I'm sorry - but maybe it's because I'm from massachusetts that I don't understand the distinction he's trying to make here.

What is it about 'marriage' vs some other legal binding contract like a civil union that makes it implicitly heterosexual ONLY?

This is not a criticism of McCain, or Republicans in general, it's just that they've never given a satisfactory reason why marriage is so sacred that its only for a man and a woman but all other relationships are good enough for legal unions, but fall short of the sacred nature that a marriage will bring?

And of course we can't forget half of the sacred unions lose their sanctity in divorce.

I'm just baffled by this exclusive club that only heterosexual couples can belong to, no matter how compatible or strong or likely to end in disaster they really are - just as long as the X:Y ratio remains 3:1, it's legit

TOTALLY a moderate Maverick. Pro-Life and Anti-gay, how more maverick could you get?

I've never heard an argument against gay marriage that could be boiled down to anything other than bigotry. That's all it is. That is why McCain has no argument except "We just disagree."

I've never heard an argument against gay marriage that could be boiled down to anything other than bigotry. That's all it is. That is why McCain has no argument except "We just disagree."

I've said this before about people who are against gay marriage. They either believe: A. Sexual orientation is a choice. B. Sexual orientation is not a choice, but if you're gay, then you're broken.

I'm tried of any discussion that doesn't call people out on those two points. First question to anyone on the topic should be: Do you think it's a choice? Yes or no?

Do I think it's a choice? Nope. But I'd love to hear the evidence to the contrary.

I think that as far as the state is concerned, all marriages are (or should be recognized as) civil unions. The state doesn't "sanctify" a marriage - that is the church's job, if one is so inclined. It seems to me that for most people, this position would settle it - if gays or straights can find a church or any other so-inclined organization willing to perform a religious (or nonreligious) ceremony - go for it. I really couldn't care less what the legal proceeding in which I participated 34 years ago at City Hall with my wife is called, so long as all the legal ramifications surrounding that proceeding don't change.

nice video Erick. i'm baffled why, with that (and other) evidence, anyone would think people choose to be gay.

It annoys me that it seems to make such a big difference whether or not being gay is a choice. Who cares if it is a choice? It doesn't seem to be a choice (though I think it's a lot more complicated than a genetic inevitability), but even if were, there's still no argument whatsoever to be made to deny anyone the right to marry whatever consenting adult they want.

It makes me so mad...I wouldn't say that this is one of the very most important political issues of our time (given omnipotence to fix one issue I'd go for the trampling of constitutional liberties in the name of "the war on terror"), but it's certainly one of the most clear-cut. There's just no defending the position that same sex marriage shouldn't be legal. No attempt can even get off the ground! And yet, paradoxically, people are approving fucking constitutional amendments in all these states (including places like Michigan!) to ban not only marriage, but in some cases even civil unions...

Truly baffling.

I wouldn't say that this is one of the very most important political issues of our time

I do believe that it's a very important political issue of our time. I believe that human rights are, and always will be, a very important political issue.

Civil rights for ALL people, male/female, straight/gay, black/white/native american/asian whatever... I believe in full equal rights for each and every single person on the face of the Earth.

I love how people try to shape this issue as though it's a religious one that churches and believers only get to decided. Marriage can be religious but it's not bound by it. Civil marriages are completely secular and I agree with Tim that the state does not have the obligation to "sanctify" a marriage (whatever that means).

People for Equal Protection: 1

Calligraphs of the world: 0

Definitely, JoAnn. I wasn't trying to suggest that we needed to rank all the important issues with respect to each other -- my main point was just how unambiguous this issue is compared to most others out there, where at least I can see that there are defensible arguments for the opposing position, even if I think they're pretty weak in some cases.

my main point was just how unambiguous this issue is compared to most others out there, where at least I can see that there are defensible arguments for the opposing position, even if I think they're pretty weak in some cases.

I understand what you're saying Colin.

Some people support the opposing position because they feel that one can only take baby steps as far as "change" is concerned.

I was just listening to an interview with Alan Dershowitz, in which he talked briefly about gay marriage. I think he got it mostly right.

He said he believes marriage is "sacred," but the state should not perform marriages. Only churches. The government should call them civil unions (and do them without discriminating), and the ones who want to get "married" should just look for a church that will marry them, with no extra legal rights of course, whatsoever.

After all (and this is my opinion) if marriage is so sacred for these people, let them be given "sacred" rights by their god in their heaven, not extra, lowly, earthly rights by the state in this world.

And I also don't think it matters if homosexuality is in the genes or "learned." That's not the way the argument should go. Most people on both sides seem to be too sure they're right. Well, it's a scientific question, and so far it's not completely clear that it's all DNA. Most probably it's a big part of it, but IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYWAY. As someone above said, so what if it's not genetic? Who cares? There are many other behaviors that are learned that are also completely benign and we don't reject them because they're not in our DNA.

It seems to me the only reason to be homophobic is because of plain ignorance, and most of that ignorance comes from religion.

I've never heard an argument against gay marriage that could be boiled down to anything other than bigotry.

I've never met anybody who says this who has actually listened to any of the arguments against gay marriage.

And 'bigotry' is way too open a word. It's just firm belief in your own viewpoint. By definition, your unwillingness to consider any viewpoint but your own on this issue is bigotry.

People for Equal Protection: 1 Calligraphs of the world: 0

I love how you keep claiming victory when gay marriage is still only permitted in one of 50 states. Yeah, I'm really sweating here.

And this isn't an issue of equal protection - you can't even explain what you believe you're being 'protected' from. It's pushing an agenda, plain and simple. I, and the vast majority of people in the world, disagree with your agenda. And in a free society we will continue to vote that belief.

We're aiming to being protected from open discrimination by state and federal government. It really is that simple calligraph.

Great Christina, a Californian whose "Why I'm an Angry Atheist" writing has been linked on this blog before, is currently in a domestic partnership with a woman and hopes to be married within the coming month. She makes a very good point (a point I strongly agree with) in this excerpt from her recently published writing "I Do - And Why".

"Marriage is recognized around the country and around the world, and all its practical and legal rights and responsibilities get carried with you everywhere you go . . . in a way that is most emphatically not true for civil unions and domestic partnerships. Besides, it’s a well- established principle that “separate but equal” is inherently not equal. The very act of saying, “No, you can’t have this thing that everyone else can have, but you can have that other thing we created just for you that’s almost exactly like it — isn’t that special?” It’s the creation of second-class status, pretty much by definition".

You would do well to keep that in mind calligraph.

It's not an issue of equal protection, but it is an issue of equal treatment under the law. It's a rights issue, "plain and simple".

You say we're not listening to the arguments against gay marriage, but you haven't provided any... I'm pretty willing to consider arguments against my positions; let's hear what you have. Be concrete, though... vague comments involving words like "the sanctity of marriage", or non-arguments that basically reduce to "gay people are gross" won't work.

(The reason "sanctity of marriage" won't work is because we're talking about legal marriage here, and "sacredness" does not apply to anything in government. If churches want to restrict whom they'll marry, fine)

Finally don't make claims about children being better off with heterosexual parents unless you have sources (besides which, marriage and children are separate issues)

"Arguments" of the precedings sorts are the only ones I've ever heard. If you have something new, I want to know.

Calligraph, do you really think a society that limits what two fully consenting adult should do (or even more, who they want to love) based on the majority is a "free society" at all? Democracy does not work for issues where people are so ignorant. ESPECIALLY if said ignorant people don't have any reasonable argument (you say you have one, let's see it). All they allude to is religious mumbo-jumbo.

Does it make it OK that there was so much more institutionalized racism decades back, even if a majority of people were in favor of it? Reality is not democratic, and we need to make our moral choices based on reality. Once we accept reality for what it is we can start making coherent arguments.

As a heterosexual married mother, this battle has always baffled me, since I have never felt threatened by my gay friends relationships (and since 2003 in Spain, marriage). Really, if Spain, a country that merely 35 years ago was run by an OPUS Dei loving dictator, could handle this, what is America afraid of? I kinda expected you guys to be there before we ever dreamt of it, guess I was wrong.

Besides, from the evolutionary perspective, there may be some clues in the fact that +6 billion people is way more than this planet can comfortably provide for and we already have millions of children without loving homes. What if our genetic code understands this better than we do and is enhancing the capacity for humans to find love and companionship without conception? (with the added bonus of increasing the pool of loving homes for those existing children that currently and sadly have to do without).

Here's another hetero's support for equal rights to all.

I'm a straight white male, and I wish I could vote against McCain a billion times. Anyone who wants to marry, bless you and good luck. It's not for me, I doubt I ever will marry, I value my independence too much and I've noticed that relationships tend to change over time. Even the hottest romance cools off and then you're friends and then.. business partners? That's marriage for most people. Absolutely, any consenting adults that want to do that, let them. It is no one else's business! And it is high time we tell those busy body fundamentalists who have fuck all to do but interfere with other peoples' lives, that the game is over. This is not an election issue that they can win on as long as the non-bigot majority shows up and VOTES!! To all you gay and straight folks who are engaged or married, I wish you happiness and prosperity. And anyone who doesn't can wallow in their own foolishness. Live and let love, already.

Did Maddow say "Hunkyou" after being introduced?

Calligraph: And this isn't an issue of equal protection - you can't even explain what you believe you're being 'protected' from. It's pushing an agenda, plain and simple. I, and the vast majority of people in the world, disagree with your agenda. And in a free society we will continue to vote that belief.

WIKIPEDIA:

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal" by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states.

This was the issue for Lawrence v. Texas as well. See, douchebags like you would have stuck with the red herring issue wording it as: 'Do individuals have a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy' completely circumventing the actual issue (which was later corrected by the Supreme Court) of affording Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection. Here the issue brought up was of protected classes wherein heterosexuals could engage in sodomy but not homosexuals. The holding struck down these unconstitutional laws and Justice Kennedy wrote that this ruling would open the door to have issues like same-sex marriage be challenged. Guess what? It seems he was right after all.

Score board please...

Sane Americans: 2 Calligraph: 0

Hope I don't get yelled at. I actually want to know what Calligraph thinks on this issue. Let the fellow (i am guessing sex) tell us what he thinks without calling him names.

I live in Canada which now has gay marriage. I initially wanted the state to stop "marrying" anyone, instead have everyone have a civil union defined by law. Marriage would be a culteral relegious thing, as it should be. I figured everyone had to agree to that, and there would be no possible anti gay/ conservative backlash that i thought would happen. It would take the feelings of those folks opposed to gay marriage into account and make sure there were equal rights. I have seen no backlash, and even our conservative government, doesn't seem to care about it. I have seen no changes in society either. It seems like the opposition to it has also died down.

If i was going to choose my big concerns with this election i have to admit, I don't really care about abortion. I don't really care about gay marriage, I care about issues with expanded presidential powers, torture, diplomacy, americas standing in the world, better health care, stopping the increasing divide between rich and poor, stuff that matters to me much much more than these specific issues that seem to divide the right and left.

In my opinion:

1. If a person has been divorced, they lose any credibility regarding the "sanctity of marriage".

2. Even if being gay were a choice (hypothetically), what difference does that make? A free society should be allowed to do whatever they wish with their own genitals-

3. -with some notable exceptions. Children, animals, and the handicapped might lack the capacity to defend themselves against unwanted advances. Therefore, I can understand why child abuse and bestiality should remain illegal. However, ANYTHING, and I mean ANYTHING done between consenting adults is A-OK with me.

4. Addendum to #3. It is A-OK, but please, keep it to yourselves. It is none of my damn business what you do sexually, and vice versa.

I've never met anybody who says this who has actually listened to any of the arguments against gay marriage. And 'bigotry' is way too open a word. It's just firm belief in your own viewpoint. By definition, your unwillingness to consider any viewpoint but your own on this issue is bigotry.

COLLIGRAPH - I do not begrudge anyone for being against gay marriage. If someone believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, then that is the sort of union that someone should enter into. Nor do I have a problem with a church that will not marry gay couples. That is their prerogative. I am not a bigot. I respect other viewpoints and beliefs. A bigot is someone who seeks to amend a constitution to disallow one class of citizen the rights enjoyed by another class of citizens purely because they do not understand or agree with another lifestyle.

And, for the record:

bigot noun chauvinist, partisan, sectarian; racist, sexist, homophobe, dogmatist, jingoist.

Nothing about inclusive...

Would you also say that about individuals against interracial marriages? Just curious. I just find it ironic that if any person attacks a group's idiotic beliefs or ideology you automatically become 'close minded'. I guess Nazi sympathizers are the most free thinking individuals alive. I am, of course, welcome to have a discussion with anyone who shares an alternative viewpoint, but you assume that calligraph has scored knockout arguments in defense of his position. My goodness, he's even said that his own revulsion toward gays was evidence of homosexuality being abnormal and unnatural. By that standard bugs, feces, and old people kissing are all evidence to their abnormality and unnaturalness. He's also said that animal homosexuality is a myth because he's never found monkeys or penguins in bath houses. Insert hysterical patronizing laugh here. I'll respect a person's right to their own opinion, but why should I respect the asinine opinions or beliefs themselves? In the words of John Stossel: give me a break.

If marriage is sacred, and needs to be protected, why not just outlaw divorce? Half of the people who get married in the US get divorced anyhow — it's like you're launching a fleet into the ocean, and half of your ships sinks, but instead of looking into that problem, you throw a great, big fit because some gay dudes tried building a ship?

Dude...

If marriage is sacred, and needs to be protected, why not just outlaw divorce? Half of the people who get married in the US get divorced anyhow...

This is like someone launching a fleet into the ocean, and half of their ships end up sinking, but instead of looking into that problem, they throw a great, big fit because some gay dudes tried building a ship...

I like how Calligraph says "you've obviously never listened to our arguments" then failed to provide any.

Go on, please explain how banning gay marriage benefits society in any way, shape or manner. We're all ears.

It's not an issue of equal protection, but it is an issue of equal treatment under the law.

No, it's not. That is the red herring. If you really thought it was about 'equal treatment' for all parties you would want no restrictions on marriage whatsoever - allowing people to marry anyone, any thing, any age, any number. Which would of course take away all meaning of marriage.

It's specifically about granting a privilege to a special interest group. All the 'rights' and 'equality' arguments are emotional nonsense brought into the fray by people who realize they have no factual point of contention, but don't want to admit it.

Not being able to get married imparts no specific or injurious restrictions upon gay couples. That's the only issue that matters in a case of 'equal protection' or 'equal rights'.

Calligraph, do you really think a society that limits what two fully consenting adult should do (or even more, who they want to love) based on the majority is a "free society" at all?

Apparently, since we limit what two fully consenting adults can do all the time. There are innumerable restrictions placed upon adult behavior for the benefit of society.

Does it make it OK that there was so much more institutionalized racism decades back

Seriously, get a new argument. Falling back on Nazis and racism every time you find yourself in a corner might have worked when you were debating in 11th grade, but people who aren't intimidated by shady analogy won't fall as easily.

You could make this argument to attempt to win the right to vote for convicted felons - after all, by denying them their right to vote, aren't you doing the same as enslaving black people?!? You could make this argument against locking people up for crimes - the Constitution says we're all equal and free, so how can you lock people up, you Nazi!!!. You can reduce any argument to a simple emotional point, which is why so many people are so readily convinced of anything - all you have to do is make the right emotional argument, be it comparing two gay people wanting to get married to slaves or comparing chickens in a processing plant to Jews in a concentration camp.

I live in Canada which now has gay marriage

Interesting that you bring this up, because the Canada model is how we'll probably see this little special interest cause brought into our country as well: by a political group seeking to curry favor from that special interest group, not by the will of the people. Advocates of gay marriage are terrified of a popular vote because they know they'll lose.

bigot noun chauvinist, partisan, sectarian; racist, sexist, homophobe, dogmatist, jingoist.

Consult a dictionary rather than a thesaurus:

bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion

Were I writing the thesaurus, my primary suggestion for a synonym would be 'liberal', since they are without a doubt the least tolerant people in the world. All you have to do is disagree with one and the claws come right out. How dare you question the liberal groupthink!

Would you also say that about individuals against interracial marriages?

If one is a man and one is a woman, such a marriage is permitted by our society. One has nothing to do with the other.

If marriage is sacred, and needs to be protected, why not just outlaw divorce? Half of the people who get married in the US get divorced anyhow — it's like you're launching a fleet into the ocean, and half of your ships sinks, but instead of looking into that problem, you throw a great, big fit because some gay dudes tried building a ship?

Actually, your argument is like saying "hey, half our ships are sinking, so let's just scuttle the whole fleet".

The divorce rate has climbed as people have become more self-centered. Marriage thrives when it has a purpose: classically the purpose of marriage has been the furtherance of the family, which is why our society grants special exemptions and privileges to married couples.

I find it hilarious that people still pretend that feminism, the devaluation of the male, and the contempt for marriage have no ill effect, and then cite the 50% divorce rate (along with the rising adolescent crime rate, the lack of young males graduating from high school or attending college, and so on). I mean, it's not like it surprises me when liberals talk out of both sides of their face but I'd think more people would notice the two tongues wagging.

And before you reply with stock liberal talking point #3, no, it doesn't matter if some married couples cannot produce children, et cetera. The concept remains the same: marriage is given special status because it benefits and furthers our society.

The concept remains the same: marriage is given special status because it benefits and furthers our society.

This is precisely why homosexuals should be granted to right to "marriage"... because it benefits and furthers our society.

the Constitution says we're all equal and free, so how can you lock people up, you Nazi!!!. You can reduce any argument to a simple emotional point

Right, and the use of a bold font and three exclamation points betrays no lack of emotion from Call... lol

be it comparing two gay people wanting to get married to slaves or comparing chickens in a processing plant to Jews in a concentration camp.

So now you're making an analogy of the rights of homosexuals and slaves to the rights of chickens? Really? LOL!

Okay, Calligraph, the rights of slaves and homoseuxuals has to do with rights of human beings, therefore one can make this analogy.

But to inject the rights of chickens? (seriously rolling on the floor laughing right now).. although I do believe that we shouldn't abuse the little chickens.. ;)

If you really thought it was about 'equal treatment' for all parties you would want no restrictions on marriage whatsoever - allowing people to marry anyone, any thing, any age, any number.

That is a non sequitor. You could apply that same 'logic' (for lack of a better word) to voting rights.

Apparently, since we limit what two fully consenting adults can do all the time. There are innumerable restrictions placed upon adult behavior for the benefit of society.

Could you give some examples? I have a feeling they somehow impose negative externalities on society -- something you haven't been able to demonstrate for homosexual sex or marriage.

Seriously, get a new argument. Falling back on Nazis and racism every time you find yourself in a corner might have worked when you were debating in 11th grade, but people who aren't intimidated by shady analogy won't fall as easily.

This coming from someone who falls back on bestiality slippery slopes?

Advocates of gay marriage are terrified of a popular vote because they know they'll lose.

Perhaps but the argument is whether there should be a vote to begin with. You've dismissed the argument of tyranny of the majority without backing up your claims.

classically the purpose of marriage has been the furtherance of the family

Classically the purpose of marriage was chattel. And this "one man one woman" deal is actually very recent in our history.

You've avoided the actual content yet again so as to only reply your tired old "American Hater" "Liberal Talkingpoints" "Bigot is ambiguous" "Reductio ad bestiality" arguments. yawn

Calligraph, do you really think a society that limits what two fully consenting adult should do (or even more, who they want to love) based on the majority is a "free society" at all?

Apparently, since we limit what two fully consenting adults can do all the time. There are innumerable restrictions placed upon adult behavior for the benefit of society.

You fail to explain how two homosexuals getting married have anything to do with anyone else. They pose no threat. Are you really that dim or are you just pulling our legs? You are only half good at avoiding to provide a convincing argument, you just dance around our comments with dishonest or at most pretty naive rebuttals.

Does it make it OK that there was so much more institutionalized racism decades back

Seriously, get a new argument. Falling back on Nazis and racism every time you find yourself in a corner might have worked when you were debating in 11th grade, but people who aren't intimidated by shady analogy won't fall as easily.

Wow, you are dim. Did I ever mention Nazis? In any case, with black people it's a perfectly good analogy, they are both minority groups that get discriminated for no reason whatsoever other than ignorance. Can you say the same for prisoners? Are you implying that there is no reason why we should incarcerate criminals, we do just because we're ignorant? Your mention of prisoners is intellectually dishonest and just plain dumb. And that's not an insult, it's a statement. You are welcome to argue me wrong.

This is kind of an old thread, so I don't know if anyone's still reading the comments, but I just saw Calligraph's response...

Not being able to get married imparts no specific or injurious restrictions upon gay couples.

That's an interestingly false thing to say...

Married couples get:

-special tax status

-hospital and prison visitation rights

-insurance coverage through spouse's employer

The spouse of a deceased partner can also assume his/her pension, and some social security benefits...

just to name a few.

It's pretty clearly a disadvantage not to be able to get legally married.

And the old "slippery slope" argument is a bunch of Santorum (as it were)... Marriage is a legal contract between (two) individuals. Children, non-human animals, and inanimate objects are not entities able to enter into legal contracts, nor are they legally capable of reaping the benefits of marriage. I personally wouldn't have a problem with polygamous marriages in principle (though in practice, e.g. in the case of fundamentalist Mormons it has problems not directly related to the numerosity issue itself), but even that doesn't follow. One could easily argue that full polygamous marriage benefits would be a drain on society, since it would require more community resources to give all of those benefits to an unlimited number of partners. The same can't be said of same sex marriage. So long as you're only allowed to grant those benefits to one other person, then everyone is equal.

And you still haven't said anything about how allowing same sex couples to marry would be in any way a burden on society. It's true, we place restrictions on people's behavior, but we only do so (at least in principle) when allowing those behaviors would harm society in some demonstrable way.

classically the purpose of marriage has been the furtherance of the family, which is why our society grants special exemptions and privileges to married couples. ... And before you reply with stock liberal talking point #3, no, it doesn't matter if some married couples cannot produce children, et cetera. The concept remains the same:

Um... how's that exactly? If the purpose of marriage is the furtherance of the family, how is the concept the same for a heterosexual couple that can't or doesn't produce children, but not for a homosexual couple, especially a couple that does have children? You don't just get to assert that the concept is the same and then stop there.

It seems to me that by your own statement as to the purpose of marriage, then a gay couple who wants to provide a loving, supportive family environment for one or more children, whether their own or adopted, should be among the first couples to be granted marriage rights.

Fundamentally, I just want to know what your honest reason for opposing gay marriage is. I've never heard a single reason from anyone that makes any sense. As I said above, they always rely on either emotion, faulty statistics, or faulty logic (e.g. the slippery slope fallacy).

Colin said:

Fundamentally, I just want to know what your honest reason for opposing gay marriage is.

You're seriously awating an honest reason? LOL!