« Recounting To Illegitimacy | Home | With The Lights Out »
“That Thing” Called Marriage
By Matt Margolis | November 30, 2004
I was amused at a recent rant over at Daily Kos which attacks the very popular position that gay couples should not be legally allowed to marry (Kos, of course ignores the fact that a sizeable percentage of people who are Democrats also are against gay marriage)…
He says:
Arguments against gay marriage are predicated entirely, 100 percent, on emotion.
That can be said of virtually every single argument made by Democrats when debating issues. Some I have previously written about.
And the vehicle for those emotional appeals are the word “marriage”. A mere semantic.
If semantics are not a big deal, what’s wrong with “civil unions”? For Kos, it seems that calling them “civil unions” isn’t good enough… The word “marriage” apparently is really important.
Kos later describes marriage as
that thing with a 50 percent success rate
Well, gee, if “that thing” doesn’t mean what it used because 50% of them end up in divorce, why does the gay lobby want it so badly? Kos wants to talk about emotional arguments, what does he think he and other people who agree with him are doing when they use the divorce rate as a means to sneer at the institution of marriage? It doesn’t make sense that they push so hard for marriage and at the same time justify their position by belittling it.
Kos’s biggest problem is that he seems to ignore the fact that being against gay marriage is not limited to conservatives or Republicans. Of course he knows this. You didn’t need to be an expert at math to understand the votes made in Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah, each of which easily passed a ban of same-sex marriage. Kos still presents it as a “conservative bigotted [sic] position” and completely ignores what could be as much as 25% of his own party that agrees that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Of course, this is the reason why gay marriage advocates do not want the people to vote on this issue. They want judges to write – not interpret the law.
Topics: Liberal Idiots |
Related Posts:
November 30th, 2004 at 3:04 pm
Missing the point big time, Matt.
Gay couples, at rock bottom, simply want the same legal rights that the status of “marriage” (a civil union as defined by law) affords heterosexual couples.
The right to be see a dying loved one in the hospital, though they’re not a “blood relative”. The right to adopt. The right to share health care benefits. The same tax structure (tho, why they would actually want this eludes me).
In other words, the same legal rights accorded to heterosexuals when they enter into a legal civil union (marriage).
They already get “married” in their own ceremonies. What they don’t have is the legal recognition that accompanies those ceremonies. But you know all this already, right?
You say that Kos’ weakest position is that he ignores the fact that “a lot of people, not just Republicans, are against gay marriage.” According to most polls taken, that point is certainly true.
But, as you proudly proclaim out in your own banner, being against, or for, something doesn’t necessisarily make it right. (Witness slavery. Or abortion.)
The argument you put forth here is much more of an emotional argument.
November 30th, 2004 at 3:40 pm
not even close Rootie.
November 30th, 2004 at 4:59 pm
I’d be fascinated to know your view on Loving v. Virginia. Was that just a case of activist judges writing — not interpreting — the law? A majority of people were against allowing interracial marriage at the time of the court case.
November 30th, 2004 at 5:43 pm
I’d also be fascinated to know just what facts — as opposed to emotions — either side claims to use in support of their position. Seems to me they are few and far between on both sides.
November 30th, 2004 at 6:45 pm
[i]”Not even close, Rootie”?[/i]
That’s it? I thought you loved debating “the facts” with “liberals”.
Conservatives may or may not have a point about this, but you — along with the group that tried to get the Supreme Court to hear an argument against this the first time by saying that allowing gay marriage would “fatally errode the fabric of America life” –have failed to make it in any substantial way, shape or form.
November 30th, 2004 at 8:05 pm
only liberals that actually attempt to have a real debate and show any sense of ability
December 1st, 2004 at 3:50 pm
Matt, are you going to answer my question or what? Was Loving v. Virginia just the work of some activist judges trying to write rather than interpret the law, or wasn’t it?
December 1st, 2004 at 5:11 pm
casey,
Looking back on Loving vs Virginia, that was indeed discrimination by not allowing heterosexual interracial couples the right to marry. But let’s not forget that it was the Southern Democrats who who were pro-slavery and were against civil rights.
In this case, homosexuals are trying to “marry.” You’d have to change the definition of “marriage” for that to happen, and it won’t.
Homosexuals should try to get civil unions or domestic partnerships recognized under federal law instead of trying to get the government to redifine “marriage.”
December 1st, 2004 at 5:15 pm
[i]”only liberals that actually attempt to have a real debate and show any sense of ability” [/i]
Why don’t you just say “only liberals that agree with what I think” then?
If you can somehow phrase and quantify your argument in some other way than simply “lots of folks feel the same way,” then let’s hear it.
Otherwise, you’re just blowing hot air.
December 1st, 2004 at 5:44 pm
Some of the same people who wish to stop gay marriage and civil unions are the same people who wish to jail married couples who preform oral sex on each other or who use sex toys on each others.
December 1st, 2004 at 9:41 pm
bob,
You’re right. Some of the people who don’t like gay marriage are for sodomy laws.
They’re called extremists.
Just like some people who wish to stop President Bush are also communists. That doesn’t make all people who hate President Bush communists, right? Right?!
December 2nd, 2004 at 1:43 pm
Looks like “casey” is now the one that can’t respond. That was easy.
December 2nd, 2004 at 4:02 pm
For the majority of Americans in the first half of the 20th century, marriage was defined as the union between a man and a woman of the same race. For the majority of Americans in the first half of the 19th century, “citizen” was defined as “white man”. Of course civil rights changes mean the definitions of words change.
Yes or no, are you too fucking retarded to understand that?
December 2nd, 2004 at 5:10 pm
In all cultures, be they European, Chinese, Arab, African, Indian, marriage has always been between one man and one woman. It may not be called “marriage” in China for obvious reasons, but it is an historical institution that has been around for thousands of years and is recognized by all cultures throughout recorded history.
If you want to try to redefine marriage, go ahead. Just don’t try to force it on people by way of judges but rather through debate and democracy. Your problem is that you are forcing it on the majority of the world’s population who also respect the history of marriage as being between a man and a woman.
This isn’t about trying to harm homosexuals. This isn’t about discriminating them. This is, however, about honoring the tradition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.
December 2nd, 2004 at 7:46 pm
If the government’s definition of who is allowed to get the rights of marriage is not fair, then it should be redefined. Just as the government’s defintion of citizen has been changed, even through the courts, to be made more fair.
The existence of gay marriage in my state has yet to “force” anything on me. Gay couples already exist, will continue to exist, and they have existed throughout history. Either they will get the same rights as I or they won’t, in which case they are being discriminated against.
The difference between “civil unions” and “marriage” at this point is the fact “civil unions” are only recognized by states and only rights given by states are applicable to them. “Marriage” would give a gay couple both the state’s and the federal government’s rights, because the federal government recognizes marriage.
December 2nd, 2004 at 10:05 pm
My personal feeling is, marriage cannot be left to the states to individually define. I think one way or another you need a marriage recognized in one state to be recoqnized in all of them. it otherwise complicates marriage and can lead to problems when travelling or changing residency.
if you leave it to the states, a gay couple “married” in Massachusetts could go to any state that doesn’t recognize their “marriage” and ultimately cause problems… if a state doesn’t recognize gay marriage, they don’t have to recognize the “marriage” of a gay couple that is travelling their or decides to move there.. i think you can see where this is all leading to.
December 3rd, 2004 at 10:12 am
Why would a state have to recognize another states marriage when people with Conceled Carry licenses are not automaticly recognized in other states.
Why is one OK and the other wrong?
December 3rd, 2004 at 12:01 pm
bob,
Because rights that allow you to visit a loved one in the hospital are at the core of humanity as opposed to carrying a concealed firearm.
I agree that the federal government is going to have to recognize same-sex unions. It’s unfair to homosexuals to be able to be in one state and visit a loved one in the hospital, then go to another and not be able to do that.
Nothing wrong with federal recognized civil unions, IMO. The problem is that homosexuals want to call it marriage. It isn’t.
December 9th, 2004 at 9:24 pm
As someone who isn’t American (but British) seems pretty simple to me give gay couples the same rights as straight couple under federal law. It doesn’t have to be called marriage. Marriage is just a word - civil union or whatever will do.
People will chose to use whatever words they want and this will become the common currency. “Meaning is use” is a quote from arguably the foremost linguist philosopher of the 20th century – Wittengenstein. Basically it means that the meaning a word has comes from the way people use it. If people use the word marriage to mean a man and a woman, now, then fine. If in a hundred years this changes then that will happen anyway.
Straight or gay you can’t define a word on your own – its got to be a consensus.
Incidentally Wittengenstein was gay, unmarried (at least I think so) and would’ve pissed himself laughing at someone trying to define a word by law (or at least would’ve if he was such a miserable bugger).