Perspectives on Gay Marriage

Final Group Opinions (written by our omniscient group narrator, Frank)

2004-12-06T11:26:00.000-05:00

The opportunity to participate in a group blog at the end of this course has given everyone the chance to re-evaluate their stances on the issue of same-sex marriage. Undoubtedly, reading and writing about the issue for over six weeks has introduced new ideas and beliefs, and has given us all new perspectives on our own stances.

After being exposed to a variety of differing views, all presented with strong conviction, Alan has questioned his stance (pro same-sex marriage) on the issue several times; however, he ultimately remained strongly in favor of gay marriage. He thinks that homosexuals are no different than hetereosexuals, and are therefore deserving of the same rights. Anything less would be inhumane. He believes that this kind of rigorous exposure to radical views, left and right, is the kind of process that everyone who is “set in their beliefs” must go through. It is a great way to find out if you truly feel the way you say you do on any issue; if your convictions withstand the strongest opposition, at least in your mind, then you have re-affirmed your beliefs and kept an open-mind.

Vasilios says that his views have not changed either. He still believes that the term “marriage” should not be used for homosexual unions, but also that the government has no right to keep homosexual couples from attaining a civil union. He also has learned that most arguments against gay marriage are slippery slope arguments that will sooner or later fail. In the near future, he says, the nation will have to either accept homosexual unions or face a bit of a revolution.

Jeff says that at the beginning of the group project, he believed that it was wrong to allow two gay people to participate in civil unions, let alone marriage. His perspective now is that gay people have rights too, so it would be wrong to discriminate against them on those grounds; however, that does not mean they should be allowed to marry. He believes marriage is the union of a man and woman, and only a man and woman, and is holy and sacred, in the eyes of God. As he sees it, if it is necessary for a gay couple to be recognized then they should be allowed to engage in a civil union.

David says that researching and writing for the group blog has given him a greater insight into the gay marriage debate. In his initial blog entry, he stated his belief that it is wrong to deny homosexuals the right to marry and that the proposed constitutional amendment--now a few steps closer to an official vote--amounted to little more than majoritarian politics. Now, at the conclusion of the group project, he stands even more firmly behind that position. Reading articles and arguments from both sides of the issue has, over the course of several weeks, given him second thoughts. However, he has found that the underlying motivation for those hoping to ban gay marriage stems largely from religious belief--a factor which has no place in the public policy of a secular nation. And thus, he continues to stand by his initial position, especially so now that he has the knowledge and understanding to support it.

Regardless of whether the group blog has changed our opinions, we have all learned a lot about the same-sex marriage debate, and have had the chance to reconsider our opinions from new perspectives. This thought process can only help us to form more informed and rational opinions on any issues in the future.

Slippery Slop

2004-12-06T10:56:00.000-05:00

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100824/

In her article “Slippery Slop”, Dahlia Lithwick argues that the slippery slope argument that is commonly used against gay marriage is trite and ineffective at logically proving a point. She quotes the statements of several people including Bill O’Reilly and speaker on the Hannity and Colmes show in defense of her argument. She also points out that the slippery slope argument is, in general, not to be ignored or discarded, but should instead only serve as a metaphor, while each part is carefully analyzed and interpreted. This, she says, would be a reasonable way to incorporate such an argument into the gay marriage debate.

Lithwick starts off her article with a comedic approach to the slippery slope argument, emphasizing its absurdity by facetiously saying that “having sex with penguins outside JC Penney's” will be legalized. This humorous start to the article helps comfort the reader when discussing such a volatile and divisive issue. Lithwick quotes Bill O’Reilly saying “if anybody can get married, then I want the McGuire twins and I have to have a nice honeymoon in Provincetown.” This, she says is as ridiculous as the popular idea that marriage will not be able to withstand the recent “problem” of gay marriage, despite the fact that it has withstood centuries and centuries worth of other problems. She also points out that the reason that such acts as prostitution, incest, bestiality, and pedophilia all have “sound policy and health reasons” to be made illegal, while masturbation and fornication, she says are simply enjoyable acts practiced by most adults, obviously causing harm to no one. This logically debunks the common argument that gay marriage should be made illegal on the same moral grounds that the above are.

Overall, Lithwick’s logical and humorous approach to the exposing the faults of the slippery slope argument are successful and effective.

Ban in Oregon takes effect

2004-12-05T19:50:00.000-05:00

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/202201_gaymarriage03.html

A state constitutional ban on gay marriage took effect on Thursday the 2nd of December as the Oregon Supreme Court awaited final briefs from lawyers to determine whether nearly 3,000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples are valid. The amendment approved by voters Nov. 2 defines marriage as a union between a man and woman, partly a reaction to a Multnomah County decision last March to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples to avoid claims of discrimination prohibited by the Oregon Constitution. Gay marriage opponents, thereafter, went to court arguing the constitution's authors clearly intended to limit marriage to heterosexual couples. Multnomah County Circuit Judge Frank Bearden halted issuance of marriage licenses to homosexual couples and referred the issue to the Legislature. He asked lawmakers to settle the controversy, perhaps by allowing the alternative of civil unions that provide the same rights and benefits as marriage. But the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of Basic Rights Oregon and nine same-sex couples, including four who were married after receiving licenses in Multnomah County. Kelly Clark, attorney for the Defense of Marriage Coalition, argues that the Oregon amendment renders the case moot because voters have decided. "Gay marriage is banned, and the licenses were never valid in the first place," Clark said. But Dave Fidanque, Oregon executive director for ACLU, argues the licenses were issued before Nov. 2 and the change is not retroactive. I believe that it is wrong to revoke the licenses that had already been issued.

The real reason people oppose gay marriage

2004-12-05T19:48:00.000-05:00

http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

The real reasons people oppose gay marriage as put forward by Scott Bidstrup are that people are not comfortable with the idea. He says that for many years, society has promoted the idea that a marriage between members of the same sex is ludicrous. But if those objections don't make sense, neither does the idea that gay marriage is necessarily ludicrous. Societies have long recognized that allowing civil rights to certain groups may offend some, and at times, even the majority. But that is why constitutional government was established, to ensure that powerless, unpopular minorities are still protected from the tyranny of the majority. Simple discomfort with a proposal is no reasonable basis for not allowing it. He adds that marriage is a sacred institution. To everyone, the assumption that the state has the responsibility to "sanctify" marriages is a fundamentally religious idea. Here we're dealing with people trying to enforce their religious doctrines on someone else, but by doing it through weakening the separation of church and state, by undermining the Bill of Rights. He then offers evidence to disprove that gay sex is unnatural. This argument, often encoded in the very name of sodomy statutes betrays a considerable ignorance of behavior in the animal kingdom. The fact is that among the approximately 1500 animal species whose behavior has been extensively studied, homosexual behaviour has been described in at least 450 of those species.

Comments on Arguments For

2004-12-04T20:09:00.000-05:00

I actually agree with lots of this, other than the term "marriage". Marriage to me really does define a certain relationship between a man and a woman. And since there no real church, Christian or otherwise, which is a big fan of homosexuals (other than those new protestants splits), and the church does the marrying moreso than the state, how can thetre be a marriage. But I see no problem with extending gay civil unions the same rights that all married couples have. If someone is going to decide to spend their life with another, they should be allowed to make it known in the government. To me, marriage is defined by religion though, and simply should not be defined in government. That's about it though

Comments on Arguments Against

2004-12-04T19:50:00.000-05:00

Wow, all of David's arguments against gay marriage are part of the "Slippery Slope" type which Justice Scalia, among others, defined. Truthfully, why would the allowance of homosexual marriages lead to sexual deviancy. I understand how poeple could think of homosexual relationships to be sexual deviancy, I believe that myself to a degree, but it is still the relationship between two consenting adults. I know I just opened myself up to, "Well, incest could be between two consenting adults," and my response to that is that incest is illegal due to it's tendancy to create genetic abnormalities, and no one can deny that. The next argument to be flown my way would be "Homosexual incest would not create genetic abnormalities," which is true. To that all I can say is that it's still wrong. To me, homosexuality, incest and, yes, even homosexual incest are all immoral practices, and considering that when one has beliefs as such, they become hard to defend. But they are still there. I have nothing against homosexuals, I just don't believe it's correct, but I may be wrong, so I let homosexuals do what they want as long as they don't bother me about it. The difference is that there is a long stretch in my book from homosexuality to incest and bestiality and adultery, mainly because the latter three all cause harm to someone or something, while homosexuality is just a simple lifestyle choice which causes no harm to anyone. I might not agree with the choice, but as long as it's not harmful, what's the big deal?

Terrorism vs. Gay Marriage

2004-12-04T19:29:00.000-05:00

An interesting read, “The Gay Marriage Myth”…

It’s an article about how Bush’s election win, which some claim was based on constituents voting on moral values, was really caused by those who voted based on terrorism. Apparently more people thought Bush would handle terrorism better than Kerry, and so they voted for Bush instead. Whereas others argue that the gay marriage ban which was on certain ballots caused a higher turnout of conservative Christian Bush voters in those states, Freedman argues that it was the other way around. Apparently, the ban was placed on the ballot in those states so that the conservative voters who would show up and vote Bush anyways would also ban gay marriage. I have to agree more with Freedman on this, being that I wasn’t really expecting to see the gay marriage ban on my ballot. But I did, and although I’ll admit I voted for Bush, I was part of the small percentage of constituency to vote against the ban. In my opinion, all that ban does is discriminate against homosexuals by not allowing them to be married and therefore not allowing them the benefits of a married couple. And I thought all mankind was uniquely equal…

Dahlia Lithwick on Gay Marriage

2004-12-04T19:21:00.000-05:00

Although I don’t agree with all of the article, “Slippery Slop” by Dahlia Lithwick makes good points in the ineffectiveness of slippery slope arguments against gay marriage. Comparing gay marriage to adultery, bigamy, and even incest is a stretch, not to mention taking it all the way to bestiality. Amazingly enough, people use these arguments as a cornerstone of why gay marriage should not be allowed. Apparently, once you legalize one man marrying another, it’ll lead not only to the legalization of incest and child molestation, but also legalize the right to marry and have sexual relations with all manners of animals and things. Although I don’t agree with marriage for same-sex couples, it’s not my place to judge them or prevent them from being happy. Also, so far as to go that them marrying will doubtfully hurt me in any way, and even that it might lead to the apparent degradation of society as we know it (if the slippery slope leads that far), I’ll take the chance. Maybe it’s just me, but as long as same-sex couples marrying each other doesn’t hurt me in any way, then I’m not going to have a problem with it. Who am I to prevent others happiness just for the hell of it?

2004-12-02T22:32:00.000-05:00

After reading an article written by a bisexual, I came to a conclusion. She is disgusted that her gay and lesbian friends are denied the legal right to marry. By denying two women or men the right to marry is as cruel and absurd as it was to deny two people of different race the right to marry. She also brought out another interesting point in that the Constitution of the United States guarantee everyone’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That alone should be able to legitimatize gay marriage, since its pretty hard to feel free, liberty, if you don’t have the right to marry the person you love, the pursuit of happiness.

I would link the article but i can't seemt to find it anymore. Sorry about that.

What's different about gay wedding ceremonies?

2004-12-02T13:55:00.000-05:00

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/128/story_12863.html

This article is written by a Secular Humanistic Rabbi who is also intermarried. He asks the question: what’s different about gay wedding ceremonies? He quickly answers the question with a “nothing.” He talks about what he does when he is marrying people of the same-sex such as “when creating the wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, we change the language that refers to the two individuals getting married from wife and husband to spouse or partner. Some couples prefer not to use the word marriage, so I may say life-long partnership or union.” He felt it as his obligation to serve the needs of Jews and their partners by performing intermarriages and incorporating cultural traditions from each of the couple’s backgrounds.

What would Jesus say about gay marriage?

2004-12-02T13:42:00.000-05:00

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/140/story_14050.html

This is a very interesting article on what would Jesus say about Gay Marriage if he was to return to Earth. On the ethics of homosexuality, it says, Jesus would most likely remain silent. If he wanted to take a position about the matter, he would have done so back in Galilee. Basically the article says that Jesus would think it is wrong that the United States government is passing amendments banning same-sex marriages. “If your people are determined to bring your country into accord with my teaching, then let them dissolve all second marriages and write my prohibition of divorce into their Constitution. But if they insist on overruling that prohibition, then let them look to their other prohibitions and consider revising them as well”, is what the article says that Jesus would say on the topic of same-sex marriage in the United States.

Let them wed

2004-12-01T15:03:00.000-05:00

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2459758

It really surprised me when I found out that only two countries, Belgium and the Netherlands, have given its citizens full legal status to same-sex unions. To me the definition of marriage is two people that are partners for life. Why should gays be not allowed to marry? In my opinion, the reason the government does not allow gays to marry is because it is not traditional. Nothing in the United States is traditional anymore, so why is the subject such an exception? It is ridiculous to me that the governemt had to set its foot on this topic. I think they should concentrate on a more serious topic such as the war in Iraq, the war on drugs, or homeland security, because that is where the problem seems to be. Maybe I’m not making any sense right now, but that is how I feel. There are many interesting topics highlighted in this article, I suggest everyone check it out. It definitely gave me another insight to same-sex marriages.

Collected Arguments For Gay Marriage

2004-11-27T17:13:00.000-05:00

Arguments supporting gay marriage:

Fairness dictates that gay couples should be eligible for the same legal and economic benefits that married couples are entitled to, such as hospital visitation rights, tax benefits, adoption rights, inheritance rights, and legal recognition.
The legal definition of marriage should not be determined by religion (i.e. there should be a separation of church and state).
The legalization of gay marriage does not spell the end of heterosexual marriage, as many gay marriage opponents suggest. In Denmark, for example, the rate of heterosexual marriages climbed after the passage a law granting homosexuals a limited form of marriage (full marriage without the right to marry in a church or the right to adopt).
The argument that gay marriage would inevitably lead to the legalization of polygamy and incest amounts to nothing more than a slippery slope fallacy.
Studies have shown that children raised by parents of the same sex fare as well or better than children raised by heterosexual parents.
Gay marriage would reduce promiscuity, infidelity, and sexually transmitted diseases among homosexuals.

Collected Arguments Against Gay Marriage

2004-11-27T15:34:00.000-05:00

I've decided, after reading countless articles for, against, and about gay marriage, to summarize the arguments presented by people on both sides of the issue. For the remainder of this blog entry, I will present a brief summary of the arguments against gay marriage. And, in my next blog entry, I will present a collection of arguments in support of gay marriage. Hopefully, this would help myself, along with readers of our group weblog, to gain a better understanding of the issue of gay marriage.

Arguments against gay marriage:

If marriage is redefined to accommodate homosexual couples, what prevents it from being redefined to accommodate polygamists and polyamorists, not to mention numerous other sexual deviants? Once the standard of marriage between heterosexuals is broken, there is no logical stopping point.
Heterosexual marriage is a civil institution. That is, heterosexual marriage serves a public purpose, not just a private purpose. Heterosexual marriage brings men and women together to create children and to socialize them in healthy, nurturing environments. In essence, heterosexual marriage is fundamental and necessary for the existence of society. Homosexual marriage will only weaken this vital institution.
The Bible condemns homosexuality.
Legalized homosexual marriage would legitimize homosexual behavior in the eyes of young people and encourage homosexuality.
Homosexual behavior is closely linked with higher incidences of sexually transmitted diseases, drug use, alcohol abuse, and mental health diseases.
Children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to be promiscuous and to engage in homosexual activity than children raised by heterosexual parents.
The legalization of homosexual marriage would create further stress on the overburdened system of Social Security by creating millions of new dependents.
The legalization of homosexual marriage in the United States would lead to the legalization of homosexual marriage elsewhere in the world.

Rebuttal to Kristof's "God and Sex" Editorial

2004-11-27T15:06:00.000-05:00

Robert Gagnon, a professor at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, has written a rebuttal to Nicholas Kristof's editorial "God and Sex." In the rebuttal, Gagnon charges that Kristof intentionally misinterpreted the Bible for the political purpose of persuading readers that "there is little credible basis for opposing 'gay marriage' within the Bible itself." A link to Gagnon's rebuttal may be found here.

Should gay rights activists should slow down the push toward acceptance?

2004-11-18T22:39:00.000-05:00

Afterword: Troubled Amendments

In his article “Afterword: Troubled Amendments”, Paul Starr makes the argument that gays should realize that being granted, in Massachusetts, the same legal rights as straight married couples is enough of a victory, and if they continue pushing the acceptance of the term “marriage” it could be detrimental to their overall goal.

Starr explains himself by considering the possible scenario in which a couple married in Massachusetts tries to find recognition of their marriage in a different state, at which time the state will refuse, based on the Defense of Marriage Act (which allows each state to decide for itself whether or not to recognize gay marriages). Then, the case will go to the Supreme Court. If the Court sides with the state, it could subdue efforts to pass an amendment banning same-sex marriage, but if not, it could instigate enough indignation among conservative anti-gay rights activists to give the needed momentum to the Amendment to pass.

Starr emphasizes that he doesn’t think gay rights activists should dwell on the distinction between the terminologies used in marriage and civil unions; it could compromise their overall goal of obtaining equal rights. The author makes a logical point by laying out the possible situation that many gays would be put into if they continued pressing too hard for a change of terminology in their unions. It is also valid when he states that states can define the legal benefits granted to married couples, but are less likely to go so far as to change the actual wording of the arrangement. Overall, his argument is successful; however, some may still disagree that gays should give up so soon their struggle to be entitled to the title of marriage, not civil union.

Bigotry and Ballots

2004-11-11T23:32:00.000-05:00

Bigotry and ballots / Gay marriage is repudiated; so is fairness

In the Post Gazette editorial “Bigotry and ballots / Gay marriage is repudiated; so is fairness”, the author makes a somewhat convincing argument that the proposed gay marriage bans are immoral, un-American, and unfair. He also claims that ultimately, fairness will come around and triumph over discriminatory legislation. He supports his case by using examples and a logical approach to the issue; though he mostly assumed that the audience agrees with and accepts the validity of everything he says.

For instance, he acknowledges that 8 of the 11 states that passed amendment to ban same-sex marriage also banned unions and prohibited couples from having benefits. Then, however, he explains that people eventually realize that “morality posing as prejudice” is not moral at all. This, he says, is what prevented some states from passing amendments that would completely strip gays of all relationship rights. He also argues that the Kerry campaign did itself a disservice politically by opposing the gay marriage ban, because some key voters in swing states like Ohio may have been more inclined to vote Democratic had their views on gay marriage been supported by the candidate. Anyway, he says, many Democrats could abandon their support fro gay rights in hopes that doing so will attract more voters so they can finally get a Democrat back into office.

The author provides one quotation from online commentator Andrew Sullivan, but fails to back up any other statements with outside perspective or quotes. For this reason, the author definitely states his opinions and reasons fairly well, but fails to provide an airtight defense of his ideas.

Gay Rights

2004-11-11T18:52:00.000-05:00

Are gay rights civil rights? Of course they are. "Civil rights" are positive legal prerogatives , the right to equal treatment before the law. These are rights shared by all, there is no one in the United States who does not, or should not, share in these rights.Gay and lesbian rights are not "special rights" in any way. It isn't "special" to be free from discrimination, it is an ordinary, universal entitlement of citizenship. The right not to be discriminated against is a commonplace claim we all expect to enjoy under our laws and the founding document, the Constitution.
When others gain these rights, my rights are not reduced in any way. Luckily, "civil rights" are a win/win game; the more civil rights are won by others, the stronger the army defending my rights becomes. My rights are not diluted when my neighbor enjoys protection from the law, he becomes my ally in defending the rights we share. I believe all human beings should have their basic rights protected under the law. Should not civil rights be protective of gay rights? Because obviously civil rights is going to be the big blanket. And it should keep everybody who needs protection warm. Whether it is the handicapped or gays or older people or immigrants or whether it is our prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, are they not worthy of the protection of civil rights? Gay people are discriminated against on basis of their behavior. But here again, I do not believe any one should be discriminated against on the basis of their behavior, as long as that behavior is not prohibited by law. When it comes to assigning the title "marriage" to a same-sex union. In my view, it is neither logical nor fair to reward citizens with financial benefits when they cannot perform the tasks for which the benefits are given. There are two functions for which civil society rewards a man and a woman with the title "marriage" and certain financial benefits that we call tax exemptions. Civil society cannot survive without men and women perpetuating the species. Same-sex unions cannot provide civil society with that service. Secondly, civil society cannot function properly without its children becoming bonded to both a man and a woman in their formative years. That's because marriage between a man and a woman is the schoolroom in which male and female children are socialized or taught to care for, protect and defend one another. The bonding that takes place between a child and persons of both sexes is important because if you are to have civil society, people must learn to care for, protect and defend one another or they will begin to act uncivilized.
These two functions, procreation and socialization, cannot be performed by same-sex couples and, therefore, same sex couples should not be rewarded with tax benefits for something they cannot do. A civil union is something that would be defined by the state and should be available to all the citizens of that state, regardless of the definitions of particular religious denominations.

Arguments of gay marriage

2004-11-09T18:01:00.000-05:00

http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

Sorry for not posting in awhile. I had limited access to the internet for some reason. Anyways, after reading this article, I further my knowledge of the issue: gay marriage. It was actually a more interesting topic than I had anticipated. The article I have been reading is very interesting. It gives arguments against gay marriage, what the real reason people are against gay marriage, and why gay marriage is a serious civil rights issue.

One argument against gay marriage really jumped out at me. The argument states that same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children. In my opinion, that is ridiculous. That is because gender should not matter in raising a child. There are murderers, rapists, and child molesters raising children is way worse than a gay couple raising children. In the article, it also states that scientific tests have shown that the outcomes of the children raised in the homes of gay and lesbian couples are just as good as those of straight couples. Psychologists also has said that what makes the difference is the love and commitment of the parents, not the gender, and gay parents are as capable of loving children as fully as anyone else.
There are many points why gay marriage is a serious civil rights issue. The reasons include: gay partners cannot make medical decisions for their partner in an emergency, If the gay partner is arrested, the other partner can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do, and gay couples have been victimized in numerous ways.

In conclusion, I further my knowledge of the issue: gay marriage. Now I know where I really stand on this topic.

Update: Gay Marriage Amendment Passed

2004-11-07T16:52:00.000-05:00

As expected, on November 2nd, Georgia voters passed a referendum to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriages.

Ten other states, including Arkansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah, passed similar referenda. In all eleven states in which a gay marriage referendum was voted on, the referendum was passed. Eight of those states, including Georgia, also banned civil unions.

Many observers of the Georgia referendum were surprised by the overwhelming majority by which the amendment passed. Rather than the predicted 60 percent majority, the amendment received support from 77 percent of Georgia voters. In other states, the majority ranged from 56-44 in Oregon to 86-14 in Mississippi.

Opponents of gay marriage have cited the immense public support of the referenda as indicative of the will of the nation, and view the state amendments as a prelude to an amendment of the national Constitution. Supporters of gay marriage, however, have criticized the deceptive nature of the referenda and have cited the use of majority will to diminish the rights of the minority. Advocates of gay marriage also accuse right-wing Christian organizations of capitalizing on a wedge issue to draw voters to the polls.

In any case, the amendments to ban same-sex marriages are likely to be disputed in court. Lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, and other gay-rights organizations are set to contest the referenda on the grounds that they violated the “single-subject rule,” which states that ballot referenda must deal with a single specific issue (in this case, gay marriage alone, and not including civil unions and the rights of gay couples).

Judging from events, it seems like the issue of gay marriage will be coming to a head in the next few years or even months, most likely in the Supreme Court. With President Bush’s recent reelection and the predicted retirement of up to four Supreme Court Justices during his term, gay marriage supporters have a long uphill fight ahead of them.

Links for further reading:
Report from the AJC
Article from the Christian Science Monitor
Editorial criticizing the deceptive nature of the referenda

Marriage reveals evolving society

2004-11-04T23:49:00.000-05:00

The article, by Mabel Teng

In his editorial article, “Marriage reveals evolving society”, Mabel Teng emphasizes that efforts to end “institutionalized discrimination” must not stop, despite the March 2004 California Supreme Court ruling that temporarily hindered the issuing of same-sex marriage licenses. He makes an effective argument for the continuation of the pressure to end discriminatory treatment of gays through using logos and pathos appeals and drawing similarities between the current situation and situations of the past, emphasizing that the latter always ended with revolutionary legislation and the redefinition of acceptable social behavior. He uses these analogies and logical conclusions very effectively to convey his point.

For instance, Teng remembers how 120,000 people of Japanese descent, the majority American citizens, were taken into captivity by the American government simply because of their ethnicity. He continues to remark that this unfair and discriminatory treatment was eventually evaluated by commissions, who determined that the treatment of the Japanese Americans was based on racial prejudice. This led to a presidential apology and financial compensation for those involved. Similarly, he mentions the Civil Rights act of 1964, which was brought about by the efforts of many African-Americans including Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., as well as others of various races. Teng notes that our nation learned form these experiences that racial discrimination is wrong, and hopefully we will realize that our treatment of gays is very similar, and therefore worthy of reconsideration.

Also, Teng uses a pathos appeal by mentioning, in the second paragraph, that the gay couple who was granted the first same-sex civil marriage was celebrating its 51st anniversary this year. The invocation of such an event appeals to the emotions of the reader and perhaps encourages him or her to view homosexuals, in loving relationships, in a different manner. This technique is very effective, combined with the subsequent logical conclusions.

Lessons of the same-sex marriage debate in the Netherlands

2004-11-04T22:47:00.000-05:00

http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?_m=76eeca0f515a69adb7d38c6cb3056e68&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkVb&_md5=b06ff82b7d3a2cf23b3626cd4fef44d5
Only a few years ago, two prominent demographers hailed the Dutch family as a model for Europe. Somehow the Dutch had managed to combine a robust welfare state and liberal family law with an astonishingly traditional attitude toward marriage. On euthanasia, prostitution, drug use, and now gay marriage Dutch law is the cutting edge of Western liberalism. Yet among Dutch people, drug use and sexual license are far from rampant. Many have asked whether this balance of tolerance and tradition, with its deep roots in Dutch culture and history, is sustainable over the long term. Even as a new pattern of highly unstable parental cohabitation was sweeping out of Scandinavia and across northern Europe, the Dutch were refused to be deterred. In those days, premarital cohabitation was widespread, but when Dutch couples decided to have children, they got married. At least they used to. Dutch law is the cutting edge of Western liberalism. Yet among Dutch people, drug use and sexual license are far from rampant. Many have asked whether this balance of tolerance and tradition, with its deep roots in Dutch culture and history, is sustainable over the long term. At least for marriage, the answer appears to be no. At the moment, marriage in the Netherlands is in trouble. There was a steep increase in out of wedlock births in the mid 1990’s. In the Netherlands, these were the very years when the debate over the legal recognition of gay relationships came to the fore, culminating in the legalization of full same-sex marriage in 2000. A careful look at the decade-long campaign for same-sex marriage in the Netherlands shows that one of its principal themes was the effort to dislodge the conviction that parenthood and marriage are intrinsically linked. Cees van der Staaij, a member of parliament from one of the small religious parties, argued in 2000 that the principle of equality cannot by itself resolve the issue of same-sex marriage. The equality principle applies only to those who are similarly situated. If procreation is essentially related to marriage, and even the possibility of procreation is "structurally missing" in same-sex couples, then heterosexual and homosexual couples are differently situated, and the equality principle does not apply. Van der Staaij also pointed out a critical problem in the government's proposal for same-sex marriage. Would the law recognize the usual ties of descent between children and married couples? Would, say, the female spouse of a mother who conceived a child automatically become the parent of the biologically unrelated child? If so, the implication was, might such a child have three simultaneous legal parents? And if so, would this not set off a cascade of legal pressures to repudiate the two-parent standard? One of the proponents of gay marriage De Gay Krant sharply rejected the notion that marriage ought to be defined by the possibility of having children. True, Van der Pluijm himself opposed marriage, favoring instead a morally neutral system of relationship regulation. Marriage is essentially a fairy tale of permanent monogamy, he said, that deserves to be repudiated by all. Nonetheless, Van der Pluijm affirmed that, if heterosexuals can marry, on the principle of equality, homosexuals ought to be allowed to do so as well. From his radical perspective, that could only change the meaning of marriage and relationship for the better, since gays, Van der Pluijm affirmed, are the symbol of an alternative morality, of sex separated from procreation, of freedom, and of modern life. In essence, he argued that the real basis of marriage is the love between two partners. Otto Vos ,a spokesman for the WD party, made a similar argument. He said "Proceeding on the basis of the notion that love between two partners forms the most important driving force in selecting one of the forms of relationship, there is absolutely no reason, objectively, to distinguish between heterosexual love and homosexual love." Van der Staaj, a gay marriage opponent warned of exactly that. He argued that stretching the notion of marriage to embrace a complex array of alternative forms, it would lead to demolition of the scheme of marriage. To appreciate gay marriage's role in encouraging the recent upsurge of Dutch parental cohabitation, we need only take seriously what participants in the Dutch debate said. Spend a decade telling people that marriage is not about parenthood and they just might begin to believe you. Make relationship equality a rallying cry, and people might decide that all forms of relationship are equal, especially young people, of family-forming age, most of whom have left religion behind. Dutch conservatives made a valiant stand for procreation and parenting as of the essence of marriage, and they were soundly beaten. Having duly considered and rejected the essential tie between marriage and parenthood, the Dutch started to abandon their inertial traditionalism and began to experiment with parental cohabitation in record numbers.

Georgia’s Gay Marriage Referendum

2004-10-30T20:57:00.000-04:00

On November 2nd, Georgia voters will be asked to vote yes or no on the following question:

Shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide that this state shall recognize as marriage only the union between man and woman?

In reality, however, they are actually voting on whether or not to pass the following law:

Paragraph I. Recognition of marriage. (a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state. (b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties’ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.

Although section (a) of the gay marriage amendment will appear on the ballot as the question voters will be asked, section (b) will not appear on the ballot at all. This is clearly deceptive. In effect, a voter who is against gay marriage but is supportive of civil unions may inadvertently vote to ban civil unions. Furthermore, the passage of the gay marriage amendment will ‘prohibit domestic partner benefits, remove hospital visitation rights, prevent adoption, prohibit wills/inheritance, prevent partner immigration, and create discrimination’ (student flyer from Skiles Walkway).

Most indications show that the amendment will pass by a significant majority (probably 60% or more). Nevertheless, following its passage, the amendment will likely be tied up in court. Organizations such as the ACLU and Lambda Legal have filed suits challenging the referendum. And, in Louisiana, a similar constitutional amendment has been recently invalidated under the state constitution’s “single-subject rule,” which restricts referendums to a single subject. This is a tactic gay rights advocates in Georgia are likely to follow.

Stay tuned for updates.

Here are a few links for further reading:
Gwinnett Daily Post
AJC (sign in required)

Europe is having the same problems...

2004-10-28T23:59:00.000-04:00

Too Good for Europe

Sometimes, when faced with a dilemma, it is easy to get wrapped up in how you might be the only one having the problems. But apparently, as shown in this articles, the problems we are having over here around Gay Marriage are also occuring to some extent across the ocean. The article, which relates the story of a prospective European Commisioner in the European Parliament, shows that not everyone agrees. It is amazing how, by him believing it to be a sin, they automatically disiss him as biased. I mean, everyone is biased in some way or another towards Gay Marraige. The fact on how he's biased is not the issue at hand, the issue is whether he can uphold the law. But, even though he's said, "Yes, I believe it's a sin, but as long as it's not against the law, then I have no problems with it," the prosecutor's are labeling him as an extreme conservative, which will probably cost him his job. I found this to be morally sickening, that a man, who just because he spoke his mind, might lose the chance for such a job. This is happening everywhere though, and not just about Gay Marriage. Just because one person voices an opinion which seems inappropiate to someone else, they lose something which had nothing to do with it, something which was unaffected by the opinion. In terms of Gay Marriage though, this comes up too often. But I guess that's the kind of thing the courts are for.

The Case for Gay Marriage

2004-10-28T21:05:00.000-04:00

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2459758

The case for allowing gays to marry begins with equality, pure and simple. Why should one set of loving, consenting people be denied a right that other such people have and which, if exercised, will not harm anyone else?
Not just because they have always lacked that right in the past, for sure: until the late 1960s, in some American states it was illegal for black adults to marry white ones, but very few would defend that ban now on grounds that it was “traditional”. Another argument is rooted in semantics: marriage is the union of a man and a woman.Thus it cannot be extended to same-sex couples. They may live together and love one another, but cannot, on this argument, be “married”. But that is to dodge the real question—why not?—and to obscure the real nature of marriage, which is a binding commitment, at once legal, social and personal, between two people to take on special obligations to one another. If homosexuals want to make such marital commitments to one another, and to society, then why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?The reason, according to President Bush, is that this would damage an important social institution. Yet the reverse is surely true. Gays want to marry precisely because they see marriage as important: they want the symbolism that marriage brings, the extra sense of obligation and commitment, as well as the social recognition. Allowing gays to marry would add to social stability, for it would increase the number of couples that take on real, rather than simply passing, commitments. The weakening of marriage has been heterosexuals doing, not gays, for it is their infidelity,that is, divorce rates and single-parent families that have created social damage.
The importance of marriage for society's general health and stability also explains why the commonly mooted alternative to gay marriage—a so-called civil union—is not enough. Vermont has created this notion, of a legally registered contract between a couple that cannot, however, be called a “marriage”. Some European countries, by legislating for equal legal rights for gay partnerships, have moved in the same direction (Britain is contemplating just such a move, and even the opposition Conservative leader, Michael Howard, says he would support it). Some gays think it would be better to limit their ambitions to that, rather than seeking full social equality, for fear of provoking a backlash—of the sort perhaps epitomised by President Bush this week.
Marriage is really more than just a legal contract.

Gay Marriage Quack Science

2004-10-28T02:59:00.000-04:00

Quack Gay Marriage Science
Nathaniel Frank

In his article about quack gay marriage science, Nathaniel Frank criticizes the attempts of such organizations as Your Catholic Voice, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women of America, and others to use “social science” to back their claims against gay marriage. Frank systematically debunks each argument from these conservative activist groups, highlighting the absurdity of their claims, due to the false and irrelevant nature of the facts on which they rely. His use of logic is airtight throughout his article; he cites examples and gives statistics, easily convincing the reader. For instance, the Your Catholic Voice organization had launched a campaign against gay marriage, and used recent findings in “social science” that reveal a decrease in the number of marriages in Scandinavia, purportedly due to the continent’s de facto recognition of gay marriages. However, the organization, Frank points out, draws no correlation between Scandinavia’s acceptance of gay marriages (“registered partnerships”) and the decline in heterosexual marriages. At best, he says, they have shown that new alternatives to co-habitation lead to increased co-habitation. Also, he makes an excellent point when he compares the situation in Scandinavia to that of the United States, in which un-married, co-habititing couples increased ten fold from 1960 to 2000, despite no new legislation that legalizes gay marriage. Frank also challenges the popular argument that children are better off growing up with a mother and father by using a strong ethos appeal; he presents the results of studies conducted by credible associations (American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry). Their results all conclude that children raised by gay parents are not disadvantaged socially, emotionally, or physically compared to the children of heterosexual parents. Overall, Frank produces a very efficient and convincing indictment in response to the improper use of science to back moral-based claims.

my opinion on gay marriage

2004-10-24T18:49:00.000-04:00

I personally do support gay marriage. Although I think it is morally wrong, I don’t believe that the government should interfere with this. My opinion is that if two people are happy together they have the right to be together. Homosexuals are the way they are for a reason and to deny them the rights that heterosexuals have is discriminative. I don’t really know much about this topic, but I hope that throughout this project, I will learn more and have a more concrete stand on the topic.

"God and Sex"

2004-10-23T22:49:00.000-04:00

This article by Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times examines the Bible's supposed case against homosexuality. Specifically, Kristof explores the ambiguity of the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality and questions the wisdom of following each tenet of the Bible literally. For example, he points out that the Book of Leviticus condemns male anal sex as well as "wearing a polyester-and-cotton shirt" (Leviticus 19:19 - 'Do not wear clothing made from two kinds of fiber'). His argument is that one cannot regard each verse or command of the Bible as absolute -- unless God truly condemns those who wear polyester (Leviticus 19:19) or have their hair cut (Leviticus 19:27). Moreover, Kristof criticizes right-wing traditionalists who "cherry-pick" verses from the Bible which may explicitly or implicitly forbid homosexual behavior: he states, "I think it's presumptuous of conservatives to assume that God is on their side." And, in countering the traditionalists' selective use of the Bible, he points out that many theologians agree that the Bible is "big enough to encompass gay relationships and tolerance -- as well as episodic condemnations of gays." Nevertheless, Kristof concedes that the Old Testament does indeed forbid male anal sex: "...the traditionalists seem to me basically correct that the Old Testament does condemn at least male anal sex." In turn, however, he also suggests that such condemnations should not supercede the Bible's overarching messages of love and tolerance. Overall, Kristoff makes an effective argument against the use of the Bible by conservatives to serve their means -- it is an argument that strikes at the core of the the campaign against gay marriage.

"The American Prospect" article

2004-10-21T23:57:00.000-04:00

In his article “Queer and Present Danger”, Robert Kuttner discusses the May 2004 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that gave gays the right to marry, and the results that it will have on the Democratic Party for the upcoming Presidential election. Also, he mentions the stance taken on the issue by several Democratic candidates, including Dean, Kerry, and Edwards, as well as ex-President Bill Clinton. Throughout the article, Kuttner questions whether the Court rulings will have a positive or negative impact on the Democratic campaign. He does a decent job of explaining the impact that it will have, by giving examples from other political figures, an excellent use of a logos appeal.

He explains how “values issues”, those pertaining to the individual values held by a person, are cut the Democrats’ way, while Republicans tend to be the ones who are increasingly more embarrassed by anti-gay bigotry. Next, he points out how Edwards has dealt with the gay marriage issue in an effective manner, without undermining his political ideology or losing voter support; he states his position, and then states that the election is not about gay marriage, but rather about the blunders of the Bush administration. He also says that Dean gained support among gay voters simply by representing progress in his stance on the issue, even if not necessary supporting the gay voters’ ideals. He concludes by stating that is Kerry or Edwards declares support for civil unions but claims that the election is not about this issue, they should escape this “political minefield” with minimal damage. Overall, Kuttner’s use of citing examples in the actions and results of other political figures is effective in convincing the reader of his overall point.

Various perspectives

2004-10-21T23:05:00.000-04:00

There are various arguments that support gay marriage. Some of these arguments are explored in the article "What's wrong with being gay?Homosexual behavior versus the Bible."

One of the arguments discussed is the popular claim by homosexuals that they are made that way. The artical says that the three main studies cited by "gay rights" activists in support of thier argument is Hamer's X-chromosome research, LeVay's study of the hypothalamus, and Bailey and Pillard's study of identical twins who were homosexuals. The author then goes on to say that in all three cases the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves and more importantly that their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. The writer then says that there is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person's genes. The author also makes a valid claim when he says that the media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results.The author goes on to say that to the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it in that some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior.
Finally the author states that a person becomes a homosexual ultimately by choosing to be involved in same-sex activity.

My views on Gay Marriage

2004-10-21T23:04:00.000-04:00

Good idea...

Well, personally, I believe that "marriage" is a term which defines a longterm relationship between a man and a woman. So, to me, the term "Gay Marriage" is a fable. As for the legalization of a union between two people of the same sex, I don't believe it's worthy of amending the constitution. Don't get me wrong, it's a very important issue, but it's not something the government should be regulating, at least not at the federal level. Considering that states don't have to recognize other states marriages, than why should it be nationally regulated for homosexual unions? That doesn't make sense to me...

This is a very short message, but oh well...

My Perspective

2004-10-21T21:17:00.000-04:00

I support gay marriage. I believe that the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is unfair, as is any provision that denies to homosexuals rights and/or privileges granted to heterosexuals. In addition, I believe that the passage of the proposed constitutional amendment would be tantamount to majoritarian politics, and that the identification of gay marriage as a civil rights issue is valid.

A popular argument against gay marriage states that such marriages would violate the sanctity of heterosexual marriage and, moreover, lead to the degradation of American morals. I disagree with this. First, I believe that a distinction must be made between “religious” marriage and “civil” marriage. “Religious” marriages are those conducted under the auspices of a church, temple, synagogue, etc. “Civil” marriages are those conducted in city hall by a public official. Both entitle the married couple to legal married status along with any benefits married couples may receive from the state. It is understandable that many people would oppose granting homosexuals “religious” marriage (particularly if the religion in question forbade homosexuality), but it is wholly unfair to deny homosexuals the right to “civil” marriage. Granting homosexuals the right to “civil” marriage would not violate the holiness of heterosexual marriage any more than marriage between atheists. Moreover, the argument that allowing gay marriage would lead to the rapid decline of American morals amounts to a slippery slope fallacy (GR p. 47: “The slippery slope fallacy assumes that if a first step is taken, other steps necessarily follow.”). Thus, I believe that it is wrong to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

Nevertheless, my beliefs are not set in stone. I am looking forward to learning more about this issue and hearing other arguments for or against gay marriage.

Just a thought...

2004-10-21T20:59:00.000-04:00

I think it would be interesting if, in our first posts, we expressed our personal opinions on gay marriage. That way, as we discuss gay marriage through the course of the next five or so weeks, we can look back and see how our opinions have changed, stayed the same, or become more nuanced. Just a thought...

Welcome

2004-10-21T18:07:00.000-04:00

Hey guys,

Welcome to our blog. We have several weeks to fill this space with articles, opinions, and discussion on the issue of gay marriage. However, the first deadline is upon us so we need to get moving. The first entry is due tonight by midnight. Don't procrastinate!