It is now clear that the American people recognize that homosexuality is not a choice, but is the way some people are born,
58 percent of those polled thought gay marriage should be legalized, as compared to 36 percent who disagreed with the concept.. The numbers have almost exactly switched in the past ten years.
Among young people, support is at an all time high of 81 percent, with 50 percent of the elderly against it. And a small majority of Republicans and Independents under the age of 50 support gay marriage, although 70 percent of Republicans over the age of 65 oppose it, down from 80 percent.
Overall, 72 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of Independents, and 59 percent of Republicans support gay marriage.
Overall, 62 percent of all polled feel that the Supreme Court should decide the issue of gay marriage on a national level and based on the US Constitution, not allowing state by state, much like the Loving V. Virginia case on interracial marriage decided the issue nationally in 1967.
This week, what could be the most dynamic case of the Court in many years will be argued on the constitutionality of the Defense Of Marriage Act of 1996, and Proposition 8 of the state of California. The decision could transform American society in a dramatic way!
Ron: Yes the decision will transform American society in a dramatic way if the SCOTUS takes upon itself to change the definition of marriage. Will it be a good change? That is the question no one wants to answer. Marriage is the building block of society. Changing its nature will therefore change society. Among other things, same-sex marriage means that because sex (now called “gender”) no longer matters for society’s most important institution, it no longer matters in general. Men and women as distinct entities no longer have significance. Which is exactly what the cultural left and the gay rights movement advocate — even though the vast majority of Americans who support same-sex marriage do not realize that this is what they are supporting. Most Americans who support same-sex marriage feel (and “feel” is the crucial verb here, as the change to same-sex marriage is much more felt than thought through) that gays should have the right to marry a member of their own sex. It is perceived as unfair to gays that they cannot do so. And that is true. It is unfair to gays. But the price paid for eliminating this unfairness is enormous: It is the end of marriage as every society has known it. And it is more than that. It is the end of any significance to gender. Men and women are now declared interchangeable. That is why the “T” has been added to “GLB:” “Transgendered” has been added to “Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual.” “T” does not represent transsexuals — people who choose to change their sex. No one is arguing against such people. “Transgendered” refers to people who are members of one sex and who wish to publicly act as if they are members of the other sex, e.g., men wearing women’s clothing in public. The transgendered who publicly act out are living the cultural Left’s primary agenda: rendering gender insignificant. Your sex is what you feel it is; and if you feel both, you are both. Gender doesn’t matter. That is why Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker and his supporters dismiss the argument that, all things being equal, it is better for children to be raised by a married man and woman than by two men or two women. If Walker or GLBT activists and their supporters admitted that children need a mother and father, they would be affirming that there is great significance to the differences between men and women. They reject that. Instead, they and Walker offer studies that purport to prove that it makes no difference whether or not a child has parents of both sexes. These academic studies are as unserious as all those academic studies of a generation ago that “proved” that boys do not prefer to play with trucks and soldiers but would be just as happy to play with dolls and tea sets, and that girls do not prefer dolls and tea sets but would be just as happy to play with trucks and soldiers. These newer “studies” of same-sex parents are as valid as the earlier propaganda in the guise of scientific studies. Like the boy-girl studies, these were conducted by academics with agendas: the denial of male-female differences and the promotion of same-sex marriage. That many Americans believe these studies — studies that are in any case based on a small number of same-sex couples raising a small number of children, during a short amount of time (a couple of decades), based on the researchers’ own notions of what a healthy and successful young person is — only proves how effectively colleges and graduate schools have succeeded in teaching a generation of Americans not to think critically but to accept “studies” in place of common sense. So,is the man-woman definition of marriage fair to gays who wish to marry? No, it isn’t. And those of us opposed to same-sex marriage need to be honest about this, to confront the human price paid by some people through no fault of their own and figure out ways to offer gay couples basic rights associated with marriage. But whether a policy is fair to every individual can never be the only question society asks in establishing social policy. Eyesight standards for pilots are unfair to some terrifically capable individuals. Orchestra standards are unfair to many talented musicians. A mandatory retirement age is unfair to many people. Wherever there are standards, there will be unfairness to individuals. So, the question is whether redefining in the most radical way ever conceived — indeed completely changing its intended meaning — is good for society. It isn’t. The whole premise of same-sex marriage is that gender is insignificant: It doesn’t matter whether you marry a man or a woman. Love, not gender, matters.
Some examples of this war on gender:
–This year Harvard University appointed its first permanent director of bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer student life. The individual, Vanidy Bailey, has asked that he/she never be referred to as he or she, male or female. Harvard has agreed. See: http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/06/bailey-named-director-of-bgltq-student-life
–In 2010 eHarmony, for years the country’s largest online dating service, was sued for only matching men and women. Its lack of same-sex matchmaking meant that it violated anti-discrimination laws in some states. As a result, eHarmony was forced to begin a same-sex online service. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/28/eharmony-forced-to-merge-_n_440853.html
–Each year more and more American high schools elect girls as homecoming kings and boys as homecoming queens. Students have been taught to regard restricting kings to males or queens to females as (gender-based) discrimination. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/27/national/27homecoming.html?_r=0
–When you sign up for the new social networking site, Google Plus, you are asked to identify your gender. Three choices are offered: Male, Female, Other. See: http://www.adiosbarbie.com/2011/08/a-new-era-of-gender-neutrality/
–Catholic Charities, which operates the oldest ongoing adoption services in America, has had to end its adoption work in Illinois, Massachusetts and Washington, DC because the governments there regard placing children with married man-woman couples before same-sex couples as discriminatory. See: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ill-catholic-charities-seek-new-path-without-foster-care-adoption/
Increasingly, even the mother-father ideal is being shattered in this battle to render male-female distinction insignificant.
–The socialist French government has just announced that in the future no government issued document will be allowed to use the words “mother” or “father.” Only the gender-neutral term “parent” will be acceptable in France. See: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/french-lawmakers-ban-words-mother-father-official-documents-article-1.1168203
–And in Rhode Island this year, one school district cancelled its father-daughter dance after the ACLU threatened to sue the district for gender discrimination. Only parent-child events, not father-daughter dances or mother-son ballgames, will be allowed. See: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-20/news/ct-met-kass-0920-20120920_1_father-daughter-dance-dance-floor-aclu
And all this is happening before same-sex marriage is allowed. Imagine what will happen should same-sex marriage become the law of the land. It will hasten the end of the male-female distinction and of any significance to mothers or fathers as distinctive entities.
Unfortunately, Juan, extremism is taking over, and that is NOT good, as some of these changes are preposterous and highly negative. But I do not think denying marriage to gays is the moral and ethical thing to do, as I see it!
Totally agree Professor!
Juan writes, “Ron: Yes the decision will transform American society in a dramatic way if the SCOTUS takes upon itself to change the definition of marriage. Will it be a good change? That is the question no one wants to answer.”
I’ll answer your question.
Yes.
It’s overdue. It’s a civil rights issue, and there never should have been discrimination in the first place.
To those who feel uncomforable with this, like yourself, too bad. There were many, many, many … who were not comfortable with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There were many not comfortable giving African-Americans the vote. There were many not comfortable giving women the vote.
We not only survived with all this … we prospered.
@ D: It is not a civil rights issue or a constitutional issue, it is about changing the definition of marriage. It is not a discrimination issue either. For those that charge that opposition to same-sex marriage is morally equivalent to opposition to interracial marriage and, therefore, the moral equivalent of racism I say that this charge is predicated on the profoundly false premise that race and sex (or “gender” as it is now referred to) are analogous. They are not. While there are no differences between black and white human beings, or between any race of humans, there are enormous differences between male and female human beings. That is why sports events, clothing, public restrooms, and (often) schools are routinely divided by sex. But black sporting events and white sporting events, black restrooms and white restrooms, black schools and white schools, or black clothing stores and white clothing stores would be considered immoral and therefore discriminatory. Because racial differences are insignificant and gender differences are hugely significant, there is no moral equivalence between opposition to interracial marriage and opposition to same-sex marriage. Second, if opposition to same-sex marriage is as immoral as racism, why did no great moral thinker, in all of history, ever advocate male-male or female-female marriage? Opposition to racism on the other hand was advocated by every great moral thinker of mankind. So, to finish, if you believe that the definition of marriage should be changed, fine, go ahead and convince your fellow citizens, as it has been done and various states, and change the definition of marriage. But bear in mind that just because you change it to include same sex marriage, it does not mean that that new definition of marriage will not be “exclusive” and “unfair” either. Because it will still be limited to 2 people and there will also still be limits on blood relatives (brothers and sisters can’t marry). And why? Because society, like it or not makes a moral judgement when defining marriage as well as on other issues.So the Professor can say “I do not think denying marriage to gays is the moral and ethical thing to do, as I see it!” and he is entitled to his opinion. But if the SCOTUS sides with the Professor moral opinion and overturns the will of the people of California, of the the American people in Congress, then it is imposing a certain morality on the rest of the people. Therefore since that is always the issue, I believe the citizens of each state must decide what the definition of marriage is, not Art. III Judges. And if the citizens agree with you and the Professor, then fine.
D, I could not have said it better than you just did! Thanks! 🙂
Well said D 🙂
Juan,
This should be of interest to you. . . .
The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
By Theodore B. Olson (01.08.2010)
@ http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/08/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html
“Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in their ability to form successful marital unions and raise children, he said. Though procreation is not a necessary goal of marriage, children of same-sex couples will benefit from the stability provided by marriage, as will the state and society. Domestic partnerships confer a second-class status. The discrimination inherent in that second-class status is harmful to gay men and lesbians. These findings of fact will be highly significant as the case winds its way through years of appeals.
…
“Marriage is a civil bond in this country as well as, in some (but hardly all) cases, a religious sacrament. It is a relationship recognized by governments as providing a privileged and respected status, entitled to the state’s support and benefits. The California Supreme Court described marriage as a “union unreservedly approved and favored by the community.” Where the state has accorded official sanction to a relationship and provided special benefits to those who enter into that relationship, our courts have insisted that withholding that status requires powerful justifications and may not be arbitrarily denied.
What, then, are the justifications for California’s decision in Proposition 8 to withdraw access to the institution of marriage for some of its citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation? The reasons I have heard are not very persuasive.
The explanation mentioned most often is tradition. But simply because something has always been done a certain way does not mean that it must always remain that way. Otherwise we would still have segregated schools and debtors’ prisons. Gays and lesbians have always been among us, forming a part of our society, and they have lived as couples in our neighborhoods and communities. For a long time, they have experienced discrimination and even persecution; but we, as a society, are starting to become more tolerant, accepting, and understanding. California and many other states have allowed gays and lesbians to form domestic partnerships (or civil unions) with most of the rights of married heterosexuals. Thus, gay and lesbian individuals are now permitted to live together in state-sanctioned relationships. It therefore seems anomalous to cite “tradition” as a justification for withholding the status of marriage and thus to continue to label those relationships as less worthy, less sanctioned, or less legitimate.
The second argument I often hear is that traditional marriage furthers the state’s interest in procreation—and that opening marriage to same-sex couples would dilute, diminish, and devalue this goal. But that is plainly not the case. Preventing lesbians and gays from marrying does not cause more heterosexuals to marry and conceive more children. Likewise, allowing gays and lesbians to marry someone of the same sex will not discourage heterosexuals from marrying a person of the opposite sex. How, then, would allowing same-sex marriages reduce the number of children that heterosexual couples conceive?
This procreation argument cannot be taken seriously. We do not inquire whether heterosexual couples intend to bear children, or have the capacity to have children, before we allow them to marry. We permit marriage by the elderly, by prison inmates, and by persons who have no intention of having children. What’s more, it is pernicious to think marriage should be limited to heterosexuals because of the state’s desire to promote procreation. We would surely not accept as constitutional a ban on marriage if a state were to decide, as China has done, to discourage procreation.
Another argument, vaguer and even less persuasive, is that gay marriage somehow does harm to heterosexual marriage. I have yet to meet anyone who can explain to me what this means. In what way would allowing same-sex partners to marry diminish the marriages of heterosexual couples? Tellingly, when the judge in our case asked our opponent to identify the ways in which same-sex marriage would harm heterosexual marriage, to his credit he answered honestly: he could not think of any.
The simple fact is that there is no good reason why we should deny marriage to same-sex partners.
…
Thanks, D, for this important article by Theodore Olson, a conservative lawyer, who argued the case for George W. Bush in the Bush V. Gore case in 2000.
In the first place the only reason why the State/government started regulating marriage was because marriage implied, though not a requirement, the birth or adoption of children. Otherwise the state/government had no say on who one either married or lived with. It was a private matter. But because in a marriage, either civil or common law, children we born, the state took interest. Interest in protecting the rights of the children and of inheritance. But that does not mean that the state/government had an interest in procreation! That is not the argument and it would be silly to sustain it. But because a union between a man and a woman generally means that they bear children, then the state/government took interest and started regulating it, even if some couples could not bear children. I personally believe the state should have no say on who one marries, but I understand the reason it started regulating a union between a man and a woman, that is marriage, was because of the possibility of procreation. Now a union between people of the same sex has no possibility of bearing children, thus there is not interest in the state in regulating such a relationship, because such a relationship is not marriage, it is not union of man and woman. The only reason the state/government interfered was to protect rights of children, otherwise it has no business meddling. Finally in America of 2013, as a result of the no-fault divorce laws, heterosexual marriage has become what, among teenagers in the 1950’s and 60’s, would have been called “going steady.” The institution of “going steady” was extremely popular among high school students of those days. It provided teenagers with social companionship and, for some teenagers and to a variable extent, outlets for sexual energy with someone of the opposite sex. However, it was never expected to be a lifetime commitment. It was a relationship which was by definition time limited and dependent on the consent of both parties. In some cases it evolved into traditional heterosexual marriage and in some cases it did not. When we see polls showing that a large majority of young adults are in favor of legalization of homosexual marriage, it is extraordinary that our pundit class does not point out the huge number of these young people, perhaps a majority, who are children of divorce. Even if their own parents managed to stay married, it is almost certain that a large number of their friends and schoolmates are the product of what were called, in the now quaint language of the days prior to no-fault divorce, “broken homes.”These young people are being polled as to whether there should be legalization of homosexual marriage; however, they very often do not even have the frame of reference to understand what is meant by traditional marriage. In their minds the question becomes reframed into one asking whether homosexuals should have the right to “go steady” and the answer, more often than not, is “Sure, why not?”.
Juan, you make a very interesting point with what you said above, about broken marriages and not knowing what marriage is. I will give you credit for that as a good point! See, I am willing to admit when you write something that makes sense and has validity! 🙂 LOL
Ron: LOL!
Juan writes: “I personally believe the state should have no say on who one marries. . . .”
Does this mean you are supportive of marriage that between two people of the same gender?
D: When I say that the state should have no say on who one marries, I mean that in an ideal world I would prefer there be no state sanctioned marriage at all, that is no issuance of marriage licenses. Marriage should be a private matter, a religious if you want, contractual or whatever you want, but not “sanctioned” by the state. But I recognize that the primary reason that marriage, as it has always been understood for centuries in the West and is endorsed by every major religion, began to have a civil state sanction,that is the issuance of marriage licenses, was because of society’s interest in children’s born in a marriage and that they be raised by their biological fathers and mothers. Otherwise there is no reason for state/government intervention via marriage licenses, much less with gay couples.
Juan,
Are you in a state that has had an election ballot proposal on same-sex marriage?
If the answer is “yes” … what was your vote?
Reference @ http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/same-sex-marriage-on-the-ballot.aspx
D: I’m in Florida but did not vote for or against the amendment in 2008,because I don’t believe the state/government should be in the marriage license business. Nevertheless, for me marriage can have no other meaning than a union between a man and a woman. Any other arrangement either between the same sex, siblings or adding more parties is something else but not marriage. Now if the people decide to change the definition of marriage so be it. But no court should be allowed to do it.
Juan,
I am in Michigan. It came up in 2004.
@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_State_Proposal_%E2%80%93_04-2
“To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.”
I voted “no.”
D: Then how would you change the definition of “marriage”?
Juan,
This is the part that resulted in my “no” vote:
“the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose”
D: I understand that, but what I asked is how would you rephrase it? What would your definition of marriage be?
Juan writes: “D: I understand that, but what I asked is how would you rephrase it? What would your definition of marriage be?”
I don’t “define marriage.” I have my own take on what is a marriage that does not need to shared here. And I do not “define” a marriage in the context of saying what should be considered marriage, generally, to the American citizenry. However, I do respect the United States Constitution. And it says nothing about marriage being exclusively between “one man and one woman.”
D: Ok, I was just curious on what your “take” on marriage is…