This is problematic.

Black people weren't defined as 3/5th of a person, they were counted as 3/5th of a person for purposes of defining congressional districts.

Black people were defined as less than human. Gays have also been so defined.

Yep. Boo on Jackson.

He dismissed gay marriage as a wedge issue and a "Republican tactical strategy."

Its true that this whole issue is problematic. One thing this issue is NOT is a Republican wedge issue. Really, its homosexual activists and the media who have made this issue front and center in our lives lately.

Repbulicans are just asserting what they have traditionally believed, that marriage is the union of one man and one women, not two men, or two women, or three women and one man, or any such other thing. And the truth is, you can't open the door of marriage to same sex couples without allowing everyone else to go through the door as well.

I'm all for civil unions that give homosexual couples legal rights. I'll never support this concept of "gay marriage."

Ultimately, this is not about "banning" gay marriages, its about upholding one uniform standard for marriage. Everyone in this country already has the right to marry, just not someone of the same sex, or more than one person, or someone who is under a certain age.

I think we can work things out in a way that will protect marriage AND give homosexual couples the legal rights they are seeking without having to destroy the institution that marriage has always been, one in which two people come together to produce the next generation. Yes, marriage CAN be about two people just living together and not having children, but for thousands of years, most marriages have been about family.

Thanks.

David

Me and my goat went down to the courthouse for a marriage license, and the fascist clerk wouldn't give us one. This is a gross violation of our civil liberties. It's slavery all over again. Damn that Bush- We've got rights!

GLBT people -- expatriate. It is the only way.

David, what's the difference between a civil union and a marriage in your view?

I'm not trying to facetious here but
with all the talk of gay marriage.....
If these unions are upheld in a court of
law what about D-I-V-O-R-C-E ? How are
child custody laws going to figure here?
Alimony? Property Settlements? Curious.
I realize I'm jumping the gun a bit here
and all but shouldn't this be of just as
much consideration in the larger picture
here?

Me and my goat went down to the courthouse for a marriage license, and the fascist clerk wouldn't give us one. This is a gross violation of our civil liberties. It's slavery all over again. Damn that Bush- We've got rights!

I've never bought the "slippery slope" argument that legalizing gay marriage opens the door for polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc.

In what way does defining marriage as a union between two consenting adults somehow invite all of this?

David, what's the difference between a civil union and a marriage in your view?

Allowing homosexual couples to have legal rights in their relationship is something that civil unions can give, though, most of that is available right now through legal means without even civil unions. However, marriage is more than just a civil union in that it is the recognized vehicle for the creation of families and its a recognized commitment for most faiths to God.

The other advantage of allowing civil unions but not allowing "gay marriage" is that state governments will have the power to place limitations on the kind of civil unions they allow. This way you avoid the slippery slope issue where people begin demanding the right to marry more than one person, etc.

The day may come when civil unions will allow for contracts for periods of time, not just on a perpetual basis until they are dissolved. "Honey, how about a five year contract with an option to renew?"

I won't be surprised if that ever happens some day. As for the millenia-old institution of marriage, that should not be rewritten to fit our current PC view of the world.

Thanks.

David

"However, marriage is more than just a civil union in that it is the recognized vehicle for the creation of families and its a recognized commitment for most faiths to God."

If you want marriage to be a religious term then you must take it out as a legal status in this country.

Second of all, how is this a slippery slope for more than one partner? I feel like this argument that I have a lot recently is a way to label the gay population as some sort of abnormal sick society just as we would people who want to marry more than one partner. They aren't the same thing and it isn't a slippery slope.

In what way does defining marriage as a union between two consenting adults somehow invite all of this?

Wait a minute Scott. You are saying that its okay to change the definition of marriage from "one man/one woman" to "two consenting adults," but that is a very selfish attitude on your part.

You want one group to be allowed in and then you want to shut the door on everyone else? "Oh, we want to change this rule, just a little bit to accomodate us, then you can stop making changes after that because we don't care about anyone else."

Not that I'm saying this is something you would say, but this is exactly what some -- not all -- homosexuals are saying. They want to rules changed for their group, but no one else. But, if you think about it, Mormon men were legally marrying multiple women in Utah hundreds of years before this issue ever arose. Why should THEY be left out? And if they are allowed in too, then we HAVE to allow a woman to marry multiple men. And if we allow that, I guess we should also allow someone already married to marry someone else who is already in another marriage as long as all parties "consent."

I think trying to claim there is no slippery slope on this issue is the most transparent sham I've ever seen. This situation is the DEFINITION of slippery slope.

Thanks.

David

If you want marriage to be a religious term then you must take it out as a legal status in this country.

Well, as I said, marriage goes beyond being a civil union and its more than just a "religious" issue. And, just so you know, state federal governments have the power to uphold one view of marriage over another without stepping on the toes of the First Amendment.

If the will of the majority is to uphold the view of marriage as one man/one woman, then that is what it will be, as opposed to the minority desire to see it changed to "two consenting adults."

And as I said before, this issue is the definition of slippery slope. If anything, Mormons have a stronger case to change the definition of marriage than homosexuals do, just on the basis of precedent.

Thanks.

David

The definition now states that 1 man and 1 woman are involved. This is what the rules of marriage are based on in this country including taxes, benefits and inheritance. That isn't going to change. Nobody is pushing for a change in the number of people involved in the relationship. NOBODY. Only people who are against the gay community are bringing this up so that they think they can have an effective argument.

You want one group to be allowed in and then you want to shut the door on everyone else? "Oh, we want to change this rule, just a little bit to accomodate [sic] us, then you can stop making changes after that because we don't care about anyone else."

Polygamy is clearly a drain on society in the way it was and is practiced by Mormons by creating segments of the population that abuse the welfare system and take government funds from truly needy families. See Krakauer's excellent Under the Banner of Heaven for a thorough examination of this phenomenon.

I've yet to see an argument about how the legalization of gay marriage would directly harm society. Who benefits if it is enacted? Potentially tens of thousands of committed couples. Who is injured? No one.

Well why aren't people pushing for a change in the number of people involved in a marriage? Polygamy makes more sense as a basis for a marriage contract, as it more obviously is establishing a basis for child rearing.

If we're just going to start to declaring everything we want to be a "right," then why don't two brothers have a RIGHT to get married- if they love each other, of course?

Plus, my goat has rights too. Ask PETA.

This thread seems to have veered from the original intent of my post.

To restate: How is denying the fundamental right of marriage to gays any different than denying the fundamental right of voting to blacks?

Nobody is pushing for a change in the number of people involved in the relationship. NOBODY.

Except, of course, those who want to see a change in the number of people involved in marriage. There are such people, you just don't care enough to look for them.

Again, this is just a selfish view that says, "we want in but you can keep everyone else out." Argue all you want, but the vast majority in the country have no interest in changing the current definition of marriage. The problem has been activist courts which suddenly are trying to force changes because of the SILENCE that exists on this issue in the US and state constitutions.

Activists and activist courts are trying to exploit that silence and because of that, it becomes necessary to create some kind of legal definition where, before, none was necessary.

This issue has nothing to do with banning anything since everyone is already eligible to be married in this country, just not to the same sex. Rather, this is about preventing a minority from exploiting the courts to create rights that don't exist and never have.

Thanks.

David

Al, do you think being gay is a choice or something? Just curious as to where you are coming from on this one.

Just to clarify a point:

Mormon men were legally marrying multiple women in Utah hundreds of years before this issue ever arose. Why should THEY be left out?

Actually, due to the relative newness of Mormonism, they only embraced polygamy about 120 years ago. Joe Smith was closeted about the issue because he realized that society wouldn't look to kindly upon it. The church as a whole embraced the idea for a short period of time until the US government intervened and outlawed the practice. In response, several polygamous communities emigrated to Canada and Mexico where their descendants still follow the fundamentalist teachings and practices. In Colorado City, here in Arizona, there are many practicing polygamists. They worship under the auspices of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and are disavowed by the mainstream LDS church. They get around the polygamy laws by only legally marrying one and marrying the rest "in spirit." By doing so, Colorado City has the highest concentration of unwed, unemployed mothers in the country and is rewarded richly by the federal government, something to the tune of $8 in federal funds to every $1 in taxes paid. Anyway, google "Colorado City" for more info on it. It's quite fascinating and has made quite a bit of news lately with several upheavals within the Colorado City community.

This issue has nothing to do with banning anything since everyone is already eligible to be married in this country, just not to the same sex. Rather, this is about preventing a minority from exploiting the courts to create rights that don't exist and never have.

so the equal protection clause is meaningless?

To restate: How is denying the fundamental right of marriage to gays any different than denying the fundamental right of voting to blacks?

No one in this country is denied a fundamental right to marriage. A man and a woman are free to marry each other if they wish, UNLESS they are too closely related to each other by bloodline and UNLESS they are a same-sex couple and UNLESS it is a situation where a person is already married and seeking to marry another and UNLESS one of the persons is under the age of consent, etc., etc., etc.

You can't manufacture a "right" to gay marriage out of the blue and call it legitimate without then legitimizing all of the others. I think the onus is on you to show how the exclusion of gay marriage from this society equates with the FORCED exclusion of blacks from the voting process that the Constitution clearly states is their right. The Black Community is not with you on this issue.

Thanks.

David

I'm right ON topic, Scott. I reject your unquestioned, unreasoned and unargued premise of a fundamental right of marriage for gays, let alone comparing it to blacks and slavery/Jim Crow issues.

Why is denying the "right" of polygamists to a 10-way group marriage any different than denying the "right" of two men to marry?

All you've done is pick something that seems nice to you, and arbitrarily slap the word "right" on it. After that, if anyone disagrees with the policy, then they're just bigots wanting to deny your "rights."

Marriage gives rights to couples who choose to make a commitment to each other forever. The relationships that gay people have is one of love and commitment just like straight people. They aren't involving 10 or more people. They are based on love and commitment. But they aren't given the same benefits financially. This only seems fair if you refuse to recognize the love and commitment of gay couples. Why? Because they can't pro-create?

There are social, biologic, and economic arguments against polygamy and incest.

I've yet to hear a secular or legal argument as to how allowing gay couples the same right to marry as straight couples will harm our society.

All you've done is pick something that seems nice to you, and arbitrarily slap the word "right" on it. After that, if anyone disagrees with the policy, then they're just bigots wanting to deny your "rights."

You assume far too much, Al. Gay marriage does not seem "nice" to me. It has nothing to do with my rights and, in fact, on a moral level, I have issues with it.

However, as an issue of basic fairness, I find it hard to argue against. Why should my gay and lesbian co-workers and friends not enjoy the same rights and protections as my wife and I?

They should - that's the equal protection aspect of it.

Scott, I must mainly disagree with your assailing Rev. Jackson. I read the sources. What he is refusing to do is say the histories of African-Americans and gay Americans are the same. That is a completely rational thing to do, and quite accurate. What the Rev. is not doing is saying homosexual Americans are not oppressed and do not deserve equal rights under the law. He could be more explicit about marriage. But, he is hardly in bed with the Christian Right in regard to the issue.

I also find the sloppiness of what you are saying revealing. Obviously, you know very little about African-American history.

*Africans in America (not yet citizens) were denied the right to marry during slavery.

*African-Americans had their marriage rights circumscribed, as did other nonwhite Americans, until SCOTUS' 1967 ruling in Loving v. Virginia was actually enforced. (At least one Southern state still has a statute barring interracial marriage.)

*The legacy of slavery and unrecognized marriages still impacts African-Americans today in regard to property rights issues, and, some would say, family relations.

As for Rev. Jackson saying he does not want gay marriage to become a front burner political issue, that is an opinion being expressed by many liberal pundits. They fear that forcing of the issue to the forefront is a GOP ploy. My take on the topic is that it is, but that does not make gay unions any less of an important issue.

Over the years, I've noticed a tendency of white Americans who are also minorities in some ways to ignore their own complicity in racism and its fruits. The truth of the matter is that white homosexuals, women, handicapped people, etc., have benefitted from racism just as white people in general have. Their histories may be similar in regard to being oppressed people in some way, but it is not the same as those who have suffered from the only form of bigotry sanctioned by the U.S. government from the beginning. Perhaps that is what Rev. Jackson was thinking.

Note to other Blogcritics: I am skeptical when someone posts an entry that does not link to the material it is supposedly quoting. That had me raising a brow and looking for a fuller telling right away in this case. One of the analysis I read is here. I believe it is a more fair assessment of Jackson's position.

A word on the EP Clause. It has not been extended to include gays, qua gays. Will this very conservative U.S. Supreme Court make the leap? Place your wagers here.

Mac,

Thanks for enlightening me. Given your comments, though, I'm unsure how you can continue to support Rev. Jackson's hypocrisy in this case.

While I agree that the still-lingering repercussions of slavery in this country should not be compared to discrimination against gays, there are nonetheless specific parallels to be drawn between the two. You yourself mention the detrimental effects of unrecognized marriages on African-Americans. How is the failure to recognize gay marriages today any different, particularly in regards to property rights and health care?

While certainly not in bed with Jerry Falwell, et al., Jackson is in essence toeing the same line as the White House in this case, namely that marriage should be one man/one woman, and gays get "civil unions" as a consolation prize.

Such an outcome amounts to nothing more than a separate-but-equal ploy.

The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal...

As to your second point, I don't believe I fundamentally misrepresented Jackson position. However, in addition to the link you posted, other comments on his remarks can be found here and here. I find it particularly telling that his comments were not reported more broadly in the mainstream press.

Lastly, my post was not intended to "assail" Rev. Jackson. The mission statement of his Rainbow/PUSH coalition reads as follows:

The American Dream is one big tent of many cultures, races and religions. Under that tent, everybody is assured equal protection under the law, equal opportunity, equal access and a fair share. Our, struggle demands that we open closed doors, extend the tent and even the playing field.

His comments in regards to gay marriage do not live up to these lofty goals.

Good point Mac - I agree that the legacy is unique in the U.S.

I am not sure what you mean by "benefitted from racism," though.

I just finished reading Edward P. Jones wonderful new novel The Known World. So, let me use an example from it to describe how a person can benefit from being born a certain race, gender or class. There are well-meaning slaveowners, both black and white in the book. John Skiffington is given a little slave girl as a gift. He has turned against slavery. But, he keeps the child. He and his wife claim they consider her a daughter, but never free her and put out lost slave signs for her when she escapes in Philadelphia. For all his right thinking, Skiffington is benefitting from his status. Another man, Cartwright, gay and mixed race, holds similar views as Skiffington. But, he serves his slaveowning mother until she dies. He benefits from slavery, too, holding other human beings as property and getting the benefit of their labors. The fact he is a homosexual makes no difference. It is subsumed by his status as a free man and ability to participate in the peculiar institution.

By and large, gay white people have merged into America, particularly if they were men. Any slave auction, any Ku Klux Klan rally, any hostile environment at work or school, had/has gay white people right there being oppressors with their straight white brethen. So, much of this 'we're all oppressed together' stuff is nonsense. Oppressed? Yes. Together? Sometimes. More often not. (Except for nonwhite gays.) So, though I support gay marriage, I have no illusions about gay people necessarily being any more sympathetic to the rights of people of color than any other white people. I believe a minority is, and the rest are just as indifferent as 'breeders.' Some, including a few I've known, are very high up on the racism scale, possibly in compensation for being in an outgroup themselves.

The reality of the situation is that Rev. Jesse Jackson has taken a moderate stance in regard to the gay unions issue so far. He has in fact, been a lot more supportive of gays than their leaders have been of the continuing struggles of people of color. (With the exception of those who are both gay and people of color like Natalie, again. On the other hand, there are the Armstrong Williamses, too. . . .) So, what Pepper has done is take a complex situation he clearly knows little about and turned it into 'let's kick Jesse Jackson because he is a hockey puck.' That is not analysis. It is silliness.

Mac,

Sorry if I'm continuing to over-simplify the issue, but I wonder if you could respond to the question I posted in my previous comment:

How is the failure to recognize marriages between gays today significantly different than the failure to historically recognize marriages between blacks?

And, if all whites, gay or straight, are complicit in racism by not speaking out against it, aren't all heterosexuals, regardless of race, complicit in discrimination against gays by not speaking out against it?

Finally, my disappointment in Rev. Jackson in this case is solely due to the fact that I do not believe he is living up to the stated goals of his organization (as I quoted above): social justice and equality for all.

MD: "...what Pepper has done is take a complex situation he clearly knows little about and turned it into 'let's kick Jesse Jackson because he is a hockey puck.' That is not analysis. It is silliness."

No, what's silly is the size of your brush when painting the Evil Others... ---well, that... and your ridiculous, rambling summary of some fictional scenario you think represents a universal law of some sort.

AND NOTHING can top this for SILLINESS:

MD: "...The truth of the matter is that white homosexuals, women, handicapped people have benefitted from racism just as white people in general have."

This is the most blatantly biased, bigoted piece of nonsense I've seen in a while. BENEFITTED? ALL WHITES BENEFIT FROM RACISM?

Kinda like ALL BLACKS -------- fill in the blank? (ya know, sometimes I think The World is lucky you weren't born white, 'cause with this kind of thinking, you'd fit right in with the KKK.)

MD, you would do well to learn a new phrase: "some but not all". Repeat after me: "SOME BUT NOT ALL"

Anyway, here's Mr. Pepper's "CHECK!" "MATE!" and "SEEYA!"

SCOTT: "I do not believe he is living up to the stated goals of his organization: ...social justice and equality for all."

Neither I nor Jesse Jackson said we oppose gay marriage, Scott. It is your Republican brethren, who you salute on your blog before launching into your attack on Jackson, who oppose gay marriage. It seems to me that your questions and criticisms would be more accurate if directed to Shrub and company. So, why aren't they?

In regard to your second remark, though people of all colorations and political persuasions may be biased against gays, it is your people, the Republicans, who have decided to try to ride this hobby horse into the White House. So, again, why aren't your criticisms and questions directed at Shrub and company?

I think the answer is that, like many conservatives, you perceive people of color, particularly African-Americans, as wearing a kick me sign. You instinctively seek out a black public figure to attack when in fact, the very white leader you support is much more culpable in regard to this issue.

BTW, is there fly buzzing around here?

bzzzz.... bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

MD: "Neither I nor Jesse Jackson said we oppose gay marriage..."

Jackson: (in his own little pandering mode) "In my culture, marriage is a man-woman relationship."

Well, that's no, that's not an explicit opposition. But it's pretty friggin' implicit, don't cha think?

And shouldn't Jackson have added, "a man-woman relationship where the man is free to have illicit, baby-making affairs..."?

And does his implicit opposition fall anywhere short of "The American Dream is one big tent of many cultures, races and religions. Under that tent, everybody is assured equal protection under the law, equal opportunity, equal access and a fair share. Our, struggle demands that we open closed doors, extend the tent and even the playing field."--- or should that be amended to include, "equal protection under the law except for gay couples..." ??

bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

Mac,

Please don't put words into my mouth.

MD: It is your Republican brethren, who you salute on your blog before launching into your attack on Jackson, who oppose gay marriage.

What I said on my blog:

While I am a registered Republican, my support for civil rights, particularly for gay marriage, is unequivocal. I do not believe it hurts our society in any way for two committed people, regardless of gender, to codify their union in a civil or religious ceremony.

It's a shame not all Democrats feel that way.

If you read carefully, you'll see I was actual drawing a contrast between myself as a supporter of gay rights and most Republicans, including GWB, who are not.

MD: In regard to your second remark, though people of all colorations and political persuasions may be biased against gays, it is your people, the Republicans, who have decided to try to ride this hobby horse into the White House.

The Supreme Judicial Court in my home state and Gavin Newsom made this an issue. Bush's comments, which I disagree with, were in direct response to the events in Massachusetts and San Francisco.

MD: You instinctively seek out a black public figure to attack when in fact, the very white leader you support is much more culpable in regard to this issue.

GWB, as a conservative Christian, believes gay marriage to be wrong as a matter of faith. As much as I disagree with him on this point, to my knowledge, he has been consistent on this issue.

Additionally, while Republicans are largely culpable here, both leading Democratic presidential candidates are against gay marriage.

Rev. Jackson purports to support equal rights for all. In this case, it is difficult to reconcile the stated mission of his organization with his lack of support for gay civil rights.

On the other hand, Rev. Al Sharpton, has been consistent in his fight for civil rights for all, regardless of race, creed, or sexual orientation. Were I permitted to vote in my state's Democratic primary, he'd likely get my vote.

By the way, Mac, very nice response to my original post on your blog.

My areas of expertise are healthcare and finance, not civil rights and black history, so I found your comments very educational.

My blog? I already knew about that entry, since that is a blog I read religiously. But, thanks for the clue-in anyway,

Seriously. I don't write about quantum physics. When economics or theology get too deep for a generalist, I call on blog friends who have expertise in those fields for help. It is beyond me why someone who is not grounded in either gay or African-American history would try to write about either. Doing so is not only likely to lead to embarrassment, but needlessly insult people. Furthermore, it happens to be Black History Month. I would hope people not at all versed in the topic might take a moment and consider learning a little (or more) about it. Instead, I am seeing the same kind of 'oh, those folks with the kick me sign, let he tee off' entries I see every month in the blogosphere. Apparently, it is true that you can lead a horse to water, but. . . .

Here we go: a lecture on Scott Pepper's ignorance of black history, and a condescending kick in the teeth to anyone else who isn't friggin' Malcom X.

MD, before you ride too far off track on your high horse of victimization (the "kick me" thing should bring out the hankies) you might want to reconsider EXACTLY what Pepper's point has been throughout this 'debate---

y'know THE ONE YOU'VE CONSTANTLY IGNORED:

PEPPER: "Lastly, my post was not intended to "assail" Rev. Jackson. The mission statement of his Rainbow/PUSH coalition reads as follows:

The American Dream is one big tent of many cultures, races and religions. Under that tent, everybody is assured equal protection under the law, equal opportunity, equal access and a fair share. Our, struggle demands that we open closed doors, extend the tent and even the playing field.

His comments in regards to gay marriage do not live up to these lofty goals."