Wednesday, July 16, 2014

MN Gay Marriage Backlash

Sorry for the delay, I am in the lovely Greensville/Spartansburg SC area visiting a customer.  And I have been busy stirring the pot over at MinnPost.  Briana is reporting on the apparent lack of back lash against politicians who voted for LGBT marriage against the will of their constituents.  I of course think it is a bit early to be counting those chickens.

Also, I am having trouble getting a response posted to these:
"Can you choose to be gay, John? I couldn't. Just like my gay and lesbian friends can't choose to be straight. Does it matter why they are wired that way? Do we need to find the gene for why you are straight?" Dan

"Why is it any of the government's concern that a person is gay or straight? Why, especially, would it matter to anyone who would espouse a "small government ideology?"

Falling back on the old "will of the people" meme isn't going to work here." RB

"Your insistence and/or acceptance of a genetic disposition is irrelevant and unnecessary. What needs improvement is the ability of some people to keep their nose out of others personal lives." Jason
 My response goes something like this:
The reality is that people have no "right" to marry.  It is a privelage granted by the society in which one lives.  This dependent on the beliefs of the society in which you live.  So this topic will likely be alive and well 100 years from now as societies values vascillate. 
As for Conservatives being bigots because they believe LGBT marriage is an unacceptable behavior that should not be recognized and rewarded by the government and our society.  Are Liberals who are against Polyandry, Polygamy, Incestual, etc marriages bigots because these relationships offend their values.  I mean those people are likely as in love as Bill and Tim, and Jane and Joan.  How dare you enforce your values on their need to be rewarded and recognized?

Thoughts?

One more thought.
I am less interested in LGBT marriage and more interested in the concept of representative government. What should citizens do when their politician votes against their will.
This is an excellent case study. These folks voted to make something illegal forever. Then their politician voted immediately to make it legal.
Very interesting...



65 comments:

Laurie said...

There will be no backlash. It's time you move on, John. This issue is so yesterday.

If the dfl loses some seats it will be due to lower turnout and fading memories of the govt shutdown (which hurt the GOP in 2012)

I predict it will be another good year for the dems (Dayton, Franken, DFL house)

John said...

Briana brought it up... Not me...

It is interesting how fast you are to discount the beliefs and convictions of the almost half of our population who nearly passed the ammendment. Maybe it is wishful thinking.

Only time will tell.

I can think of several more reasons why the DFL may lose some ground. However I do acknowledge that the GOP candidates do often seem weak...

By the way, are you willing to legalize polygamy and polyandry so people who are in love can get married and live the way they choose?

Anonymous said...

The reality is that people have no "right" to marry.

Do we think that? Marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution, but if Minnesota passed a law against marriage, would it be constitutional? Maybe the absurdity of the second question is the answer to the first. Maybe the concept of marriage is deeper and more profound than our understanding of it as a mere right.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

"As for Conservatives being bigots because they believe LGBT marriage is an unacceptable behavior that should not be recognized and rewarded by the government and our society."

As with lots of other stuff, some are some aren't. Bigots often don't say they are bigots and sometimes don't believe they are bigots. I am sure that back in the day, folks who thought interracial marriage should be illegal would have told you they weren't bigots, that their beliefs were couched in science or religious scruples. My guess is the folks who were on the other side of Brown v. Board would have had a lot of evidence about the wonders of segregated schools. In any event, the issue is how people live and what we should recognize. Arguing about who is and isn't is something of a sideshow.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Maybe I should note is that when a person supports restrictive measures against historically discriminated against individuals, many will assume that bigotry is involved, whether they say so or not.

On the right to marry thing, lately I have been compiling a mental lists of rights that the founders must have thought were just too obvious to require specific inclusion in the constitution. The right to marry might be one such right.

--Hiram

Sean said...

Why does it follow that legalizing same-sex marriage should automatically lead to legalized polygamy and polyandry?

Anonymous said...

Why does it follow that legalizing same-sex marriage should automatically lead to legalized polygamy and polyandry?

I like to think of the historical slippery slope argument. When polygamy prevailed and people were trying to reform it, how do you think the argument went? If I can't have five wives but only four, where does it stop? Three? Two? Just one for gosh sakes? Pretty soon they will be outlawing marriage altogether, because marriage isn't a right, after all.

--Hiram

John said...

Hiram,
Well said... "Bigots often don't say they are bigots and sometimes don't believe they are bigots. I am sure that back in the day, folks who thought interracial marriage should be illegal would have told you they weren't bigots, that their beliefs were couched in science or religious scruples."

Hi Sean,
I didn't say that it should automatically lead to anything.

I am wondering if Liberals who are against polygamy and polyandry see themselves as "Bigots"? Especially those who continually villify religious conservatives with that term because the Conservatives seeing "the line" being one man and one woman.

And as Hiram says: "In any event, the issue is how people live and what we should recognize. Arguing about who is and isn't is something of a sideshow."

So there are people who are in loving relationships with multiple partners, people who are in love with some family member, etc. Who are we to not recognize and reward these on going relationships? Who are we to judged them as morally corrupt? A bunch of "bigots"?

The freedom to love and marry whoever one wants is the argument used by the pro-gay marriage crowd. It seems the argument applies to these other applications if one wants to be consistent.

By the way, anyone can marry... The question is if society should recognize and reward it within the laws of the land. And those are set by people who change over time.

Anonymous said...

It seems the argument applies to these other applications if one wants to be consistent.


I have no particular interest in being consistent myself. And it's also the case that I am perfectly capable of performing the parlor trick of modifying my premises in order to avoid inconsistency for whatever that's worth.

I am no big fan of slippery slope arguments. The problem is that we can always make them; we are always perched on slippery slopes one way or another. We are always drawing lines. And that's really something we are comfortable in doing. It's a skill we need in every day life. Such line drawing often has an element of arbitrariness about it, and really we are comfortable with that too.

In societal terms, marriage isn't a reward, or for that matter, a punishment. It's a recognition of a way people choose to organize their lives in ways that are consistent with public interest. People commingle their lives and it's beneficial to them and the rest of us if we recognize. Whether that commingling includes consensual sex or not, I can't imagine being of any outsider's concern.

--Hiram

Sean said...

There's a significant difference between a same-sex marriage between two partners and a polygamous relationship. Polygamy, as an institution, has consistently been associated with the subjugation of women and harm to children. Such evidence of harm does not exist for same-sex marriage.

John said...

Sean,
As Hiram says...

"... would have told you they weren't bigots, that their beliefs were couched in science or religious scruples."

You are sounding a lot like one of those religious Conservative bigots.

I mean, like spousal subjugation and harm to children does not occur in all types of family units to some extent.

John said...

Hiram,
I agree with you, we are drawing a line on a continuum.

No marriage
Hetero marriage
Gay marriage
Poly marriage
Familial marriage
Marraige to minors

And society will set that line based on it's beliefs. And these have and will change over the decades and centuries.

What I find disturbing is that the Liberals swear that the Religious Conservatives are evil bigots who are trying to harm people, instead of just acknowledging that their line is in a different place.

Even more ironic is when Sean tries to rationalize his line as more justified than theirs

The joy of humans...

John said...

"marriage isn't a reward, or for that matter, a punishment"

Of course it is or this wouldn't be such a big fight... There are all kinds of things at stake:
money, benefits, "normalcy", tax rules...

Just think what those poly folks are still missing out on. That is so unfair to them...

Sean said...

Look at the countries that give legal status to polygamous relationships, and their human rights records. I think we're drawing the line in the right place.

Sean said...

The problem, John, is your assertion that my belief in same-sex marriage is predicated on the notion that one should be able to "marry whoever one wants". That's not what I have asserted.

We have a Constitution that demands equal protection under the law. A majority of Supreme Court justices have found that federal prohibitions against same-sex marriage are a violation of that document, and I agree with that decision. The status of other familial arrangements is a different legal question.

So that's more than me saying that other familial forms are "morally corrupt". (Which again, I should note, is not something I ever in fact said.)

I'd appreciate it yet again if you would not set up your straw man version of my argument. If you're unclear as to my position, please ask.

Anonymous said...

"What I find disturbing is that the Liberals swear that the Religious Conservatives are evil bigots who are trying to harm people, instead of just acknowledging that their line is in a different place."

What people call me doesn't disturb me a lot. I think what people do is more problematic than what they think, or what they think others think. The fact is gay people have been targets of a lot of bigotry over the years. It seems now that people who want to restrict their rights are now feeling just a bit of what intolerance feels like, and they don't seem to like it.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...


Of course it is or this wouldn't be such a big fight.

What's it a reward for? Getting an "A" on a chemistry exam? Finding Bigfoot?

--Hiram

John said...

Sean,
Sorry if I did, but after looking back at my comments, I think the only item I attributed to you specifically was.

"Even more ironic is when Sean tries to rationalize his line as more justified than theirs." G2A "Polygamy, as an institution, has consistently been associated with the subjugation of women and harm to children. Such evidence of harm does not exist for same-sex marriage." Sean "Look at the countries that give legal status to polygamous relationships, and their human rights records. I think we're drawing the line in the right place." Sean

Everything else is a generalization pointing to the more extreme Liberal voices at MinnPost and MPP.

So will you be okay if the Supreme court gives permission to polygamy or polyandry marriage at some point?

I would give some more thought to how you truly feel about those family forms. You may or may not see them as "morally corrupt", however you certainly do relate them to subjugation, harm and poor human rights. I assume they would be better managed in the USA. Maybe you should watch more episodes of "Big Love"

If they make more TV shows about this topic, maybe society will become desensitized and it will become normal and acceptable. Maybe it will need to be sit coms though. Big Love looks pretty intense.

I am still not sure if I personally could handle multiple wives... For many reasons.

Sean said...

I don't take fictional TV shows or novels as the basis for my political philosophy.

I relate these forms of families to the things I do because that is what has happened throughout history.

John said...

Perspective matters.

We all base our political philosophy on what we believe. What we belive is influenced by thousands of factors, most we don't choose and many we don't recognize or acknowledge.

Do you really think that Will and Grace and the other dozens of shows didn't influence the beliefs of all Americans and yourself?

Do you really think 30 years and and a few dozen sit coms can't make polygamy and polyandry socially acceptable?

Give it time...

John said...

Back in the days of "Leave It to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best", I am pretty sure gay marriage would have been a non-starter.

Maybe we are on that slippery slope after all.

Anonymous said...

John-

The case for SSM IS different than the case for polygamy or polyandry.

The only question in regards to SSM is the sex (or gender, if you will) of the two people. Ultimately, it comes down to whether the government can discriminate against someone based on their sex (gender). It's illogical, with regard to equality under the law, to say that a woman can marry a man, but a man can't.

There are many more details to work out in the law with regard to polyandry and polygamy, and it is a different case to be made. Outside of that, what is the perceived social ill of such arrangements?

Ultimately, I take no issue with the way people decide to live their lives as long as they are not treading on the rights of other people. If they want to seek government protection for their relationships, it is their right to do so.

Joel

Sean said...

Whether people feel it's socially acceptable is different that the legal case for it.

Regarding the former, the difference between "Will and Grace", and say, "Sister Wives" is that "Will and Grace" demonstrated how similar the lives of gay people are to those of straight people. The couple of times I've watched "Sister Wives" has demonstrated the exact opposite.

John said...

In ways I agree with both of you and as I have said many times before, I am okay with gay marriage. If another group of people want the joys, financial benefits, financial costs and pains that come with that legally binding contract... More power to them.

I am not sure most of the pro-gay marriage advocates are interested in the legal details though. Most commenters seem to come back to this right to marry who one loves rationale.

Since from the government's view marriage is just a legal construct like a business partnership, I am thinking our government can do almost anything that the people will. I mean even if it does not align with the Constitution... We the People can simply create an amendment.

So ignoring the legal details, "we the people" are free to put the line where we believe it should be. The question I keep pondering is why people on both sides of the line seem to think so poorly of the intent of those on the other side?

Wise words for Billy Currington.

jerrye92002 said...

Odd. In my circles there has been a lot of talk, because two incumbent Republican legislators failed to win endorsement on exactly that issue. I wouldn't expect Democrats to hold their legislators accountable for a vote on this issue, since most of them are deluded into thinking this is some kind of civil rights problem, and the rest are going to vote for the Democrat no matter what.

John is right that there is no more right to a marriage license than there is to a drivers license. You must be qualified and the State gets to define those qualifications." A fine old Congressman once said, "If I call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" The answer of course is four, since calling gay marriage a marriage is just legal chicanery. Legal, yes; logical, no.

And I am beyond tired of this argument that being gay is not a matter of choice; the facts simply do not support any such assertion. There are too many gay men and women who marry and have children before "discovering" they are gay. There are too many gays who have had "reparative therapy" and become straight. And there is the basic biological fact that human evolution has advanced to the point where we have a very long infancy in which to learn things, rather than being born with instinctual behaviors. You may have developed a lack of sexual interest in the opposite sex, but your sexual behavior is and must be a choice. Were that not so, we would simply locate the "criminal gene" and kill all criminals at birth. I mean, even if we accept that there is an inborn "tendency" to criminal behavior, that doesn't mean that criminal behavior isn't a matter of personal choice, does it?

Anonymous said...

We do have a right to marriage. It's one of those rights the founders thought too obvious to put in the constitution. We don't have a right to have dogs however, and the equivalence between having a wife and a dog, is probably one you wouldn't want to try out with the missus.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

You are confusing civil, legal marriage with common law marriage or a religiously sanctioned union. Right now, gay couples have the "right" (a.k.a. freedom) to move in together and stay as long as they like. If they so desire, they can find a church that will solemnize their union. They can even obtain most if not all of the legal benefits of marriage with a little simple paperwork. What they cannot do, in every state at least, is to get government to confer upon them the word "marriage." And this seems to be the goal of the gay activists, to demand societal recognition that their marriage is the equal of every other marriage, and it cannot be. A dog's tail is not a leg.

Anonymous said...

You are confusing civil, legal marriage with common law marriage or a religiously sanctioned union.

I don't know if that comment was directed at me, but I don't routinely make such distinctions. Marriage is pretty much marriage, although you can get married in different ways, and people attach different meanings to it. One of the current senate candidates sees marriage as sacramental. That's one way to look at it, but hardly the only. Lots of people believe in marriage, without believing in sacraments, and there marriages are no less valid for it.

Isn't it curious in this country that we believe have a right to bear arms, which whatever you might think of it, exists only in the United States because of some language in the constitution, yet some argue that marriage, as universal institution as there is, isn't a right?

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Never thought of heterosexuality as a choice, although there have been times when I wish it were.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

jerry, you have a lot of nerve speaking in place of the experiences of millions of gay people around the world.

You're so blinded by your dogma and ignorance that you can't even see that you never made a choice about your own sexuality, yet you believe that somehow only gay people make a choice.

The question is: How does someone know that they are straight or gay? You would have us believe that behavior determines orientation, yet that idea is nonsense. It presumes that one only has a sexual orientation when engaging in sexual behavior.

Furthermore, the question of choice is irrelevant in terms of constitutional rights. The practice of religion is an extremely personal decision, but no religion is an innate personal characteristic. Surely there are people who believe that one religion is the right one and the rest are unnatural or evil. That sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Thankfully, we have a Constitution that protects individual liberty.

Joel

John said...

Joel,
Should familial / incestual marriages be allowed then?

I mean if it is only 2 people who are in LOVE?

Since I understand your point that poly marriages are somewhat different due to the number of participants.

And before you bring up the genetic issues. Please remember that we allow everyone else to get married and have kids whether their genetics are good for the human race or not.

John said...

And Lord knows the gay folks are relying on unique methods to make babies.

Anonymous said...

Familial/incestual marriages are illogical.

Civil marriage creates legal kinship between two unrelated (to a degree) people.

Joel

John said...

Many people believe civil marriage is there to create a legal relationship between 2 adults who can conceive children through natural means. (ie a man and a woman)

So gay marriage seems illogical.

Difference?

Sean said...

"Many people believe civil marriage is there to create a legal relationship between 2 adults who can conceive children through natural means."

Do they? I don't see any effort to prevent people who are too old or otherwise physically unable to "conceive children through natural means" from getting married.

Anonymous said...

Your argument is illogical, John.

Marriage=Procreation is a strawman as neither one requires the other.

Joel

John said...

Sean, Good point.

Joel,
For centuries our society believed that the man, woman and children family unit was best for our society. I mean it makes natural biological sense and having both male and female role models for parents makes sense.

You can argue this as long as you want to, but that is the reality of Father Knows Best, Leave It to Beaver, etc, etc, etc. This was not necessarily a religious rule, as much as good common sense.

Very few people were thinking that having male/male or female/female couples made much sense as a family unit.

However the reality is that some people are apparently not wired to be attracted to the opposite sex. I assume it is just variation from the normal male/female system. Therefore we are choosing to accept them as they are and make changes to account for this. (ie treat them equally)

And modern medicine, changes in social values, etc are allowing the LBGT family unit to become a viable option.

And if none of this social values stuff matters, then a brother and sister should be able to join into the same kind of legally binding agreement as a gay couple. I mean the brother and sister really have no legal standing with regard to each other after they turn 18. One can not collect spousal benefits, etc, etc, etc.

Why is it so painful for Sean and yourself to admit that you are human and therefore have beliefs regarding what is right, and what is wrong? This stuff is not black and white, that is why we have a government and courts to help us all find some acceptable middle ground.

If something happens that scares enough of us back towards fundamentalist religions, gay marriage could be on the outs again. Or people could see that there is no harm and it could be thoroughly ingrained in our society. Only time will tell.

jerrye92002 said...

The problem with gay marriage is and always has been that only heterosexual unions produce offspring, and that it is perfectly reasonable for the government to reward those types of unions that perpetuate the society it governs. This also is the best way of transmitting the values of the society to the next generation and that, too, is worthy of special government recognition. This special status also provides for matters of inheritance and contract, again an advantage to the smooth operation of government in society. It is all eminently logical and has nothing to do with "equality" or "rights."

That said, the vast majority of us are perfectly willing to let homosexuals be and do what they will, but trying to force us to accept them requires, in fairness, that they be required to accept us. I am not saying that behavior determines or even influences orientation, quite the opposite. I am saying that human behavior, sexual or otherwise, is not determined by birth. It is strongly influenced by nurture, and thus most of us "choose" a heterosexual orientation like our parents, without being particularly conscious of the choice. Those that do not, for whatever reason, can still make a choice as to what sexual behaviors they engage in.

Somehow the debate over gay marriage has somehow become entangled with the question of the general treatment of gays in our society. The vast majority of us are aghast at those societies where homosexuals are routinely killed for it. The most vocal of gay activists seem to be pushing us towards the opposite pole, and I don't think there is any moral high ground there, either.

John said...

I'll never understand your insistence that genetics and/or hormones plays no factor in sexual preference.

The idea that people are gay because their Father didn't tell them they are supposed to be turned on by girls seems silly to me.

I am not sure why an attractive woman can distract me by her mere presence, but I don't think it was because I was told it should.

John said...

Given the complexity of changing an ovum and sperm into a mature adult, it seems to me that there would be a fair amount of natural variation in the process. Which could easily account for variations along the sexual orientation continuum. (ie hetero, bi, homo) And all your examples could have been Bi people who could be pulled either way. (ie therefore change over time)

Wiki Biology and Sexual Orientation
BBC Gay Genetics and Hormones

John said...

TS Epigenetics

vdare Gay gene or germ

jerrye92002 said...

Let's be reasonable.

Sexual orientation cannot be genetic except as a birth defect, because it could never be transmitted to the next generation. Also, you would never have identical twins with different sexual orientations, yet we do.

I believe a tendency towards a particular sexual orientation can be affected by hormones in the womb, and later by "environment." I also have to believe that what is learned can be unlearned. Some marry and have children and then discover they are "gay." Others start out gay and get "cured." And I suppose some do swing both ways, having "learned" nothing at all.

But I absolutely insist that homosexual BEHAVIOR is a choice. Were it not so, we would concede that humans are no better than animals, following inborn instinctual behavior patterns-- moth to a flame, that sort of thing. We would find the "criminal gene" and kill criminals at birth or, in some societies, kill homosexuals at birth, just to prevent the inevitable behavior those genes caused. Not even one's "orientation" determines behavior; it is always a choice. Heterosexual humans can and do choose celibacy (or rape or ...), and many times, just as in your example, they choose not to engage in sex with every potential partner at every potential opportunity.

Sean said...

I have no problem with saying things are right or wrong. There are plenty of things that I disapprove of that are legal.

But when writing laws that impact the entire population, the rationale has to be something more than gut feeling or what my religious tradition says.

Sean said...

If your concern is "What should citizens do when their politician votes against their will", then the issue you should be discussing is not a closely-divided one like this, but rather an issue like universal background checks for gun purchases.

Polling consistently shows that 80+% of the people support it, but it goes nowhere at any level of government.

John said...

Must be 80% of your peers, 100% of mine are against gun control.

We are a bit rural / cowboyish in our beliefs.

John said...

"something more than gut feeling or what my religious tradition says"

So what is your argument against loving siblings marry.

Anonymous said...

Gosh, jerry. I'm so glad you have all the answers. I didn't know that our understanding of human genetics and sexuality was complete. If you believe that, you don't have a clue about how science works.

Here's an anecdote: I am gay. I have a cousin who is gay. I grew up in Minnesota. He grew up in Texas. Two of us, out of eight total grandchildren, with different mothers and growing up in different places. I can't help you if you don't think there is some amount of hereditary influence there.

Behavior is always a choice. e.g. Writing is a behavior, yet a portion of the human population, though it's abnormal, naturally use their left hand to write. Are they "choosing" to do so or is there some innate characteristic? I suppose they could choose to never use their hands at all so that they don't offend those who are normal.

It is obnoxious for you to insist that homosexuals choose their orientation. I've never met a truly intelligent person who refuses to consider that they may be incorrect about things they assume they know.

So..."Let's be reasonable."? You, first.

Joel

Sean said...

Not my peers:

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Support for universal background checks:

Quinnipiac poll, June 2014, 92%
CBS, December 2013, 85%
Pew, May 2013, 81%
Fox, April 2013, 82%
ABC, April 2013, 83%
Marist, March 2013, 87%

Sean said...

Related family members already have some of the benefits of marriage (as it relates to inheritance, making medical decisions, etc.). The purpose of marriage has always reached beyond the family's door, building community by connecting families.

John said...

Sean,
Good link, however it looks like you are cherry picking. There seems to be quite a bit of variation.
Polling Report

John said...

Personally I don't think my sister has any rights relative to me. That is unless I give her power of attourney, make her my executor, etc. However I have been wrong before.

I guess I am wrong... She may get to come visit me when I am in the hospital, where as some friends may be turned back at certain hours.

Remember... It is ok to say that you believe recognizing and encouraging incestual relationships is morally wrong. That is the point I am trying to make.

Anonymous said...

That's an interesting point, John.

On what are you basing the judgment of 'morally wrong' in regards to incestual relationships?

Joel

John said...

Joel,
Please be careful to comply with... "G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc." I think you did fine but you were on the edge.

By the way, I like the right handed vs left handed example. Fighting ones nature can be done, but at what cost and for what benefit?

John said...

Joel,
Societal norms of right vs wrong.

In time these may change, just like they are regading gay marriage and relationships.

To me laws are just a written form of these.

Sean said...

What variation are you seeing on the issue of the universal background check? There isn't a poll out there that doesn't show majority support for it.

Sean said...

Per Minnesota law, if you don't have children and your parents are dead, then your siblings are next in line.

Anonymous said...

John,

So you're saying that it's not universally wrong, but only wrong in terms of societal norms.

That's the point that a lot of people don't get. How many truly universal wrongs are there? Even killing another human being is not a universal wrong.

So to say that Marriage can't change is simply ludicrous. It's only wrong in terms of societal norms, which are obviously changeable.

Joel

John said...

Sean,
You are correct. I had thought you had said 80% support stronger gun control regulations. Usually it is only the extreme Libertarians that don't want the government knowing what they have in their basement.... Just in case the USA falls into bad hands... Sorry.

Joel,
I believe in Universal Principles, but the idea of social norms is what most of this post has been about for me.

Neither the pro or con gay marriage folks are out to harm anyone. They are just working to influence what our nation's social norms are. They truly believe what they believe whether it is right or wrong. And wrong / right is typically relative to the society's conscious.

We should all just be thankful that we get to have this argument with relatively little violence.

Of course if the religious right is correct and we are deemed guilty of promoting sin and unnatural sexual acts. Our after lives could be pretty miserable... Or maybe our current lives could be shortened...

Anonymous said...

...or maybe we should worry about how we live and treat others while we are alive and not worry about some possible after-life that we have no proof exists.

However, the point is: It is irrelevant what the religious right believes with regard to the Constitution of the United States. Either equal protection is for everyone or it's not.

Joel

John said...

As I said, then to be consistent, you had best start lobbying for incestual marriage next. Those poor unfortunate cousins, siblings, parents, etc are being kept from being legally recognized because of our society's norms. They don't get spousal benefits, divorces, etc...

It is an interesting topic.

Anonymous said...

I don't see why I need to lobby for them. They are free to lobby their government. It is not my fight and it is a separate argument.

Joel

Anonymous said...

Also, in some States, cousins ARE allowed to marry.

Joel

John said...

Just curious. Are you gay then since you are supporting their cause?

Anonymous said...

I have previously stated that I am gay. I am indifferent to their cause. It doesn't affect me in any way.

Joel

John said...

I hadn't read that statement closely enough, I was unsure if it had just been an example. Thanks for clarifying.