Virginia Republicans Back to Gay Bashing and Bedroom Policing

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Homosexuality is a behavior and not a type of natural state that you are born being. To say that all people are not being treated equally under the law in the case of same-sex marriage is a lie being that there is no legal basis for having to treat all behavior equally under the law. As it stands now all people are treated equally and all people can get married. What left-wing activists want though is to redefine marriage and to redefine the way people view homosexuality without giving ALL people EQUAL representation under the law. The left-wing want to have this dictated through the Court. So it is the left-wing that is making an attempt to deny ALL people EQUAL representation under the law and not the other way around as they like to claim. It is a left-wing lie that defining marriage as “one man, one woman” is not treating all people equally.

Garry of NJ 3:26PM March 16, 2010

Hello Kyle. I don't subscribe to this "right to marry" either. It's a matter of semantics. When people say "right to marry" they refer to the constitutional right to be treated equally.
Meaning, if my straight neighbors who are a couple can buy a marriage license at the courthouse for $45, why can't my lifemate and I? Every reason I've heard is, in my opinion, irrelevant to law. And my understandig is that law is based on the constitution. So if the constitution claims I am equal, have freedom, liberty, etc. and there is no good reason to deny me and my lifemate a marriage license, why is it I can't get one?
Arguing whether or not there's a "right to marry" is a waste for time. That's not the question here. The "right" involved is the right to be treated equally as the constitution promises.
Some say I am already treated equally, since I am free to buy a marriage license with a woman. But clearly that makes no sense. If the only way I can be treated equally is to enter into a falsehood, a sham, then that's silly. Isn't the point of offering marriage licenses is to promote stable families? That is what I would do with my lifemate. So what's the problem?
Your other point, that I can get married any time I want, relies on the definition of marriage being the relationship itself. In that way, we are already married. I'm aware of that.
We can also marry in a church any time we want, provided there is a church offering holy matrimony to gay couples. I'm aware of that too.
What I can't do is get equal treatment under the law. That's wrong. If my partner and I go through the exact same situations as our married heterosexual neighbors, in many very important situations the law will treat them differently, better. That is simply not ok.
Acceptance is not something I seek. The KKK might not "accept" the equality of black people, but still the law has ensured that the KK must tolerate the equality of black people or face criminal penalty. That's how I think it should be for gay people. I have no interest in who accepts gays or not. But I am equal to my straight counterparts (or so the constitution has led me to believe), and I expect there to be criminal consequence for anyone who does not tolerate that reality. I tolerate plenty that I don't accept. That's what grownups do.
I still think it is hypothetical to talk about a world where government didn't issue marriage licenses. They do. Until they stop issuing them, it's a hypothetical scenario. If you advocate pursuing a cease to that instead of allowing gay marriage, I take issue with that because gay couples will end up waiting for something I doubt will ever happen.
I also disagree with your discrimination thesis, but prefer to agree to disagree on that.
Thanks for sharing your views.

Rich of TX 12:30PM March 12, 2010

"The whole principle behind anti-discrimination statutes relies on an insistence that some segments of society merit more legal protection than others - a discriminatory stance in and of itself."
No, the whole principle behind anti-discrimination statutes relies on the recognition that minorities are denied equal protection merely because of their minority status.
You tacitly acknowledge this by ignoring the fact that statutes protecting ALL individuals on the basis of sexual orientation protect all people, straight and gay. You don't worry about the possibility that a university might want to hire only gay professors, or accept only gay students. And right you are: they wouldn't do that.
Its amusing that you folks generally want to preserve your right to discriminate against gays, but the moment some organization wants to discriminate against those that have such discriminatory views - because e.g. it is disruptive to the workplace - its suddenly an instance of discrimination against your religious views.

TJ Parker of CA 9:43AM March 12, 2010

Rich,
Didn't mean to offend you - but I think you're forgetting that my argument isn't a hypothetical one. It is my viewpoint that the state shouldn't be involved in ordaining or rejecting marriages any more than it should be involved in ordaining or rejecting mortgages, car purchases, and yard sales. I understand that's not how society currently works (nor have most societies, historically) - but that's not really relevant to the discussion anyway. The point-counterpoint here, as I read it, is thus:
1. Homosexuals are generally not permitted the "right" to marry
2. I contend that it is improper to refer to marriage as a "right," especially if the viewpoint is that the state confers rights upon its people (the "state as grantor of rights" is wholly antithetical to the Constitution of the United States).
3. Hence, marriage is little more than a contract between two private parties, in which the state should have no vested interest.
The net result of this is that marriage becomes a private consideration between the parties involved only, rather than a 'public institution.'
Let's be clear - currently, homosexuals can get married anywhere they want to do so. It is the LEGAL BENEFITS of marriage, bestowed by the state which are un-manifested in these 'unofficial' marriages. There exists no onus on anyone here, except for the government to back out of something it isn't Constitutionally authorized (generally speaking) to administer.
Lastly, Rich, you can't legislate acceptance - and that's why I think that Cuccinelli's actions don't go far enough. The whole principle behind anti-discrimination statutes relies on an insistence that some segments of society merit more legal protection than others - a discriminatory stance in and of itself. The fact that Fred Phelps and his ilk run amok in society is certainly a terrible shame - but no amount of legislation will force him to change his mind; and even if it could, I'd be exceptionally wary of a state which emphasized any particular point of view as "correct" in any sense. To be clear - it's not that I believe that homosexuals should be discriminated against (which is how the media seems to be playing Cuccinelli's actions), but rather that the principle of anti-discrimination statutes is itself discriminatory.
It's not that I don't have sympathy for your position - it's more that I disagree with the degree to which government has intruded into the private lives of its citizens.

Kyle of VA 5:34PM March 11, 2010

Thank you both, Dan and Kyle, for keeping this discussion civil and respectful.
I have very strong feelings on this subject, and they only get stronger as time goes on. But I'm sure the same can be said for people on the opposing side of the topic as well. It's nice when folks like you can focus on seeking a meeting of the minds, rather than verbally bitch-slapping each other.
Much appreciated.

Rich of TX 12:57PM March 11, 2010

Dan, I have (of course) heard that one too. The reasons you state for it being invalid say it all. If we are to hold up that argument as the basis on which we deny gay couples a marriage license, then what about the heterosexual couples who bear no children? Do we forcibly divorce them because the marriage certificate was only meant to create a stable home for children? Of course not.
Further, I would argue that a gay couple might do a terrific job of ensuring perfectly healthy mixed-gender influences in a child's life, while the straight couple next door to them might do a horrendous job and be abusive, neglectful, and poor role models of both genders. Yet under the current system the straight couple gets marriage license and the gay couple doesn't.

Rich of TX 12:50PM March 11, 2010

Dan, about civil unions...in all honesty I used to think they were the perfect compromise. For all the reasons you mentioned.
While those reasons still hold value, my position has evolved. Those compromises are no longer good enough for me.
Part of it is because I have heard one too many horror stories of a gay person at a hospital or in some legal battle and the authority involved shrugs and says, "Sorry only spouses can [fill in the blank]." I'm not ok with getting a CU, only to later find out that when I really need it from some legal perspective, it doesn't count. A marriage certificate always counts. No one questions it. Nobody doesn't know what it means. Ever.
The other part is, I'm in my 40s and while the stepping-stone approach might be the most rational, my life is ticking away. How long am I supposed to wait, solely on the grounds that society will be more comfortable if we move slowly? Until I'm in my 50s? Until after I retire? Until I'm on my deathbed? Is that what America is about? "You over there in the corner, you too will have liberty and justice, just be patient. We'll get around to you eventually."
All this plus the absence of any logical argument proving the necessity to wait.

Rich of TX 12:41PM March 11, 2010

Kyle, you asked, "If marriage had no legal benefits attached to it and was purely a social institution, would you still care?"
I will answer, but first I need to say all these hypothetical arguments about how it would be in the state was out of the marriage business or whatnot, they all seem like society is trying to weasel out of what's happening. The state is in the marriage business. So until the day they aren't, problem number one is current reality. Not hypotheical reality.
Yes, I would still care. The crux of the whole things is in why I care.
Eight years ago I met the love of my life. For all intents and purposes, we are spouses. I could elaborate, but I'd just be describing your happy heterosexual neighbors' life so you get the idea. Yet, inexplicably, every single day I wake up and go to bed knowing that as far as the law is concerned we are strangers. Can you imagine how degrading that feels? I bet you can't.
On top of that, many in society treat us like pariahs. Sure, acceptance has gotten much better over the last 20 years for gays, and I am extraordinarily appreciative of that, but Google Fred Phelps and tell me if you've ever experienced anything like him based on some part of your identity you can't change. There are more Fred Phelps' in the world than you think. Every one of them is to some extent enabled and protected because after all, "If the law treats you differently surely I have justification to."
And all this happens day after day, year after year, in a country boasting to be the bastion of liberty and equality and freedom for all...and blah blah blah. No, it is not the land of equality and liberty because if I go to the courthouse with my $45 to buy a simple marriage license with the love of my life, I will be turned away. Why? Why?
And you don't seem to care. And the onus is on me to change your mind. With all due respect, I am simply tired of being treated differently over something I can not change.
If you still can't begin to understand, well...maybe you never will.

Rich of TX 12:27PM March 11, 2010

Kyle, I wanted to address your points about civil unions vs. marriage for gay coupes.
First, I am a offended that your phrasing implies the onus is on gays to establish their deservedness for marriage as opposed to CUs. To me that smacks of "guilty until proven innocent." It is my assertion that allowing gay couples to marrying will be righting a wrong. If gays are denied, the onus is on society to prove why.
Second, alternative institutions never end up being truly equal. For example, in California couples seeking domestic partnership must already share a residence, married couples may be married without living together. DPs never receive any official document acknowledging their union. You fill something out, sign and notarize it, mail it in, and it's over. A building permit is more official. Couples seeking DP must be 18 or older, minors can be married younger with parental consent. DPs can't file joint tax returns. California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage, there is no equivalent institution for DPs. Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan, DPs are not. There is no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for DPs. DPs, unlike spouses, can be compelled to testify against one another in court. Other countries that recognize same-sex marriages performed in California as valid in their own country (for example, Israel) do not recognize DPs. The use of the word marriage itself also constitutes a significant social difference. And these are just the things I know about; there are likely more.
Third, elaborating on social difference, the 2008 CA Supreme Court ruling included the two following statements:
"One of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a couple’s right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of “marriage” exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect."
"Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples."
The bottom line is, if something is truly equal there is no need for it to be separate, is there?

Rich of TX 12:05PM March 11, 2010