Conversations / Live Q&A

You have put your finger on the right issue, but perhaps in a way that fails to answer the  concerns of those who oppose gay marriage.

The issue IS "compelling interest" to the government, which as far as I can see when it comes to gay marriage -- the arguments against which are rooted almost entirely in religious faith -- there is none.  In fact, the interests we DO have in promoting committed, monogomous, reltionships -- the social welfare which they promote -- are just as accomplished with same-sex partners as they are with heterosexual partners.

That said, those who disagree with what I just wrote, will not be so quickly persuaded.  We need to ask what marriage is for, and then see why we might all be agree on how to achieve that.  Much more productive that fighting about what marriage is.

That we are having this discussion is not only NOT a blemish, it is a necesity.  Whether you admit it or not, gay mariage is a new thing, one which overturns centuries of precedent and convention.  It is exactly the kind of thing which we need to be discussing.

There is no clear reason to assume that marriage is a civil right.  And we make all sorts of distinctions about who may and who may not marry.  To the extent that gov't involves itself in the question, that is to be expected.

That SCOTUS may have to decide this, is an open question, and whatever states decide in the meantime, appreciating the rights/privilege issue is a way of having the conversation, as opposed to just hammering each other.

As to Jewish tradition, there are those who look to Leviticus and subsequent legal tradition which prohibits homosexual sex -- not being gay, and say 'no".  Others  look to broad principles about human dignity -- also rooted in the Hebrew Bible and rabbinic tradtion -- and say 'yes'.

It seems to me, that whatever one might say to the followers of their particular faith, unless one believes that each faith should aspire to making the United States into a theocracy in its own image -- imposing it's views on everybody -- we need to distinguish between that which we teach to those who choose our respective faiths, and that for which we advocate as a shared norm.  The latter must almost always be wider than the former.  That too is a position with deep roots in Jewish tradition.

Within any given community, religious or otherwise, marriage IS a privilege.  HOWEVER, within our American polity, it is is something more, something which -- as you noted -- conveys new rights.  Because of that, the principle which guide who gets it and who does not, MUST NOT be defined by any one religious group or teaching.

I would argue that government should get out of the marriage business altogether.  It should be civil unions for all, at least from a legal perspective, and let individual communities decide who gets to be "married".  Just a thought.

I appreciate your frustration, but if you are serious about wanting to understand those with whom you disagree, you would start be appreciating the real concern whcih lies within the argumetns you raised, even if we agree that they should not make policy.

For example, "Tradtion" DOES have a role to play in creating social cohesion.  It also gets used to intimaidate and constrain people.  We need to accept that both can be true and balance those aspects.  Also, while some do not think it will "devalue marriage", for many others it will -- that's simply unavoidbale, based on their beliefs.  and your awareness that marriage is being devalued in so many other ways, is all the more reason that people are so tense about gay marriage.  what might it look like to take that into account, not as a reason to disallow gay marriage, but as a more productive way to engage those who oppose it?

The value of referendum is the clarity it provides on a single issue.  The problem is that when any issue, especially a highly contentious one, is taken out of context, it tends to get abused and the public, because it has no investment beyond the single issue upon which they are voting, often makes really bad decisions i.e. ones with implications that actually work against them.

In this case, those who would ban gay marriage may actually be working against society valuing the very things the opposition truly supports -- committment, relationship, monogamy, etc. 

SLOW DOWN and read my entire answer -- that is exactly what I said!  And now, for your benefit:

Gov't should get out of the marriage business AND be in the civil union business -- the latter being a public good regardless of the sex of the partners, and therefore something in which the gov't should play a role.

I appreciate that concern, and it MUST be addressed as part of any comprehensive approach to this issue.  That is not being done, and it leaves many relgious folks and their institutions taking positions defensively, which is never good.

Ironically, we need proponant of gay marriage to fight for relgious institutions right to refuse such ceremonies, and then ask those now-protected institutions to protect the private needs of those Americans who want their relationships to have full and equal civil recognition.

Marriage per se' is NOT a right.  It becomes a rights issue however, when the government recognizes some and not others based on issues which lay outside the shared legal framework which all Americans share. 

Given that we remain a nation which values what marital unions achieve as a public good, any and all realtions which we deem to achieve those goods must be equally honored.  It certainly seems that gay marriage DO accomplish those public benefits -- at least no worse than do straight marriages.

It also seems that the institution of marriage, at least as understood by about half of us, would be diminshed by extending its current definition.  Since what marriage accomplishes, at it's best. from a public perspective, is not contingent upon what it is called, and since the opposition, at its best, is not hateful but simply defensive about the definition of marriage, we should protect the realtionship for all, and cede the name marriage -- at least from a civil perspective -- to private institutions.

Faulty logic, no matter how good it feels, is no substitute for serious argument.  Decided law is different from undecided issues.  It's why, for example, we have a Chief Justice who opposes abortion rights but respects Roe as a matter of decided legal precedent.

Also, legal process is just that -- a process.  That which seems clear now, was once less so.  While we must learn from the past and not drag our feet simply because it feels good to some people, neither can we force people to run before they can walk. 

A fear can be real even if it's foundation is not.  You might try thinking about that before heaping insult upon the very people one presumes you want to stopp fighting this issue.  Just a thought.

Marriage is, as it has always been, about many things.  In fact, it is because it is about more things now than in the past (when it was mostly limited to being an economic and theological issue), that we are having this whole debate.  But that is another conversation.

"instituion" and "contract" are not mutually exclusive issues, but to the extent that we can separate them, we may bea ble to satify the needs of many people.  In the past, that has meant offering civil union to gay couples while keeping marriage for straights.  As in most situtation we offer others what we should first offer to ourselves -- civil unions for all, with "sanctification" cermonies called marriages left to those who define sanctity, which surely leaves the government out, as well it should.

Frankly, I am torn about addressing your question because of the equivalences that you draw and the pain they cause to many people -- both straight and gay.  On the other hand, I assume that you are totally sincere and that your question about "opening the floodgates" flows from a genuine fear about social ills being promoted.

I would simply ask if you genuinely believe that incest and prostitution are the same as homosexuality.  Do you really believe that commodifying sex and making a life with another person who happens to be of the same sex are equal?There is plenty of room for decent people to disagree about the appropriateness of gay sex, but not if its based on those kinds of comparisons.