David Klinghoffer notes the state Supremes' ruling on gay marriage is nothing for conservatives to celebrate. Gay marriage advocate and Democratic state legislator Ed Murray of Seattle promises he'll run a gay marriage bill in Olympia next year and predicts passage within a decade. Meanwhile, The Olympian reports in depth today about the Homo a Go Go festival running in the state capitol through Aug. 6. Guest of honor is John Cameron Mitchell, producer of the film Hedwig And The Angry Inch - a cult classic all about a gay German boy who to marry a U.S. soldier must go under the knife, because same-sex marriage is not allowed. The operation is slightly botched, the relationship ends, but the boy becomes a - sort of - transsexual rock star, whose band is named after....well, never mind. I still remember a family friend, who is gay, telling me about this film exultantly, and my wondering.....huh?
And so the glory of Hedwig comes to Olympia. Dunno 'bout that. Because they still face a tradition-based wall of opposition, Washington state "queers," to borrow the term proudly used by many, ought to spread the word among putative allies that over-the-top public celebrations of alternative sexualities - whether in a Seattle gay pride parade featuring leather and bondage brigades, or feting the auteur of a campy castration epic at a queer culture fest - don't help the gay marriage cause. The queer identity movement threatens to isolate less self-absorbed, more sober gays from mainstream society by advertising that gays draw their personhood and values from their brand(s) of sexuality. Dumb. This is not the evidence that swing Democrats in Olympia are looking for, that they should vote for Murray's bill.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at July 28, 2006 09:52 AM | Email ThisHe may be right too. But, if the legislature passes a bill, well so be it. I just can't tolerate some nutty judges making up laws that the left can't get passed.
Let us all remember that the DOMA was passed because some nutty judge in Hawaii said since the law doesn't say the marriage is between one man and one woman that there is no reason not to let gays marry.
Posted by: Bill on July 28, 2006 10:46 AMExtending the definition of marriage has other consequences.
I'm not keen on putting more mouths on the tit of social security. So when a same sex spouse dies, the benefits are passed like is currently done with a widow/widower- this is not what the program was designed to do...it was designed to keep families from starving to death when a bread winner or home care giver of hungry mouths died.
Extend the ol' polygamy harem argument here and it gets exacerbated even more.
No means no. I'm not not blessing it and even more over I'm not going to plan on paying for it. It has nothing to do with me limiting their rights, it's them asking me to pay for their lifestyle choice.
Posted by: Andy on July 28, 2006 11:05 AMWhat you refer to here is the so-called "conservative case" for gay marriage. However, in practice, it fails miserably mainly because so few gay couples actually choose to marry (
Posted by: Palouse on July 28, 2006 11:12 AMhttp://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10084.html#1
Your widow or widower may be able to receive full benefits at age 65 if born before 1940. (The age to receive full benefits is gradually increasing to age 67 for widows and widowers born in 1940 or later.) Reduced widow or widower benefits can be received as early as age 60. If your surviving spouse is disabled, benefits can begin as early as age 50.
Benefits for surviving divorced spouses
If you have been divorced, your former wife or husband who is age 60 or older (50-60 if disabled) can get benefits if your marriage lasted at least 10 years.
Survivors benefits paid to a divorced spouse will not affect the benefit rates for other survivors getting benefits.
Not gonna happen. Who would do the "forbidding"? You?!
BWAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAA!
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 28, 2006 11:31 AMThese guys are poster children for shooting themselves in the foot.
Can you imagine what the heterosexual community would be like if marriage were forbidden?
A historical example of that is inter-racial marriage. We can look at European/Native American marriage, Euro/Afro-American marriage, and so on, where the marriage was not recognized by law (depending on the time or place).
Many of these couples defied the trends of their time and remained together without caring what the law thought, or feeling the need to have their marriage recognized.
I am not a student of this topic, but I consider myself pretty educated and widely read in history. However, I don't see the parallels between the modern behavior you seem to think is the result of not being able to marry and actual, historical examples of not being able to marry. As far as I can tell, nearly all of these people are allowed to lawfully marry today, and this change wasn't caused by shock performance art.
I think that people who are concerned about moral decay in our society should welcome the fact that many gay people want to live in stable, long term relationships sanctioned by the state.
A pretty good argument, but I think that it is missing some important points. As I point out in my historical review above, it is apparently not necessary to live in relationships sanctioned by the state in order to live in a stable, long-term, "moral" relationship. Your argument seems to be centered on the notion that marriage increases "morality" (without ever defining what that term means). And this is exactly what you say next:
Marriage gives society stability and maturity. We need more maturity!
Does marriage do that, by forcing people to act that way? If so, why don't more people who are married act mature and stable? I am not sure I see your cause-effect relationship here. Perhaps what really happens is that mature and stable people are more apt to marry!
That said, the legislature (or citizens initiative) is where this issue should be debated.
I agree. This is, after all, how civil rights were extended to all. This depends, of course, on how fair the balloting is. I, for one, am absolutely NOT willing to cheat or to lie in order to either pass or fail gay marriage legislation. I am not able to trust that those who run elections in Washington state (especially in extremely influential King County) are as moral, mature and stable as that.
When you present yourself as a freak, people will accept you at face value as one.
Posted by: H Moul on July 28, 2006 01:34 PMIf I understand the more recent polling results on gay marriage since the Mass. decision, it seems that the public, even the older generations, have become much more accepting. And my guess is that it is not the pride parades, the dykes on bikes, or the various leather clad communities that are doing it. It's the gramma and gramma that have been together for 35 years, or the young set of church-going type men with adopted children in tow that are making the difference. These are not the sensational gays that get on the evening news, but they did when they started to get married, and that is making a difference. This probably scares the cheese out of the evangelical "we want to tell you how to live your life" crowd.
The Pew poll results are here if you're interested:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=273
Imagine that...they try to provoke us, then can't understand why we're provoked.
Posted by: South County on July 28, 2006 04:36 PM"For young couples, marriage no long seems the obvious choice. There is hardly a stigma anymore to unwed domestic relationships, nor to fathers skipping out on mothers, nor to mothers having children without a father's ever having been in the household picture."
What is it about these conservative religious guys that causes them to think the problem is fathers skipping out on mothers, and not fathers being kicked out of their families? How in the blue blazes you can work as a rabbi, priest, counselor, cop, county jail guard, etc. and NOT know that fathers are being involuntarily removed from their families and children by the courts and state agencies far more often than they are running out on them?
But then again, these are people who can look at dinosaur fossils and still pretend to believe that the Universe was created in six days a few thousand years ago!
As for gays wanting to get married? Why? One would think gay divorce would be sufficient deterrent! It reminds me of the following joke:
"I got kicked out of the Army for being gay. One week before I was to deploy to Iraq.
DARN!!"
Call me cynical, but I think this ruling was another example of the cold, calculated, politically expediant mindset of today's Democratic party. They don't stand for anything other than getting elected.
Posted by: Dave on July 28, 2006 11:30 PMFor crying out loud, and if they would have ruled against DOMA, they would have been "activist judges". Sheesh isn't there enough paranoia and conspiracy theories out there?
Posted by: Splinter on July 31, 2006 04:16 PMAs to the idea that gay married citizens should be required to subsidize the straight ones how can anyone even say that with a 'straight face' as it were?
And the courts - the supreme court said twice in their majority ruling that although didn't have to give them access to the marriage contract, they do have a right to the things the contract gives and that if the legislature doesn't do something about that then they probably will.
Every Washington citizens has a right to marry, its good for them, its good for the state, its good for society and soon all citizens will have license to a state contract in support of their marriages one way or the other.
Posted by: Vishanti on August 1, 2006 05:38 PM