America’s marriage wars
A warning for those who were horrified when Californians voted to overturn same-sex marriage laws last year — get ready to be horrified again.
It looks like same-sex marriage in Maine, legalised in May, will be overturned through a ballot initiative during elections in November. There is a massive effort underway to sway public opinion, but the numbers seem insurmountable, and unfortunately haters tend to be more motivated voters than our heterosexual allies.
It’s an unsettling reminder that democracy in its lowest form is just the dictatorship of 51 percent.
However, it’s not all storm clouds and rain — New York state is still set to pass a marriage equality bill before year’s end.
And in the District of Columbia, home to the US capital, where out-of-state same-sex marriages are already recognised, politicians on the local council have announced they have the numbers to legalise same-sex marriage proper and should be moving on this in the near future.
As the US Federal Government has a veto over laws passed by the District of Columbia this sets local authorities on a collision course with the Obama Administration, which is still to remove the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that bars legally married gays and lesbians from receiving any of the federal benefits of marriage available to heterosexuals.
Both Bill Clinton, the Democratic president who signed DOMA into law, and its author, retired Congressman Bob Barr, now oppose it. But even though President Obama has urged Congress to end DOMA, lawyers from his own Justice Department have continued to defend the law in court in the meantime.
However, it appears federal Democrats may finally be preparing to act. Congressman Jerrold Nadler has unveiled a Respect for Marriage Act that would not only end DOMA by allowing federal benefits to gay and lesbian couples in states that have marriage equality laws, but also provide them to gays and lesbians living in states where same-sex marriage is illegal, provided they cross the border and marry in a state where it is legal and then go home.
This would mean every couple in the United States that wished to be seen as married could be seen as such by at least one level of government — and the highest level at that.
Ramping up the pressure on Washington, will be the October 11 National Equality March, with hundreds of thousands expected to descend on the capital. US gay cable network Logo will even stop broadcasts for four hours during the march to encourage gay couch potatoes into the streets.
There is no reason why people of the same sex should not be allowed to marry. Historical precedent is not a reason: precedent can be ignored. While history famously repeats itself, circumstances change. Maintaining population growth is not a reason: some heterosexual marriages do not produce offspring yet are still regarded as legitimate. Religious disapproval is no reason: not everyone in a secular society subscribes to a religion. Public opinion is no reason: the public are misinformed on most issues. These are mere excuses. Reasons need to be reasonable.
Umm, Paul, if you would kindly notice the first word in the title of the blog post……..
Lullabye and good night!
PS: I hope all of you insist that Andrew answer my pots regarding his sources.
I personally would be outraged if one of my pro-marriage reporters dared to post forgeries as evidence for our cause.
Truthfulness is why we won Prop 8.
Hi Rick- I didn’t state that the quote came from Eusebius’ Life of Constantine- because it didn’t.
It came from Book Six of Eusebius’ Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel) translated by E.H. Gifford in 1903, the full text of which can be found at http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_06_book6.htm
The full quote that you will find there is “Among the Gauls the young men give themselves in marriage openly, not regarding this as a matter of reproach, because of the law among them. Yet it cannot possibly have been the lot of all in Gaul who thus impiously suffer outrage to have the morning-star with Mercury setting in the houses of Saturn and regions of Mars at their nativities.”
The second quote is from Bardaisan’s “The Book of the Laws of Diverse Countries”, the whole of which is unfortunately not reproduced anywhere online.
Eusebius himself was referring to another account by Bardaisan (who Gifford translates as “Bardesanes”) from his “On Fate”, so that Bardaisan made such claims can hardly be in doubt.
Rick- “Please provide the specific excerpt from Bret Hinch’s Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China (University of California Press which you claim references homosexual marriage as “widely practiced in Fujian province”
I don’t have a copy of Hinch in the house, but here’s this from Spencer’s “Homosexuality: A History” (pgs 146-147).
“Ming sources reveal glimpses of homosexual love from a range of classes and regions. Though homosexuality was known as the ‘southern custom’ in the provinces of Fujian and Guangdong, it seems to have been popular in the north as well. In Fujian there was a form of male marriage, a ceremony in which the older man referred to the younger as an ‘adoptive younger brother’. A carp, rooster and duck were sacrificed, and the men smeared each other’s mouths with the blood and swore eternal loyalty. The ceremony concluded with a feast. The younger man moved into the older man’s household and was treated as a son-in-law by the family.”
Rick- “It is an extremely grave matter to knowingly advance forgeries, as I am sure you would agree.”
Yes Rick, and next time you rip a quote from Wikipedia, out of context, from a book you’ve never read, make sure you delete the reference number as otherwise people will be able to discover with a simple google that this is precisely what you did.
Again I note that you do not refute same-sex marriage among Native American tribes and the Igbo of Nigeria because you can’t.
Re: De Lano
Missed the point of what all of the commentators are saying here with respect to same sex marriage? I suspect not. More like ignored it and reframed it.
Marriage was only defined in this country in 2004, when it was not previously, as a disgraceful political act.
The attitude which comes through the posts fits the profile.
It is clear you are not from Australia, or from the gay community. Your views will not discourage the gay community from continuing the debate until real equality is achieved.
Paul:
The laws of California specifically extend to gays every right enjoyed by every married person. There are no rights extended to any person in California, which are not also extended to gays.
Gays obviously are free to marry, under precisely the same limitations every one else is.
It were of course unthinkable that we would allow any group to redefine marriage to suit its own whims.
Paul:
I have expressed no hatred toward anyone. I do support marriage, and I will politically oppose anyone who seeks to redefine it.
But I see no eivdence whatsoever of hatred in any of my posts.
Sheesh, compared to the political dustups I get into on other issues this seems pretty sedate.
Jack Alison makes a hugely important point. I remember walking in to the Joint Session of the California State Senate and Assembly Judiciary Commitees in Los Angeles, held by law in every case where a constitutional amendment is on the ballot.
When I entered the hearing room I noticed a very large contingent of African-Americans, and I admit I simply expected that, as likely Obama voters, they were probably there to support the No on 8 position.
Since I was quite easy to identify as a Yes On 8 voter, because I was carrying an armful of Yes on 8 literature, I was stunned to be besieged by these attendees, all of whom were clamoring for Yes on 8 materials and bumpr stickers.
After the witnesses, there was an opportunity for public comments directed toward the Joint Committee members.
The passionate arguments in favor of Prop 8 by the African American speakers left me absolutely certain that we were going to win, even though the “polls” had us down by double digits at the time.
David: There have been no wins at the poll in America for SSM. Only losses. As Andrew himself assures you, this will continue in Maine- its over and the political pros know it.
The SSM forces have pulled back from a 2010 initiative in California to overturn Prop 8 because they know they would lose by an even wider margin than they did last year.
The “anyone who votes for Traditional marriage is an anti-gay bigot” approach has thoroughly discredited you in the eyes of the very people you hope to convince.
But I understand your quandary, in that you really have no other argument to advance.
I suggest listening to Sir Elton John, who has had some wise words to say about this.
But if not, then be assured we will be ready for the challenge anywhere, anytime, and we will win, because we are telling the truth about marriage.
Rick De Lano seems to enjoy antagonising gays with his conservative views, as did Peter Stokes a few weeks earlier. My question is why shouldn’t same sex couples enjoys the same rights, benefits and privileges as anyone else? What is the justification for unequal treatment? De Lano’s submissions appear at best smug and self serving, and at worst hateful. I cannot understand the hatred expressed by conservatives towards gay people, particularly when in the name of religion. I can only conclude that such bigotry is at best symptomatic of a personality disorder.
Rick DeLano seems to like banging on about democracy. But the truth is it is only in democracies where same-sex marriage has a chance. Only democracy is compatible with the rights of gay people. Same-sex marriage can only be held back for good in authoritarian regimes. Remember that the Netherlands rather than Saudi Arabia was the first country to see same-sex marriage implemented.
Quite frankly, the anti-gay marriage brigade would be better off moving to somewhere like Iran because that’s the type of regime that practises their agenda.
Both wins and losses are to be expected in the same-sex marriage campaign. But that’s been true with the fight over the decriminalisation of homosexuality. Anti-gay bigots have lost that campaign everywhere except in dictatorhips and theocracies. And same-sex marriage will be no different. Unless the tide of history swings back towards communism or religious fundamentalism, history will be on our side.
Umm, Andrew, it appears we have a similar problem with your alleged passage from Bardaisan of Edessa.
Your quote appears on no scholarly site dedicated to his work.
It brings up only a pro-gay blog that…..now get this….is also the source of your original quote from Eusebius above.
In this case, also, there is no citation of the work.
So again, Andrew, I would request that you substantiate your claim with the title of the work by Bar Daisan of Edessa, the edition cited, and page number because it appears this quote exists nowhere except on the blog of your earlier Eusebius provider.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
It is an extremely grave matter to knowingly advance forgeries, as I am sure you would agree.
Andrew:
I am unfortunately unable to find a single reference anywhere on the web to substantiate any reference to homosexual marriage found in your source ” Bret Hinch’s Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China (University of California Press.
Since you neglected to either quote the relevant passage, nor to provide a citation, I have another request.
Please provide the specific excerpt from Bret Hinch’s Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China (University of California Press which you claim references homosexual marriage as “widely practiced in Fujian province”.
It appears that no one else is aware of this assertion in Hinch’s book.
Andrew:
I have a request. I have located the text of Eusebius’ “Life of Constantine” online, here:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/vita-constantine.html
I have read the entire text.
I can affirm that your quote does not appear in this text.
Now I wish to give you every benefit of the doubt here.
Perhaps your quote comes from some other work of Eusebius?
If so, please cite the source and edition, so that I can verify it.
I must point out that this does not appear to be the case, since a google search of your quote leads to no sites containing the actual works of Eusebius, but instead links to pro-gay websites and blogs, *none of which provide a citation as to the source of the quote*.
This obviously won’t do, Andrew. I am sure you have engaged in debates where quotes of this nature have been tossed out. They have been, in every case that I have investigated, to have been forgeries.
Cetainly your side would not wish to be found to have employed a forgery in such a way.
Therefore, I request an immediate citation for your quote, which does not appear to be genuine, based on the above internet search results.
Thank you for your attention to this matter- not of opinion- but of truthfulness and fact.
‘When California goes the entire union goes with it.’ The change of heart in CA was NOT due to an overwhelming resistance by voters per se to gay marriage. Prop 8 was ‘piggy backed’ on to a federal election. It is the greatest paradox that CA had its largest black turnout ever to elect a black president and guess who are some of the most homophobic and deeply evangelical Christian voters? It is now recognized in the state of California that the black vote elected a black president and undid gay marriage. Statistically black voter enrollment had never been so great. It is an unpalatable fact that prejudice begets prejudice. You only have to witness the profound blind spot of the Israelis against the Palestinians to realize this flaw in human nature.
Rick, excuse me if I don’t take your debunking claim that seriously when it relies on a passing one line reference from a book that’s not even about homosexuality in China- it doesn’t even have a chapter heading on the subject! It also looks to me that you cut and pasted that quote direct from the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_China Have you even read Brooke?
A detailed account of the same-sex marriage rite in Fujian can be found in Bret Hinch’s Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China (University of California Press), which is still regarded as the best English language work on the subject. It is also covered in Colin Spencer’s “Homosexuality: A History” (Forth Estate- London) You’ve given me nothing substantial to put that in doubt.
If same-sex marriage was not practiced among the Celts, why did Eusebius of Caesaria (265-330AD) biographer of the Emperor Constantine record “Among the Gauls, the young men marry each other with complete freedom. In doing this, they do not incur any reproach or blame, since this is done according to custom amongst them.”
And why did Bardaisan of Edessa (154-“222AD), best known for his account of Roman first contact with the kingdoms of India, write, “In the countries of the north- in the lands of the Germans and those of their neighbors, handsome young men assume the role of wives towards other men, and they celebrate marriage feasts.”
If same sex marriages were not practiced by peoples within the Roman Empire, why was it necessary for the heirs of Constantine the Great to include laws against it in the Theodosian Code?
I notice you don’t try to refute same-sex marriage among Native American tribes and the Igbo people of Nigeria- because you can’t.
Rick- “As to fundamental rights, Andrew, we both have precisely the same rights when it comes to marriage.”
No, you have the right to marry someone you could fall in love with, I have the right to marry someone I could never fall in love with- that’s about as useful to me as a billboard to a blind man.
Apparently you see loveless sham marriages as less of a threat to marriage than loving same-sex ones.
There is nothing in today’s marriage laws that guarantees that children born to heterosexual parents will be raised by their biological parents- but you’re probably opposed to divorce and adoption as well.
People who do not marry have children. Marriage is not a prerequisite for having children. Gay & lesbian couples have children. Marriage is not the source of future generations, relationships are.
In Australia we have had a Marriage Act since 1961. It did not define “marriage” until 2004, whilst there was a case before the Family Court at Melbourne where 2 same sex couples who married overseas where it was available sought a declaration their marriage was valid in Australia. The Commonwealth AG intervened in that case, and during a Federal election campaign the Howard government rushed through parliament an amendment to the Marriage Act giving us a definition of marriage. This was despite a string of High Court constitutional cases about the marriage power under the Constitution holding marriage is defined according to developing attitudes in society from time to time. The 2004 amendment to the Marriage Act sunk the case before the Family Court, and it was otherwise widely viewed as a political exercise. It was a disgrace, and not what I would call an exercise in democracy.
Other places have same sex marriage – Canada, Holland, Spain, South Africa. I don’t see why it is so different for the US.
The same sex marriage fight in California is not over. As far as I am aware, having seen the press in the US when I was there after the Californian Supreme Court upheld Prop 8, the case is going to the US Supreme Court.
And what is this stupid remark “social engineering” supposed to mean? It’s just like the right whingers labelling someone “politically correct” (another expression I hate) when someone expresses a view they do not agree with but cannot articulate a rational reason why. The “gay agenda” is another favourite, as if gays and lesbians are part of some evil conspiracy. Neither any social engineering or gay agenda exists. It’s all about another segment of society, with the same similarities and differences as any other, expecting equal treatment.
team P:
The fact that you confuse sex with marriage is even more disturbing.
The government has no interest in regulating who we fall in love with, have sex with, or even shack up with.
The government most certainly does have an interest in regulating who gets married, since marriage is the source of future human generations.
There are a few things that we all have in common, team P. We all, every one of us, have this in common, for example:
exactly one mother and exactly one father.
Every child has the right to expect that *their* interest in being raised by their mother and father will be respected in the laws governing marriage.
You might get pretty itchy about it, but we are not about to allow you to redefine humanity’s most basic institution, based on exceptions to what is common and what is good.
When you lost in California, you ought to have drawn the rational conclusion: you cannot possibly win this in any free election, anywhere.
If you propose that the rest of us are evil bigots, good luck with that. I believe Ted Olson is raising cash selling a lawsuit predicated upon that premise.
I am very confident that will lose as well.
Cheers!
Rick DeLano
– if you do your research into promiscuality, you will find just that.
try reading something with substance.
might i recomend : “homo phobia a history” by byrne fone
or if that one strikes you as not applicable try “Mythology of Transgression: Homosexuality as Metaphor” by Jamake Highwater
and no, we dont have the same rights, i cant have a marriage with the one i love, and who loves me back in a human to human way.
the fact that you confuse love with sex is a little disturbing.
Andrew:
It appears you have been hornswoggled pretty thoroughly here. The claim of homosexual marriage in Fujian province is bunk. The truth is that when the Jesuits arrived in China, they noted a particularly avid practice of homosexuality among some of the rich folks, taking advantage of their lusts upon the poor. (Guess that’s one way in which the SSA’s ain’t so different, hmmm?)
Anyway, to debunk this, see :
“There was a running joke in the late Ming Dynasty (1368–1644) that the province of Fujian was the only place where high class gentry and merchant love for male courtesans was prominent.[2]”
-Timothy Brooke, The Confusions of Pleasure: Commerce and Culture in Ming China, p. 231-232
The claim that same sex marriage was “commonplace throughout the Celtic regions of Europe, and was legal in the Roman Empire itself prior to 342 AD”, is so utterly ridiculous and laughable as to refute itself: there ought to be no surprise whatever among anyone reading this that you fail to provide the slightest bit of supporting evidence.
That is because there isn’t any.
But I always find it fascinating to see how ideologues of various stripes attempt to manufacture “evidence” in support of a given claim.
I would be delighted to examine your claims, if you could be bothered to substantiate them.
If not, well……………..
As to fundamental rights, Andrew, we both have precisely the same rights when it comes to marriage.
If either of us can find an eligible spouse, and they will have us, then let the wedding bells ring!
Rick DeLano should change his name to Rick De Lame-O
You are common as dirt and about as palatable.
Oh, and FYI: the world has passed you by.
See ya! Sure as hell wouldn’t want to be ya!
NEXT.
Well said, Andrew.
Good news:
Bill Clinton now SUPPORTS gay marriage!!!!!!
In Maine they call it a “people’s veto”!!!!
New York State (not the city) will not have same-sex marriage for a couple of years yet – the NY state Senate is still DEEPLY DIVIDED over the issue!!!!
You thinks that bad????? – its gets worse. In Washington (the State not DC) citizens will vote for “domestic partnerships” – not marriage!!!!
I guarentee it will pass by 56 percent saying yes, 44 percent saying no.
However in Maine only 43 percent of citizens support same-sex marriage – it will not pass (60 percent against, 40 percent for it)!!!!!!
Massacusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, Iowa currently have same-sex marriage.
New Hampshire will have same-sex marriage effective from midnight 1.1.2010.
Nevada will have domestic partnerships (based on the Californian model) from 1 October 2009.
Rick DeLano- problem is, there is no “historically unanimous definition of marriage”- even among heterosexuals, marriage in many cultures did and still does include multiples greater than two.
As for same-sex marriage, it was practiced in the Fujian province of China, according to Roman writers was commonplace throughout the Celtic regions of Europe, was legal throughout the Roman Empire itself prior to 342 AD, and was practiced throughout North America by Native American tribes that recognised GLBT people as “berdaches” or “two-spirits”. Female-to-female same-sex marriage is still practiced by the Igbo tribes people of Nigeria today.
Yes, Rick, the people of California had their say- and as ugly as that was, they will have their say again and vote better next time. Which of your fundamental rights would you like put up for a vote?
Hi Andrew:
Democracy is not being redefined hefre.
Marriage is.
Your problem is that we aren’t cooperating, but that’s democracy for ya :-)
Well, I must say I have never known your side to lose a poll, or win an election.
Cheers!
Rick DeLano- you mean like how democracy was “redefined” to include women and blacks?
I’m not aware of any marriage law requiring anyone to “surrender” their children.
Is it so strange that gays and lesbians who are generally born into families headed by married parents and have married heterosexual friends and siblings would see marriage to be the appropriate structure for solemnifying their own enduring relationships?
Thankfully opinion polls show that people like yourself are dinosaurs- generations X and Y are overwhelmingly on our side. It is only a matter of when and not if, same sex marriage is legalised in this country, and across the whole of North America, Europe, and Central and South America. The process in Asia will take longer but it will happen there too.
Dear Steve:
Since Perez as exhaustively debated during the Prop 8 campaign here in California, it should be noted:
1. The Perez case dealt with marriage between a man a woman.
2. The People of California, in their wisdom, have the right to organize and amend their Constitution when they perceive themselves to have been victimized by an usurping branch of government, i.e., the State Supreme Court.
3. The People of California, in their wisdom, recognized no such usurpation in the case of Perez.
4. The People of California *did* recognize such an usurpation in the decision to incorrectly redefine marriage by the California Supreme Court in 2008.
Since there is no hint of a challenge in Perez to the historically unanimous definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, and since Perez was never rejected by a sovereign act of the People, whilst the same-sex attempt to redefine marriage has always been rejected by them, it seems you aren’t going to have much more luck arguing from Perez, than your team did trying the same tack here in California.
And needless to say, if you can’t convince voters in California, the most liberal State in the Union, then you ain’t gonna convince voters anywhere.
You will continue to lose every single time this goes to a vote of the people, because you deserve to lose.
Your arguments are flawed, and mothers and fathers know it.
PS: Your arguments and links for genetic predisposition are really irrelevant to the question. Ol’ Ted and Don might try to sell those in the Federal Court case, but this little thing called “identical twins” is likely to pose a bit of a roadblock, Steve.
I mean, think about it.
Identical twins share identical genes.
Yet plenty of twins have one straight and one gay attraction.
Bit of a challenge for your argument there.
Rick DeLano: And guess what? The same thing happened to interracial marriages prior to the 1970’s. Every time it was voted on, it lost. We need to end this ignorance and bigotry if we are to proceed socially.
And before you say, “it’s not the same thing”, it’s very similar. Bigotry is bigotry. Just like you can’t change the color of your skin, you can’t change whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, then sorry, you are not heterosexual, but probably bi-sexual or homosexual.
While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men’s Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. “Nurture” may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.
And it should also be noted that:
“It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organisations do believe it is impossible to change a person’s sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association.”
Andrew is exactly right about one thing: pseudo-marriage will lose in Maine, exactly as it has lost everywhere the people have been allowed to vote on it.
Come on, folks.
Do you really imagine that mothers and fathers are going to surrender their *children* to indoctrination in homosexual pseudo-marriage?
Time to wake up and smell the cappuccino.
Try jamming it down the people’s throats through legislative and legal maneuvers.
That might gain you some temporary advances.
But in the end, its about hearts and minds, and we love our children too much to allow any social engineering projects to redefine marriage.
Cheers!