I don't have any problem, per se, with gays getting married. I see no threat to anyone. However, the current tactics being employed (e.g., painting all political opponents as bigots) are, at best, counterproductive.
I actually think that, in a few years, the POLITICAL process would move to the point that this would not be a huge issue -- much like abortion was trending toward in the 1970's. But forcing the issue now, and trying to use the courts to end run the political process will work about as well as Roe did -- IF they are lucky. More likely is a groundswell of opposition -- no one likes to be pushed and badgered into anything, especially when they find the whole thing a bit distasteful to start with.
I have two theories about this: Either the activists are politically tone-deaf and/or so isolated they don't see that they're harming their own cause, or b) they WANT the cause to fail to keep gays an isolated "oppressed" group for political reasons.
I imagine it's some of both, and I suggest that the saner members of the gay community might remember that Dr. King found dialog with white America far more productive than Malcolm's vitriol preached solely to blacks.
Or, not even bothering with the courts, like San Francisco saying, "the hell with the law, we're doing it anyway." I wish somebody'd light up a cigarette during the ceremony and say to those protesting, "We shoulnd't be discriminating against smokers either."
Posted by: JJorsett at February 15, 2004 03:56 PMI agree that employing these heavy-handed tactics is not gaining the favor of America. I really don't understand why the concept of a "Civil Union" is objectionable if that civil union allows rights of married couples under the law. If we keep marriage as a religiously and traditionally recognized institute and yet still allow for a legally and state recognized bond between people, then we should all be happy, shouldn't we? Apparently not, but doing away with established law through a mayor's maverick actions and a court's judicial activism is only hurting this cause.
Posted by: Zachariah at February 17, 2004 03:03 PMWell, I actually oppose "civil unions", "domestic partnerships" and all the other marriage-lite arrangements that are suggested. I feel that it's either marriage, or it isn't.
Creating forms of demi-marriage (which have to be extended to heterosexual couples!) is the one thing in this whole debate that actually threatens the institution of marriage.
IMHO, if you actually believe in the institution of marriage, you can either be for or against "gay marriage" but you must oppose all this other nonsense to be consistant.
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at February 17, 2004 03:14 PMKevin - i prefer gay marriage but find that many people have objections to it that are based entirely on marriage's special status as a religious institution; i think civil unions are a reassonabe compromise that get gay people most of the benefits of marriage.
Posted by: aphrael at February 18, 2004 01:42 AMAphrael--
But how do you limit "civil unions" to gays? Clearly this has been impossible with respect to "domestic partnerships."
It is hard enough (perhaps impossible) to limit "marriage" to heterosexuals, but there you have some history and biology to back your case. With civil unions you have nothing special to argue with.
BTW, I view marriage as a civil and social contract, not as a religious ceremony. Even under current law, there is no difference between a marriage performed by a religious authority and one done by the city clerk.
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at February 18, 2004 09:19 AM