Oh noes! Someone whose political beliefs differ from my own! Burn the infidel!
Anti-miscegenation laws were deemed constitutional in the United States until 1967 when the SCOTUS ruled on the aptly named Loving v. Virginia. Today, this case is cited as precedent for overturning gay marriage bans across the United States.
Please explain why you believe that this is a false equivalence.
It's a false equivalence because being a black person in the civil-right-era South isn't the same as being gay in California. Maybe they're both unpleasant experiences, but they're different both in kind and degree. Furthermore, there's no analog to "race mixing" (the real "crime" in interracial marriage) in the debate about gay marriage.
Lumping current proponents of traditional marriage in with the likes of George Wallace is akin to breaking Godwin's Law and only serves to inhibit understanding, not promote it. This only undermines the inclusive ideals that gay marriage supporters claim to advocate.
Secondly (and note that I'm switching off RV numbers from California and onto nationwide numbers without any reference to voter registration), 52% of Americans nationwide supported the legalization of gay marriage last year[2].
[A] large chunk of one of the most progressive states
in the U.S.
Maybe they're both unpleasant experiences, but
they're different both in kind and degree.
Furthermore, there's no analog to "race mixing"
(the real "crime" in interracial marriage) in
the debate about gay marriage.
Lumping current proponents of traditional marriage in
with the likes of George Wallace is akin to breaking
Godwin's Law and only serves to inhibit understanding,
not promote it. This only undermines the inclusive
ideals that gay marriage supporters claim to advocate.
You still haven't explained why you think gay marriage is bad.
[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-wh...
[2] http://www.gallup.com/poll/163730/back-law-legalize-gay-marr...
By definition, not allowing homosexual marriage is discriminatory, as are any limits on who may be married, no matter how just the reason. The only non-discriminatory view is to get government out of the whole business of marriage (a view that seems more and more like the best compromise). If inclusiveness is the ultimate goal here, then silencing critics by equating them to obviously terrible people is hypocritical. Otherwise, people should be honest and admit that inclusiveness isn't the goal, imposing a different worldview is.
Reasons for traditional marriage:
1. I find a Burkean argument against rapid experimentation in our social fabric to be convincing, especially considering the ill effects of rapid social change in the U.S. in the 20th century and up to now.
2. Accidental pregnancy is a big problem. Creating mechanisms for heterosexual couples to pair of permanently, with compatible mates, is in the interest of society. This is especially true in the age of large social programs and the always-increasing extramarital birthrate, which is overwhelmingly due to unplanned pregnancies.
3. Defining marriage as a purely expressive act or as a bag of goodies is to miss a sine qua non of the institution: promotion of healthy, stable families. Families are much more spontaneous than we give them credit for, especially in the fertile ground of a heterosexual relationship. Ensuring smart pairings and then a permanence for those relationships is in the interest of everyone.
4. I believe that a family splitting itself up is much more costly than we want to admit. I believe difficulty in splitting up is a feature of good marriage tradition and law.
5. I we have already been trying to remedy the ills caused by broken homes with little success. I am not confident that a combination of birth control, social programs, education, etc. will solve this problem because we have been trying this for decades.
To be clear, I'm not opposed to people expressing themselves. If two men want to call each other husband until they die, that's their right. I'm not opposed to figuring a way to simply bestow inheritance rights or power of attorney. Or to address the other practical hurdles of that lifestyle.
But how do homosexual unions undermine traditional marriage? They don't, really, but that's not the issue here. The issue is an opposition to special privileges for straight couples (traditional marriage). Otherwise, we would be talking about civil unions or something (I'm sure some readers winced when I used the phrase civil union, which is the point). This is not about freedom; it's about acceptance. It's not just about rights and outcomes, it's about equal benefits and equal treatment.
So my view, that straight sexual partners are fundamentally different, is incompatible with the goals of current court cases and legislation involving homosexual rights. I'm coming around to the hope that we can get government out of the regulating marriage business altogether and support families in other ways (child tax credits? some sort of earned income tax multiplier for families?).
In the meantime, having government reduce marriage to simply another expression of love or a package of rights is something I will actively oppose. The stakes are too high and the damage is already being felt.
The only non-discriminatory view is to
get government out of the whole business
of marriage
I think that marriage, despite its fraught history in the context of the Christian church, should be explicitly removed from government and handed over to other parties who may partake of it if they feel so inclined. I would much rather skip the whole marriage thing given the option.
So… the government should do the exact same thing but call it something else because reasons?
> I would much rather skip the whole marriage thing given the option.
You have it, nobody will force you to marry if you don't want to.
I believe the case for homosexual marriage is incomplete in this way.
And another: a man and a simulated anime character want to get married, but there's a law forbidding it. Would you say that's against artificial intelligence, japanese animation or both?
And your second example is obviously discriminatory and against AIs. I assume the only reason you'd write such a line is because a sentient AI doesn't exist yet?
So stop complaining that people arguing for marriage equality are making you tired by pointing out that you're no better than bigots who argue against mixed race marriage. People's right to marry the partner they love trumps your right not to be tired of making weak unconvincing arguments. You are not the victim here.
Also note that I never made an argument for or against gay marriage, I simply argued that your argument itself is faulty. People seem to be incapable of distinguishing between the two. Perhaps I'm a rare breed, but I will argue against bad arguments for a conclusion I agree with.
You guys are losing people by attempting to hitch the gay rights wagon onto the civil rights wagon. One does not immediately follow from the other.
When there's a big group of people who are obviously anti-gay, and an intertwined group who claims that they aren't anti-gay at all, but instead just happen to have a shifting array of horseshit reasons for acting anti-gay, Occam starts whispering in my ear.
edit: To illustrate the relevance, the main criticism I heard from Prop 8's opponents was exactly this. It wasn't the usual references to Sodom & Gomorrah or that kind of thing.
I can't say I've ever seen such a proposal, the proposals I've seen[0] painstakingly carved a niche for exactly this[1].
It also has nothing to do with the case at hand, Prop 8 was not "specifically allow religious offices to not officiate in same-sex marriages if they don't want to", it was to add "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." to the state constitution following a mayor licensing purely civil same-sex marriage under the Equal Protection clause in defiance of Proposition 22 (the same as above as a law rather than a constitutional amendment).
[0] for legalising same-sex marriage, rather than legal challenges to laws going the opposite way
[1] and even if/when they don't, churches are allowed to discriminate in refusal of employment and services. They are specifically exempt from the Civil Rights Act 1964's Title VII for instance, and when the Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church voted to refuse service and recognition to mixed-race couples in 2011 it was completely legal.
'bit more complex. Private businesses wouldn't be protected if they refused to participate in a mixed-race or a muslim wedding — and could always be sued either way — but I guess the exact result would depend on sexual orientation being a protected class.
Public accomodations ("workplace and facilities that serve the general public") are covered under Title II. Sexual orientation isn't a federally protected class under title II, but it can be protected at the state level, it is in Colorado (since 2008) where a couple successfully sued a bakery for refusal to sell a wedding cake (Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop).
In such states, or if sexual orientation ever becomes a federal protected class under title II, businesses will not be able to refuse service based on it, just as they can't based on "race, color, religion or national origin".
The proprietors in question clearly stated they would sell a birthday cake to a gay couple. They wouldn't, however, sell them a wedding cake.
A better analogy would be whether a Muslim bakery could be forced to produce communion wafers. Or whether a baker would otherwise be forced to produce a cake containing speech he or she didn't agree with ("Happy Abortion!" or "Happy Bris!").
In my view, this issue is complex only because the position of the business owners in question is being elided.
No, it is a terrible analogy: a muslim bakery wouldn't usually produce communion wafers. The bakery in question did usually produce wedding cakes[0], and refused to provide a usual service on grounds of sexual orientation (the bakery had no problem providing a wedding cake for a pair of dogs when asked).
> In my view, this issue is complex only because the position of the business owners in question is being elided.
The business owners repeatedly made their position clear: they had a strict policy against selling wedding cakes to same-sex couples based on their "reading of the Word of God." Their position is illegal in Colorado.
[0] and wedding cakes were available for sampling
This attitude is certainly part of the reason that gay marriage has faced such opposition. Banning the expression of one group of people for the sake of advocating the freedom of expression of another[1] is not a winning argument.
[1] Not that marriage is only an act of expression.
They can express whatever the fuck they want, what they can not do is discriminate against a protected class. It's been that way for the last 50 years. Don't like that? Don't be a public accommodation.
> This attitude is certainly part of the reason that gay marriage has faced such opposition.
No, that's just an excuse for the underlying bigotry. As it was back in the 60s.
Worse yet, there isn't even a good reason to hold such a stance.
I don't know if that's the case for Eich, but it is at least a counter-example to your claim.
That's a really bad position to hold, too.
The way you've phrased it specifically makes it look like the stance is targeting gays. That's disingenuous.
Here's another phrasing: "Governments should not be involved in marriage. Increasing their involvement in marriage will only make matters worse."
This is clearly not anti-gay. This is a sufficient counter-example to your claim even if you think it's a "bad position" to hold. (I don't think it's a great position to hold either. I don't think governments should be involved in marriage, but I'm pragmatic about it and think they should open the doors to whatever kind of cohabitation people want. This includes polyamory.)
Basically what I'm saying is that being against State privileged gay marriage doesn't have to be anti-gay. It can be anti-State. I grant that most people who advocate from this position are hypocrites and are probably using it to mask more sinister motivations, but that doesn't make this reasoning invalid.
I don't hold that viewpoint. I was merely demonstrating that one can be against gay marriage without being anti-gay.
> "nah, fuck those people"
Uh, no. I'm not doing it to those people. Government is.
Virtually every law regulating social behaviors (whether it's created or repealed) requires oppressing some class of people. In the case of State privileged marriage, it oppresses everyone who can't or won't marry but still want benefits only available to married persons.
You can, and given your posting I am sure will, continue to represent otherwise. You are unconvincing, and somebody who votes, or donates money, in the method of your stated position is an asshole. Because making the perfect the enemy of the good and ignoring that you hurt people in the process is wrong.
1) Don't care what consenting individuals do.
2) Want the power and influence of the State reduced.
Others are less tolerable of pragmatism and do not support any expansion of State power. This has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation and is easily applied consistently.
Moreover, libertarians are very unlikely to even acknowledge marriage as a right. It's only meaningful in our society as a "right" precisely because governments grant special privileges to married couples. This discriminates against ALL unmarried people---not just gays.
If governments weren't involved in marriage, ALL of this would be a non-issue. People could choose to celebrate or signify their union in whichever manner they choose. To an anti-State ideologue, claiming that "well governments are involved so you might as just give them more power" is just a non-starter.
I get that participating in a lynch mob can be fun. But my only point here is that there are legitimate arguments for the other side that don't require bigotry. (Since other commenters were claiming this to be impossible.) This is an inconvenient fact for a lynch mob acting on limited information.
My problem is that no one is actually trying to remove government from all marriages, as this argument would seem to imply. This argument is only used to defend removing gay rights, as with Prop 8.
As with many of my preferred policies, I am sickened by the other people who support it. They do exist though, and they are in office.
While I think this is a perfectly rational position, I'm dubious that it's a very good basis for opposing gay marriage rights.
I've noticed that libertarians and leftists both tend toward a passionate hatred of compromise and "half-measures," and this reasoning strikes me as one of those cases. If you really don't think the State should be involved in marriage at all, then you don't want the state recognizing gay marriage because you don't want it to recognize any marriage. But on a practical level, that's not going to happen any time soon. Extending gay marriage rights arguably reduces the State's ability to dictate who can and can't be married and thus increases individual freedom. Isn't that clearly preferable from a libertarian standpoint?
But to succinctly answer your question; no I don't think it is unequivocally libertarian. But it depends on who you talk to.
> I've noticed that libertarians and leftists both tend toward a passionate hatred of compromise and "half-measures," and this reasoning strikes me as one of those cases.
You mean compromise with respect to the expansion of the State. This is usually the distinction between a moderate and a radical.
> I'm dubious that it's a very good basis for opposing gay marriage rights.
Here's the problem: you're presupposing that marriage is a right.
I appreciate that marriage (along with a myriad of other things) is listed as a right in the UDHR, but that really isn't why gays---or others like polyamorous cohabitants---want marriage in the first place. They want it because of State granted privileges bestowed upon married couples. Those aren't rights.
Unfortunately, some of those privileges restrict the rights of all unmarried persons. Particularly with respect to hospital visitation. Everyone---including unmarried people---should be allowed to control such things about their lives.
Other privileges include tax breaks and the like. I won't go down that road...
With that said, you're basically telling me that I oppose something that I don't think even exists in the first place. To me, rights are much more fundamental than constructs like marriage.
The problem is that the debate is framed in terms of gay marriage. One's position against marriage in general can subsume one's position on gay marriage. But the lynch mob lacks perspective and can only imagine that being against gay marriage means being against gays.
Once you finally recognize that, "oh gee whiz, yeah, being against marriage in general is cool, but still, you aren't pragmatic enough for me."
OK. Now we're done. Before I was a bigot. But now I'm just not being pragmatic. That isn't a lynchable offense. So, we good now? (Not talking to you specifically, but in general.)
Disclaimer: I don't vote and don't contribute to any political causes/campaigns because there are none that exclusively support voluntary interaction. If someone put a gun to my head and told me to vote, I'd vote in favor of more egalitarian laws every time.
Sorry for being a windbag, but in this kind of topic, it's just way too easy to take short responses that aren't precise in bad faith.
This makes no sense to me. When gay marriage is legal in all 50 states, the total number of extant marriages will increase by no more than a few percent. It seems, at the least, incredibly churlish to me to want to deny gay people the right to marry the consenting single adult of their choice just because you think it's unfair that marriage carries privileges. In short, your beef is mostly with straight people, but you're willing to take it out on the gays anyway, just because they're politically weaker. I can't see this as a principled stance.
And for the record, I agree that some of said privileges should be available to single people as well, like control over hospital visitation. I just think this is a completely orthogonal issue to gay marriage.
> In short, your beef is mostly with straight people
No. It's very much not with straight people. It's with the State. The State is the one suppressing people (not just gays) by giving special privileges to a preferred class of people.
> but you're willing to take it out on the gays anyway, just because they're politically weaker.
Uh, no, I'm not... This is exactly why I don't vote and don't contribute to political campaigns.
> And for the record, I agree that some of said privileges should be available to single people as well, like control over hospital visitation. I just think this is a completely orthogonal issue to gay marriage.
Then you haven't appreciated what it means to be against the State's involvement with marriage.
Against State privileged marriage => against all forms of State privileged marriage.
Once again, my point remains the same: being against State privileged marriage (and therefore State privileged gay marriage) does not make one a bigot. This runs contrary to what the lynch mob would like to assume.
> No. It's very much not with straight people. It's with the State.
But the State is made of people. And most of the people who support, and benefit from, those special privileges are straight.
> I don't vote and don't contribute to political campaigns.
Okay -- I can understand neutrality. I just can't see your argument as supporting a position of active opposition to gay marriage.
> you haven't appreciated what it means to be against the State's involvement with marriage
Well, I was indicating that I didn't completely disagree with you about it. I certainly don't completely agree, either.
> being against State privileged marriage (and therefore State privileged gay marriage) does not make one a bigot
No. But opposing gay marriage more than you oppose straight marriage does.
Eich donated to Prop. 8. There's no way this makes sense as an expression of uniform opposition to all State-privileged marriage.
I think chipotle_coyote put it very well. Allowing gay marriage reduces the State's involvement in marriage. Presumably the number of actual marriages will increase slightly, but that is because a restriction on them has been removed.
Governments have a monopoly on the use of legitimized coercion. Individuals don't.
The biggest trick governments have ever pulled is convincing everyone that the people is the same as the State. Sorry, but I don't buy it.
> I just can't see your argument as supporting a position of active opposition to gay marriage.
I don't know how to make this any simpler: Opposition of State privileged marriage implies opposition of State privileged gay marriage.
> No. But opposing gay marriage more than you oppose straight marriage does.
Nowhere have I implied or advocated this. The very crux of my argument is that you don't oppose or support one form of State privileged marriage over another.
> Eich donated to Prop. 8. There's no way this makes sense as an expression of uniform opposition to all State-privileged marriage.
The balance of probability supports this conclusion, but it is by no means guaranteed. This is precisely what my argument shows.
> I think chipotle_coyote put it very well. Allowing gay marriage reduces the State's involvement in marriage. Presumably the number of actual marriages will increase slightly, but that is because a restriction on them has been removed.
From the point of view of someone who is against State privileged marriage, this is ass backwards. It's not removing restrictions---it's granting privilege to a larger class of people (at the expense of those without that privilege).
You can rephrase this stuff however you want, but it doesn't change the very simple fact that being against State privileged marriage---and therefore State privileged gay marriage---doesn't make you bigot.
This is a cynical and short-sighted view.
It is cynical because it sees civil rights as a zero-sum game.
It is short-sighted for a closely related reason. Most opponents of gay marriage don't even want to draw a distinction between the religious institution of marriage and the civil institution. In their minds, marriage is divinely ordained, and its earthly recognition in the law is completely natural. "The family" -- meaning their particular conception of what families should be -- is all but sacred.
The gay marriage movement chips away at this belief system in several ways. First, it gives people reason to distinguish between religious and civil marriage; to see that whatever their personal religious beliefs may be, the law is about civil marriage. Also, it presents a picture of marriage as a human creation, rather than divinely ordained. It brings people into contact with unfamiliar family structures. And it makes ideas acceptable or at least debatable that previously were generally rejected. You can see this already with the debate over poly marriage.
In short, if you want to start a singles' rights movement, you should support gay marriage, because emotionally it is moving society in the direction you want, even if it is not yet doing that structurally.
You still haven't really addressed my central point, which is that one can be against gay marriage without being anti-gay.
> This is a cynical and short-sighted view. It is cynical because it sees civil rights as a zero-sum game.
I'm not talking about civil rights. You are. I've consistently used the phrase State privileged marriage. I use that instead of just "marriage" to specifically mark privileges that are given to some and held back from others. This isn't zero-sum. People who can check all the boxes get a marriage license plus special privileges. Nobody else can.
> In short, if you want to start a singles' rights movement
Now you're taking my comments in bad faith. Singles' rights? What is that? Do singles have special rights that other people don't have?
Sure, singles lose out on State privileged marriage. But so do couples that aren't married. And so do polyamorous cohabitants.
Ah, but that doesn't paint me as a selfish asshole, so it's not as catchy of an insult. I get it now.
> because emotionally it is moving society in the direction you want, even if it is not yet doing that structurally.
No. I would like society to move in the direction where it doesn't have to exude unquantifiable amounts of effort just to get government to permit them to associate in any way they want.
Your direction is just more of the same: "Oh government, can you pretty please let us make decisions for ourselves?"
A) Alcohol. Let's suppose I say that "people under 18|21 should not be allowed to purchase alcohol." This technically counts as restricting alcohol but it doesn't mean I am anti-alcohol. It just means I think that below a certain age threshold, the balance of costs/benefits for alcohol availability land in the negative.
B) Patent laws. If I support laws restricting the ability of patent trolls to be their trolly selves, it doesn't mean I am opposed to patents as a whole. If anything I could value patents so much that I don't want this edge case of software patent trolling to fester and undermine the public's confidence in the patent system as a whole.
Of course you are right that in many (if not most) cases, an attempt to restrict a phenomenon is just a more politically feasible step towards a total ban by someone who is 'anti'-that phenomenon. But it is at least logically possible for one to restrict [X] while not being wholly anti-[X]
For the record I am 100% in favor of marriage equality and have been that way since I was old enough to hold my own opinions.
However, it is not as bigoted as say, funding a measure against protecting gays from workplace discrimination. Marriage has a long history in our society as being between a man and a woman to provide a legal and social framework for raising biological children (generally speaking). They receive privileges in return for doing something socially beneficial. You could argue that gay marriages generally don't do the same and that it's not worth re-engineering society to make that change. Marriage is also heavily intertwined with our Judeo-Christian background as a country, so people feel as if changing the term violates their religious rights. The government really shouldn't be involved with religion, but people still feel this way nonetheless.
Personally I see no trouble in letting two people who love one another and want to form a family unit from marrying. It's their own business.
I do see a problem with trying to blacklist or shout down people who have political views that aren't socially acceptable. People who are against things like unchecked immigration or affirmative action are often tarred as bigots. Abortion is considered a human rights issue by people on both sides of the debate. As long as someone doesn't act in a discriminatory fashion at work, I'm not concerned with their personal political views so much.
Civil society is in real trouble if we can't agree to leave passionate debates like these in the political sphere.
The idea that you can have a "political sphere" and then a sterile world outside that is free of politics is just totally bizarre to me. I can't even begin to imagine what that would look like or how it would work.
I think part of the problem is that it's become an identity thing. That's been intentional on the part of political campaign strategists, since it helps them.
It's distressing to see how successful their self-interested manipulation has been.
I'm talking about this in broad terms, not any specific issue, and certainly not just this one. And it's both sides of the issues, not merely one party or the other.
It's the most insidious kind of marketing there is.
Do you never talk about politics with people who's views you disagree with? Is that just out of fear of offending them? What the hell do you talk about, the weather?
My general approach is to be glad I pissed those people off, because I now know to never associate with them again.
This might be harder in, say, Texas.
The fact that it seems alien to people to be able to do that indicates something has gone deeply, deeply wrong with politics.
There are neighborhoods which are fairly uniform in their political leanings where politics is commonly discussed, mostly in the "us-vs-them, go us, evil them" way; pretty reminiscent of some religions, actually. There are families like that too.
There are other neighborhoods, and families, where having that sort of discussion all the time would mostly serve to make people upset at each other, precisely because it would so quickly devolve into an "us-vs-them" argument but with both sides represented. People generally handle this by either being miserable and fighting all the time or by agreeing to disagree and moving on with all the many other aspects of life that don't involve Federal government intervention. Does it really seem bizarre to you that people would pick the latter over the former?
> Do you never talk about politics with people who's views you disagree with?
It depends on the views, the person, and what the point would be. Generally talking about positions people decided on with their brains is worthwhile. Talking about positions people decided on with their guts is less likely to be so. Figuring out which is which can be hard.
> What the hell do you talk about, the weather?
Well, some people handle this by self-segregating in echo chambers and then "discussing politics". ;)
For me personally, I do talk to people about the weather, books I or they have read recently, local politics, parenting, food.... National politics is pretty far down the list of things that are interesting to talk about with most people I end up talking to.
All I've seen is a donation to a bigoted cause (which is disappointing), and then a matter-of-fact public statement that Mozilla's mission is bigger than any one person and their political beliefs, and that he's only willing to discuss this issue in more private channels, which seems totally fair.
Edit: I stand corrected, and learned something today.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_R...
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
It seems the UN is against gay marriage so that's where the next witch hunt should go
Chief Justice Earl Warren writing for the majority in Loving v. Virginia:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"
And that's how they overturned the laws against interracial marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia#Decision
[0]: OK, someone did while I was getting that citation. The link's still valuable, though.