Gay Marriage - FB discussion

I posted this on FB:

"...in many liberal minds, opposition to same-sex marriage must surely stem from fear."

B.R. Yes, many but not all. I appreciate that qualifier on the generalization. However, many other liberals have come to the assumption that it may not be about fear, but simply stubbornness rooted in selfishness. In other words, it seems like those who oppose same-sex marriage must believe that maintaining the validity of their own personal definition of marriage is more important than allowing strangers "one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival". (Chief Justice Earl Warren)

Me: So it's either fear or selfishness? Accusing someone of an emotional state is a cop-out designed to neuter and marginalize.

There is no right to marriage.

B.R.: Well, if it's not fear or selfishness, then those who oppose gay marriage are doing a terrible job of representing themselves. There's no upside to denying equal rights to American citizens. As for the right to marriage, you can disagree with the Supreme Court if you want to, but they've said quite clearly that "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival". In fact, there's precedence for marriage discrimination being unconstitutional - after Loving V. Virginia, the decision was that any regulated institution (such as marriage) may be set up initially with exclusion (such as denying interracial marriages in the past), but that it's unconstitutional to set up FUTURE exclusionary regulations for that institution. Banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. If you don't like it, take it up with the Constitution.

Me: Or maybe the pro gay-marriage crowd is doing a terrible job of listening.

The Supreme court also ruled that blacks were property, that property could be taken without a warrant, that Bush beat Gore, Citizens United, Plessy v. Ferguson, Adkins v. Children’s Hospital. Ben, you must be kidding.

Please quote the constitution's affirmation of gay marriage.

B.R.: I'M listening. Tell me why gay people don't deserve the same marriage rights as straight people.

B.R.: And I'm not kidding - I can disagree with the Supreme Court, but to say that their rulings aren't valid is nonsense. They're the law.

Me: Because there is no such thing as marriage rights.

Me: I did not say that Supreme Court rulings aren't valid.

B.R.: You're being evasive again. I understand there's a difference between human rights and legal rights. But right now, many many gay people are being prevented from getting married. I don't think the people opposing gay marriage are doing so because of their firm belief that "there is no such thing as marriage rights". I understand if you think that government should get out of the marriage business, but until that happens, millions of gay people are still left with second-class citizenship. Are you alright with that?

Me: I'll stop being evasive if you stop spouting slogans. My original post pointed out the fallacy of the "fear" slogan, so you simply move on to another slogan, "second class citizenship." It's intellectually vapid stuff like this that is beneath you, Ben.

If gays are really second class citizens, then so are 12 year olds who can't get a drivers license, 32 year olds who can't hold the office of the President, and polyamorists who are forbidden to marry the two people that they love. One can list hundreds of classes of people, who by virtue of what a law says, cannot do something someone else can do. That's what laws intrinsically do, is create classes of people. You have to know this, Ben.

Speaking of evasive, you have not complied with my request: "Please quote the constitution's affirmation of gay marriage."

B.R.: Compliance: The constitution didn't affirm gay marriage. The Supreme Court confirmed the unconstitutionality of banning certain people from being married, when they decided Loving V. Virginia.

Fear is not a slogan; homophobia and bigotry are rampant in America. Second class citizenship is not a slogan; there's a section of Americans who don't get the same fundamental rights as the rest of the country.

Your examples show me that you would rather not see this issue for what it really is, and I can do nothing to change your mind about that. We say "let gay people get married", and you say, "not everybody gets what they want". It's willfully ignorant to shrug off millions of people crying out for equal rights by listing other laws that limit certain people in certain ways.

12 year olds just have to wait four years to get a driver's license, and there's no united mass of 12 year olds screaming out for change. 32 year olds just have to wait til they're old enough to run for President, and there's no united mass of 32 year olds screaming out for change. Polyamorists are very different than polygamists, and there's no united mass of either one screaming out for change. So how long do gay people have to wait?

You have done nothing to show me a single reason why gay people should not be allowed to get married. So what are you hiding behind? What damage will it do to allow committed couples who are deeply in love to get married like everybody else in this country? Which straight people will be negatively affected by queers tying the knot? Where's this resistance coming from? I beg you to be honest and tell me. If it's not fear and it's not selfishness, and you can't actually establish any good reason that these exclusionary limits on marriage should continue, then stay out of the way of social justice.

Me: Ben, please calm down.

Are you saying that people clamoring is the measure of constitutionality? What sort of standard is it that makes the level of agitation a reason to change laws?

Me:  The burden of proof rests with gay marriage advocates, not me. You have to show there is a compelling reason to change the way society has functioned for centuries.

And by the way, you are selectively quoting Loving v. Virginia. The decision was to allow mixed race couples to marry, with Warren citiing the reason: the propagation of the human race. I don't buy his reason, but certainly gay marriage does not yield children.

You neglected to address my point in your nitpicking about "clamoring" and age. The fact of the matter is the law creates privilege for some and denies it to others, for whatever reason. There is no rights violations in any of these instances, because rights do not come to bear.

Me: I have no interest in what consenting people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, it is not my business. But if there are legal ramifications regarding the union of people in any fashion, that can be dealt with in the law and legal contracts. If gays were simply interested in legal protection of their assets, wealth transference, etc, those can be easily solved and I am not in the transaction.

But gays force me and everyone else into their bedrooms by demanding society's solemn/celebratory approval for their relationships. This is unreasonable. It's also contradicts their stated desire to be private. My sole and singular interest in the gay marriage debate is to be left alone.

B.R.: Very well spoken as usual. I can find no error in your words, except to say that gays aren't forcing you to do anything. You'll be left alone if you get out of the way of their civil rights - which they deserve and will inevitably receive. If you really believe it's not your business, stop posting about it.

Me: You have no way of knowing what will happen, nor can you know who will be forced to do what. If I can say one thing about the Left, they love to force people to do things. In fact, it is not outside the realm of possibility that the issue will not stop with the granting of gay marriage.

I guarantee you that howls of "homophobia" and "hater" will not stop, but will intensify. Those are the tools of the Tolerant Ones. The left is persistent. What it cannot get all at once it will pursue incrementally. Gay marriage is an incremental step.

My posting was about the sloganeering of the Left, not about gay marriage per se. And I will post about anything I choose to, thank you very much. Your attempt to silence dissent is unseemly.

B.r.: If you could provide even one reason that gay men and women should not be allowed to have the full rights and benefits of marriage in America, then I wouldn't discourage you from speaking out about it. But you don't seem to have any. Your dissent on this matter is empty, and your desire for obstruction of social justice serves no one. So, in order for you to get what you want ("to be left alone") and for me to get what I want (equal rights for gays and lesbians), the best course of action is for you to stop posting about it.

B.R.: A very conservative friend of mine hopped onto one of my threads the other day, and talked about gay marriage with a couple of polyamorous friends of mine. He said:

"I hate homosexuality and think it's is a disgusting mental disorder but I support their right to get married. That being said, who am I to tell them what to do! Equality is equality and freedom is freedom. Live and let live. And let a republican like me own my guns in peace, and do whatever else I like as long as I'm not harming others. Truthfully, I don't hate gay people. I'm just taking an extreme to prove a point that you don't have to agree with someones lifestyle but you should support their rights. I have a few gay friends but they are more acquaintances really. They disagree with my lifestyle and I disagree with theirs but that doesn't me we have to restrict each others freedoms. I know I sound like a broken record but, live and let live."

Me: More slogans. "Social justice" is a high-sounding but meaningless phrase. And we have discussed at length what constitutes rights. Interestingly, you haven't even tried to establish that rights are actually being violated.

Regarding benefits, I already noted that they can be dealt with legally: "But if there are legal ramifications regarding the union of people in any fashion, that can be dealt with in the law and legal contracts."

It seems to me that I'm not being evasive or providing empty dissent. Rather, I'm clearly stating my thought processes, and you either don't like them or didn't read them. And you haven't offered anything as a rejoinder other than well-worn catch phrases.

Me: What your friend said is interesting, but irrelevant.

Me: You seem to want to pigeonhole me into some sort of hostility, dare I say, bigotry that is unwarranted by my presentation. To be against gay marriage does not mean I fit your stereotypical templates. Otherwise, how would you account for gays who are against gay marriage?

B.R.: We're talking past each other. You want to prove that there is no official right to get married, and I want to prove that gay people should be equal under the law to other Americans. I can't prove you wrong and you can't prove me wrong.

I don't think you're a bigot and I don't think you're homophobic. I think, on this particular issue, that you're on the wrong side. You care about love, you care about committed partnerships, you care about personal freedom and you care about keeping the government out of our personal lives. You said that it's up to gay rights advocated to "show there is a compelling reason to change the way society has functioned for centuries".

They have - society has changed, and so it's time for this law to evolve. It happened with women's right to vote, it happened with segregation, it happened with interracial marriage, and now it's happening with gay marriage. According to most states and the federal government, gay people do not have the legal right to get married, I admit to you. But they should.

There are millions of Americans asking for that right for their own lives and the lives of their families, and 58% of the country is behind them. If we have to wait until that percentage is even higher, then that's what we'll do.

You will never run out of reasons to oppose gay marriage. There's just no good reason left. I would like you to support gay marriage. Please support gay marriage.

Me:: If one doesn't understand the argument, then one cannot ascertain the solution.

First, being "equal under the law" is an expression relating to equal justice when being tried for a crime. This is a much different topic than what you're trying to connect it to. "Equal protection," as referenced by the 14th amendment, restrains the states from abridging "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This first applies to "natural rights" (i.e., unalienable rights), but then extends to legal rights. That means what the Feds grant, the states must grant.

Interestingly, the Feds grant only "one man, one woman" via DOMA. So the 14th amendment actually argues against your position. Extending the logic, the states that have chosen to grant same sex marriage are in violation of the 14th amendment.

Second, your position about privacy, etc. strikes me as incredibly odd. How can you be in favor of privacy and personal choice and at the same time argue for more government involvement in private relationships? It makes no sense!

I really find your advocacy puzzling. You're a demonstated intellect, yet your defense of your position has been presented with the stock phrases, talking points, and buzz words of the gay lobby, as if by repeating them you've made a case.

I neither support nor oppose gay marriage. You hope I would support it, but why is my celebration of gay marriage even on the radar? Why should society give its holy stamp of approval based on who someone sleeps with? Why should the private relationships of people be of concern to me or anyone else? Jesus H. Christ, why can't people just leave people alone?