or gay marriage is an abomination, but your religious beliefs do not deserve to take precedence over what is really a civil issue. If you vote against gay marriage, you are simply voting for a theocracy. If you want that, fine. But at least have the courage to admit it. Oh, and Bill45: Catholic adoption services don't have to receive state money if they don't want to adopt to gay couples. They made that choice, and they have to face the consequences when they do business with a CIVIL agency. As a gay marriage advocate, I simply want the same CIVIL rights as everyone else. I couldn't care less about how you feel about the issue religiously. It doesn't apply here.

- shaw-man

May 29, 2009 at 12:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Another thought: traditional marriage proponents believe that marriage encourages a stable, historically proven method of rearing children and maintaining a culture. The state encourages this practice (with respect to taxes and other benefits) because the state believes this institution is to the benefit of the state...... Additionally, the state encourages home ownership and gives benefits to home owners because homeowners have historically benefitted our society. For this reason, I get a tax deduction when I file........ On the other hand, my county penalizes me for owning a home because I pay property taxes. But these taxes fund the school system. Society has decided that a well educated population is a greater good; that may be, but my son is too young to attend public school. And what if I never had children? Or, we're married for ten years, have children, and then move. Comparitavely, the children of renters in my county receive virtually free schooling. I pay for my son and their's........ The federal government also gives deductions for charitable giving; in effect, the government taxes some citizens extra because you don't want to donate to the cancer society. …..And it gives deductions for having children. In short, the government picks winners and losers all the time--for the sake of the whole. And it's messy. And sometimes they are wrong; almost always they hurt someone…….In one respect, the argument against the anti-gay marriage movement is a classic case of the the pro gay marriage movement's ox being gored; in effect, we don’t get the benefits that married couples get. But look at the tax code: we know equal protection is equal protection only until the government wants to change its mind........You may say that taxes are not the same as sexuality and family; “It's the way I was born.” I agree. So maybe infertile couples should then get the same deduction that families with children receive. Or maybe families without children should be exempt from paying property taxes to pay for the schools who don't teach the children they don’t have. Maybe all the maids and bachelors should start a movement to get back all the money they paid to the government because they decided they did not want to get married; I mean, that was their sexuality—their lifestyle choice.…….. If we must, contract these rights in civil unions. Yes, it will be separate and equal. It should be. Traditional marriage and gay marriage are not the same thing. But it will be equal. But we should beware the next step: polygamists, polyamorists, the consensual incests, etc. Because they will be next.

- malwords

May 29, 2009 at 1:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Homosexuality is just as incompatible with evolution as it is religion.

- kl

May 29, 2009 at 1:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Carlo, you've got no problem with infertile and childless hetero couples receiving the legal protections of marriage, as they're part of the class of potential breeders "in aggregate," as you say. But you're aggregating wrong. If marriage is to be extended to childless heteros, then marriage isn't simply reducible to childbearing. I'm in a happy and longstanding childless hetero marriage, and I find all this talk reducing my marriage to reproduction rather insulting, not to mention utterly disingenuous. Everyone who's been married--that is, most of you posting here--knows it's about MUCH more than childbearing, and that one's spouse deserves the protections of inheritance rights, medical benefits, hospital visitation, survivor's benefits, and countless other legal protections afforded to couples. The correct aggregation is the class of ALL adult couples (breeding and non-breeding) should receive equal legal protection under our marriage laws. If you're not going to deny me--childless and hetero--marriage, then you can't deny it to same-sex couples. (Enough of "arguments" about slippery slopes, incest, underage spouses, goats, and automobiles. Incest is medically unviable--a case where "tradition" is supported by science--and none of the latter has legal standing to initiate contracts. There is NO constituency of citizens looking for marriage to include any of these far-fetched and entirely hypothetical scenarios.)

- PW

May 29, 2009 at 1:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Carlo: I absolutely agree that the concept of "family" can become too generic to be protected by law--the suggestion that civil union or even marriage could be used as a convenience by elderly friends who just want to get better benefits is a clear example....But I absolutely reject the idea that two gay people in a committed relationship (2 people who might very well end up raising children together) don't qualify for that protection. In fact, I'd say their situation DEMANDS that protection.

- david z

May 29, 2009 at 1:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@Jordan - Where do "sacred relgious beliefs" fit within a civil marriage license where there is supposed to be separation between the church and state? Are you advocating a single state sponsored religion? What's sacred to you is considered discrimination to others. Why should I be denied the right to see my partner dying in his hospital room because of your definition of "sacred"... to me our love is sacred. Leave religion out of it. We're asking for CIVIL marriage and the rights afforded therein, not for any church to accept us.

- Mike

May 29, 2009 at 3:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, let's talk about spousal abuse! My anti-gay marriage fundamentalist-minded grandparents praised my marriage to the white wife beater husband and welcomed him into the family with open arms, but heaven forbid that I should marry a mixed-race man (who, by the way, has never in 13 years said a harsh word or raised a finger to me)--now I am banished from the family. Nice, huh? This is the same narrow-minded, and frankly, PETTY thought process that dictates the "logic" of those who oppose gay marriage. Say what you want, but the opponents of gay marriage are PRECISELY repeating the atrocities of segregation and racial discrimination that we saw against black Americans before the civil rights movement, and at the very least, that should get every black American on their feet, stomping to the courthouse steps in favor of gay marriage. How dare a bunch of white suits say that the sex of the person you love dictates how many rights you have in this society? Completely ridiculous!!!! You would think in the midst of all the other tragedies going on in our country right now (most of which were supported by the same group of people who oppose gay marriage) we would find something better to spend our energy on than to revert back to the small-minded ways of our racist ancestors. If there is a God, may that God help us!

- JDS

May 29, 2009 at 3:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How about this counter-proposal - if indeed you gay-marriage lovers only want equal protection in the eyes of the law, you can have it. Under a different label. Marriage will remain between a man and a woman. "Gay-arriage" (or whatever term you deem suitable) will grant you all the rights of a married couple. Of course then, you won't agree to it right? Much like Palestinians with the two state solution. You want the entire kit and kaboodle eh? Destroy whatever tradition and sanctity the act of marriage still has. Let's destroy everything those "straights" possess.

- jwl2672

May 29, 2009 at 4:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why is the onus of proof on traditionalists to logically defend marriage? Should it not be the gays who should be logically arguing why they should be allowed to be wed? All I hear from them is "because I want to...and because it hurts no one"

- jwl2672

May 29, 2009 at 4:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hi Jason: your query regarding other limits in marriage is often asked AND answered. Here are several answers to how the law can and should deal with such abstract questions of incest and polygamy. 1. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. It is a separate issue. This isn't about being married to ANYONE, but SOMEONE specific and primary. 2. The spousal relationship is one of two non related, non married and consenting adults. Consent relies on both parties agreeing, the others rely on the PRIMACY of one spouse to the other. Multiple spouses and sometimes multiple siblings complicate that primacy. In marriage it is the spouse who is householder and decision maker and custodian of the other. This simplifies kinship and responsibility for the state, as well as the family's understanding of that responsibility. 3. The state RESPECTS other kinships for the unmarried. Inheritance, immigration and other federal support of blood kin gives primary custody and responsibility to those parties. 4. Making MARRIAGE unnecessary and REDUNDANT for any other assumed kinship through marriage. 5. If you asked anyone in a blended family comprised of ex spouses, half and step siblings, especially those of many serial divorces and remarriage, THEY could tell you of just how complicated that situation is, and how diluted family assets are in that situation. Also, in polygamous societies, woman and children are abused, and isolated and don't consent to the additions in those arrangements. Serial divorce and remarriage are the closest to polygamy or polyamory we can get, and it's NOT a good thing. History hasn't been kind, nor supportive of that kind of arrangement. 6. The OTHER stupid questions regarding animals and inanimate objects STILL goes to CONSENT being necessary and both parties agreeing. 7. As for the other arguments made against gay marriage, such as non procreation and assumed immorality or physical incompatibility: these haven't interested the state before to discriminate, so there is no reason to all of a sudden decide it's right to do so against gay people.

- Regan DuCasse

May 29, 2009 at 5:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The gay community asks us to believe that same-sex love has the same human value as the love of men for women and women for men. This proposition cannot be taken on faith; it must be proved; and the burden of proof is on them. There are several reasons for this. 1. Obviously, all forms of sexuality are not created equal. Some we condemn as infantile, cruel or degrading; some we even criminalize. The mere fact that a form of sexuality exists does not entitle it to our reverence or respect, let alone to the automatic assumption that it's equal in value to the best that we know. Examples abound, but one will suffice. A couple engaged in consensual sadomasochism may feel wonderfully fulfilled, and their union may be closer and longer-lived than others that aren't based on the infliction of physical pain. Certainly, the S/M couple are free to hurt each other and get off on hurting each other as much as they like; but the "success" of their relationship doesn't make sadomasochism a healthy or humanly positive form of love. 2. The overwhelming majority of the human population is straight. The percentage of homosexuals appears to be in the low single digits. Even if these facts were grounded wholly in culture, they would still have normative significance, but they're grounded in nature as well. 3. As the proponents of change, gay activists should be ready to prove that man-woman love and same-sex love are equal in human value and equally deserving of the honorific "marriage." 4. Speaking from the standpoint of my own gender, I think that a man who can't love a woman is humanly disadvantaged, cut off from what may be the best experience in life, and one for which same-sex love is a sad, inadequate substitute, a desperate imitation of the real thing. An emotional and erotic union with a member of the opposite sex, one in which in which both halves of the human race are involved, strikes me as more varied, more interesting and humanly richer than same-sex love: more healthy and more natural too. I think that most people hold the same opinion, and as a practical matter, we're not going to relinquish it without compellingly persuasive reasons. If they truly wish to achieve their goal of winning hearts and minds, the gay community will have to explain why a form of eros that excludes the opposite sex is equal in value to one that includes both sexes. They haven't done this; instead thay have played only to our pity and our fear of seeming politically incorrect. That may work in some states; it won't work in most; and it hasn't worked with me.

-

May 29, 2009 at 8:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Strident opposition to gay marriage is rooted in the absurd fear that if gay relationships are honored everyone will turn gay. It is the irrational, solipsistic fear of latent bisexuality.

- cut to the chase

May 29, 2009 at 10:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

i think gay-supporters are just too sensitive when President Obama passed on this issue. give him a break, he's been thru a lot more important things to do than deal with these cry babies. they even say that they should have equal marriage rights like the heterosexuals in our society but you know what? it really just don't mix up. I've been reading these comments and not one of them gives weight to morality. and I think it's pathetic to even deliberate and include bible or religion in this argument. I'm not not saying homosexuality is not bad because there are naturally-born homosexual people with scientific back-ups; but to say you really want an equal marriage rights? That's really twisting the juice out of society's strong foundations of family. It's okay to be radical at some point but not on issues like this. I hope people would be enlightened that we might become another Rome someday when we let this things happen. It is not about tradition or inherited culture from our forefathers. You want to see two swords clashing at each other and expect a strong family out of it? I don't think so... morally and legally, it's not right.

- archie

May 29, 2009 at 10:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

i think gay-supporters are just too sensitive when President Obama passed on this issue. give him a break, he's been thru a lot more important things to do than deal with these cry babies. they even say that they should have equal marriage rights like the heterosexuals in our society but you know what? it really just don't mix up. I've been reading these comments and not one of them gives weight to morality. and I think it's pathetic to even deliberate and include bible or religion in this argument. I'm not not saying homosexuality is not bad because there are naturally-born homosexual people with scientific back-ups; but to say you really want an equal marriage rights? That's really twisting the juice out of society's strong foundations of family. It's okay to be radical at some point but not on issues like this. I hope people would be enlightened that we might become another Rome someday when we let this things happen. It is not about tradition or inherited culture from our forefathers. You want to see two swords clashing at each other and expect a strong family out of it? I don't think so... morally and legally, it's not right.

- archie

May 29, 2009 at 10:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It doesn't need more elaboration because it's so obvious: we are a heterosexually reproductive species. Someone explain how, if the Gay Gene existed, and some people are not attracted to the opposite sex, how did that Gene get passed down to today? Natural Selection works on humans, too, and a Gay Gene would eliminate itself from the pool!

- Marty

May 29, 2009 at 10:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait's final point about his original feeling of discomfort with homosexual use of the term "marriage" is really the issue here. Conservatives, by their very nature, will always oppose societal changes that portend a deconstruction of the world as they see it. This is a "good" to some extent: I live in a small, fairly religious community, and I can honestly say that on many levels these folks and their progeny are the bulwark of the community; from the simple values of helping those in need, to fostering a solid work ethic, to promoting clean living, etc., their willingness to adhere to "conservative" values allows me to live a more libertine existence without utter chaos. (I have never bought the anarchist ideals). A lot of people really need this kind of guidance and I daresay society would break down without tradition. Tribal life, from which we all are descendants, survived for thousands of years based on tradition of this kind. Yet, most tribal communities also incorporated homosexuality, indeed all manner of sexual differences, as well as other profound differences in our vast human variety, to utilize all in the group and to allow best for its survival. Unfortunately, the downside of our modern, Enlightenment-induced, materialistic and nationalistic state, and culture, is that we have jettisoned this tribal emphasis on inclusion to the group. We have become essentially a mass culture based on the desires of the powerful and they have fashioned all aspects of society in defense of the powerful state, including a modified Christianity that promoted Paternity, among other things. I see the movements of recent years, ie. civil rights, women's rights, gay rights etc., as an attempt through legal means to return to the sensibility of the tribal model. Yet, oddly, even as I see clearly the logic in allowing marriage to be enjoyed by all who desire it, and support gay marriage, I'm not sure if in the end it isn't a diminution of what the homosexual perspective has to offer, simply by calling a gay relationship by the same name as a traditional relationship that has existed for tens of thousands of years. Yes, I know, marriage has evolved from its original use in legitimizing children, and why should it not evolve further in this logical way, but I'm left wondering at our "logic" more and more these days. A tradition that true conservatives could work on, with my full support, would be the re-sacralizing of meal time, that is, the traditions of removing hats, washing hands, and bowing in thanks, that has been so swiftly jettisoned by our free-wheelin' society in its effort to reduce everything to its lowest common denominator. Guests in MY house must join in this ritual or they don't eat.

- Steve P

May 30, 2009 at 1:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sharon - The reason more people don't "make that case" has less to do with a desire to be politically correct and more to do with the realization that such claims are utterly, mindblowingly wrong. NARTH's claims that homosexuality is a disorder that can be treated have been repeatedly and thoroughly disproven by many, many different studies. While nurture almost definitely does play a role in homosexuality, nature also plays a large part - and those who claim that homosexuality can be "treated" are simply fooling themselves. As for the non-normalcy of homosexuality - you may be right, by at least some definitions of the word. However, that's not quite the blow to arguments for gay marriage that you seem to think it is, since, contrary to your statement, the main motivation behind most gay marriage proponents is not a desire to look "normal."

- Jason Roberts

May 30, 2009 at 4:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I can absolutely defend the no gay-marriage position logically with anyone and with clarity" And yet, for some reason, your three posts here have been filled with nothing but utter nonsense. I know you said that you weren't going to bother having such a debate here, but what you did post (which I guess wasn't a part of the debate) was not only silly but also objectively wrong - which makes me doubt your claims that you could debate with logic and clarity, if you wanted to. But please, go ahead and prove me wrong.

- Thomas Edwards

May 30, 2009 at 4:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's actually kind of depressing to see that some still fall for the NARTH nonsense. I guess no matter how intellectually dishonest and evil an organization is, it will always have supporters who appreciate it for supporting their preconceived (and hateful) notions. Their claims have been repeatedly disproven and their "treatments" shown to do far more harm than good, and yet people still cite their research as something worthwhile and accurate - depicting them as some sort of repressed, politically-incorrect truth-tellers (or something.) Sad.

- Jason Roberts

May 30, 2009 at 4:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

RE: Posted by Jason 18 of 115 | warn tnr | respond If gay marriage should be legalized on the grounds of... This is so easy to answer. polygamy is illegal, FOR EVERYONE. therefore no one can argue that this is discrimination considering that it is off limits to EVERYONE. No equal protection/discrimination case there or in any of the other slippery slope arguments, If everyone is prohibited to do these things by law then everyone is being treated equal. LGBT individuals are not being treated equally, did I miss the phrase individually, with justice for all. EXCEPT TEH GAY..

- JCarson1971

May 30, 2009 at 7:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Murder and stealing can be prohibited for logical reasons that require the blessing of no specific religion. This is the concept of 'natural law', not meaning (as often misunderstood) that the laws of nature or behavior of animals serve as our guide, but that we can justify a collective agreement to make murder illegal based on greatest common good without appealing to priest, pastor, or fatwah as justification.

- JohnJay60

May 30, 2009 at 10:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

#111 DJL: be advised to read up on and reactions to Rick Santorum's "man on dog" remarks as well as his own retractions circa 2003 #112 Jozanny: refer to #99

- AHL

May 30, 2009 at 11:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The above posts again show that Obama Admin will definitely not touch this issue in these four years. If the slippery slope argument (aka do this and everything is possible) do apply and do work. Then I dare to propose that we need to apply it firmly and totally to a lot of issues along homosexual marriage: 1) Gun Control: Sure gun owners are responsible people, but since they are going to buy and use army-issued assault rifles, what prevents them from buying and using stinger missiles or howitzers?! 2) Prohibition of Alcohol: The gateway drug to all drugs. The same can be said for cigarettes. 3) Global Warming: It's better that we operate completely on the pre-cautionary principle and start reducing emissions. Why are some people so against it? 4) Skirts: Showing legs and ankles is just one step away from full-blown nudity madness. Just look what the Swiss people have to contend with in the Alps with those crazy naked hikers. Look if people want to debate about where acceptable limit is go ahead. But there are already countries allowing gay marriages - are they sinking? But to some "Conservatives", there is the immovable line and nothing else. There are many problems directly affecting families and low birthrate, but homosexuals are not one them unless gay ray exists.

- Anonymous

May 31, 2009 at 7:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My name was left off #133, so I'll acknowledge authorship here.

- Proteus

June 1, 2009 at 7:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To the "not normal" argument, homosexuality (if science can be believed in the matter) may be more accurately termed 'non-normative' (something that is the exception, that proves the rule) than 'not normal' or 'abnormal' (that violates the rule therefore is undesirable or false/wrong). Or, it could be some of both, as in 'it's ok to be gay, but not ok to behave like a homosexual (the exception) would' (be expected to behave). In the last case we find ourselves in the grey zone, which is not necessarily the same as black vs white, true or false. It is a fact that more people now than ever find themselves in the grey zone, uncertain (or less certain) of what to believe, and what to say to gay people who seek to marry their partner, and take the vows which entail a change of life, in favor of stability and obedience to codes of behavior, in place of instability and free choice. A price is paid and an obligation is assumed. I believe what we are debating re: gay marriage, is not a black or white, right or wrong, issue, but one of belief at once in science and in favor of traditional morality and responsibility. Maybe it's only a semantic distinction, but sometimes semantics can clarify and not obscure meaningful differences. Worth consideration or, for many if not most people, re-consideration of the arguments of the other side in order to reach consensus.

- tomeg

June 2, 2009 at 2:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All anti-gay marriage opponents are anti-everything.They're deathly afraid of change and are paranoid freaks.As if allowing a same sex couple the same EQUAL rights an opposite sex couple has will bring about the end of the world,or some other lame scenario. And all of the arguments in the previous responses,shows a LOT of backward,bigoted,homophobic,close minded irrational "thinking". Some of you people are sadly pathetic old farts!!! Yet you want all the right to discriminate. Typical hypocrites!!!

- Hard On

June 2, 2009 at 3:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Religious angle, eh? So let's talk seven deadly sins, shall we? As any well-versed Christian should know, homosexuality doesn't even make the list. So it's at best a minor sin. However, many filling the bible belt's ample churches have waistlines which belie their continual commission of one of the seven deadly sins: GLUTTONY. And not only is this a deadly sin, which never seems to get mentioned any more in this gluttonous society. But from a purely secular standpoint, it is part of what's driving healthcare costs through the roof. So why don't we just impose a legal ban on gluttony? Frankly, I think fat people are far more offensive than gay people, and they're pushing up my health insurance costs, not to mention the taxes I pay into medicare. So anyone who's overweight has no business objecting to gay marriage until they stop committing one of the deadly sins.

- Kim G

June 4, 2009 at 6:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lrobb states, "How in good conscience can the Government demand an official charged with issuing marriage licenses issue one to a gay couple when that official sincerely believes s/he imperils his/her immortal soul by so doing?" Anyone who believes their mortal soul is in danger by issuing a marriage license to a gay couple should find employment that doesn't require it. I don't believe that many slaughterhouses have Buddhist employees. Using that example and Lrobb's logic, we couldn't really ask anyone to slaughter cattle, pigs, or other livestock either, and we'd have to be a vegetarian society. So, Lrobb, your argument there doesn't hold water.

- Kim G

June 4, 2009 at 6:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is always possible to contrive reasonable objections to any legal principle. Since perfection eludes us we have no choice but to decide what imperfections we will accept. The usual method of resolving these issues in a democracy is a vote. But we have managed to convince ourselves that there is a large range of issues for which a vote is not appropriate because they involve civil or human rights. It gets complicated. Once the state creates a right it must grant that right equitably. In simple terms equal protection means that the state must create as few different classes of people as possible. The state need not create a right to marry, but if it does it must have a good reason for forbidding people to exercise it. If person 'A' can marry person 'B' but person 'C' cannot then 'A' and 'C' belong to different classes. Interracial marriages must be legal because the state has no rational basis for denying them. There are no important (relevant) differences between the races with respect to reproduction. Any man must be allowed to marry any woman. (Yes, old women are unlikely to conceive, but no one wants bureaucrats making that call when the doctors can't even get it right.) But to ignore gender in marriage you have to believe it doesn't matter, and there are important and relevant differences between the sexes with respect to reproduction. No matter how many times two men "have sex" they can't have a baby. The rights and responsibilities assigned to married couples are there to offset the stress of raising a family (to encourage it) and to ensure that it is not casually dissolved (to preserve it). If you believe that marriage is primarily about reproduction, then it is neither vacuous nor vicious to believe that same-sex relationships are not worth subsidizing. This is not the whole story of course. Reasonable objections can be raised, complete with actual case histories. I could provide some myself but this post is already long enough. The critical point is that it is not obvious that the principle of equal protection guarantees a right to same-sex marriage. The issue may reasonably be decided by statute.

- RLT

June 5, 2009 at 12:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

1. Homosexual couples struggle desperately to imitate the real thing, and in the process resort to makeshift, ersatz and second-best alternatives: artificial insemination, surrogate carriage, strap-ons, anal intercourse, butch/femme role-playing, etc. This spectacle of same-sex love aping man-woman love while proclaiming itself to be as good as the original is not edifying, and it's not convincing either. 2. The inability to love a member of the opposite sex is a handicap, i.e., something that deprives one of a basic and humanly valuable range of experience. People with handicaps always try to rectify their situation. However, they usually do not claim that they aren't handicapped, deny that it's better not to be handicapped, and try to coerce their fellow-citizens into endorsing such nonsense. The gay community's insistence on marriage as opposed to civil unions represents just such an effort at thought-control, which is why I can't go along with it.

- Proteus

June 5, 2009 at 6:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The article is usefull for me. I’ll be coming back to your blog.

- KattyBlackyard

June 14, 2009 at 8:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hello. I think the article is really interesting. I am even interested in reading more. How soon will you update your blog?

- GarykPatton

June 16, 2009 at 4:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article seems to be a clear case of strawman fallacy. It's not so hard to make an argument against an idea put forth in a soundbite from a beauty contestant. Why doesn't Chait actually deal with some heavyweights intellectuals on the opposite side rather than kick over straw(wo)men?

- Fox

June 18, 2009 at 3:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This was a terrific article, though the shot at Giulani was unnecessary.

- Jack Davis

June 24, 2009 at 2:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close