It’s been a good week for the gay rights movement. On Monday, President Obama declared that June 2009 is LGBT Pride Month. Also Monday came word of the Nevada legislature overriding the governor’s veto on a Domestic Partnership law in Nevada. But the real capstone came yesterday, when, after some back-and-forth and amendments, New Hampshire’s governor signed the same sex marriage law that the legislature had passed earlier.
The New Hampshire law was passed by the legislature, and it includes extensive protections for religious organizations. Thus, two of the common themes in the church’s Proposition 8 campaign — that same-sex marriage is an antidemocratic imposition by judges, and that same-sex marriage will force churches or church-owned institutions to accept same-sex marriage contrary to their doctrine — do not seem to apply in the New Hampshire case. One suspects that this is the future of the movement — democratically passed marriage statutes with broad respect for religious organizations.
As they say in New Hampshire, live free or die.
Kaimi, You make it sound as though before the governor signed this legislation gays and lesbians in N.H. had no freedom and their only alternative was death.
I agree the move from court imposed genderless marriage is more politically palatable. I think the better argument on the religous rights protection is not so much being forced to perform gay marriage; but, the right to voice religious beliefs that the lifestyle, i.e., behavior is immoral and sinful. Those who express such religious sentiments are already mocked by many in this so called tolerant of all views new “civil rights” movement.
Maybe, “Live Genderless or Move”?
Steve, that comment makes no sense. Denial of same sex marriage in no way denies one their gender.
easy there matt, I was using Guy’s term. I personally could not care less.
Oh, sure. It’s all my fault . . .
Gotta love when both sides get what they want…right?
See Steve, that’s why I shouldn’t comment on stuff like this. Because I could care less, and want to care less. Maybe you could teach a course on not caring less, and I could attend.
Matt, I offered the course but nobody bothered to enroll or show up. Or so I heard – I didn’t go, either.
What I think you mean is that you couldn’t care less. Because if you could care less, that means that you do care some and could care less. I’m just sayin’. :-)
Ian, not necessarily. In theory, his total amount of caring could equal exactly zero, but perhaps he “could care less” in the sense that his caring could descend further into a hypothetical, negative realm, where his abject lack of caring would then exist in such a state of dearth that–like driving so slowly that to move forward any more slowly would require you to drive in reverse–it would have to manifest itself as the diametric opposite of caring.
That might involve such sub-zero anti-caring activities as excessive time spent playing World of Warcraft, blogging about religion and politics, voting for Pat Buchanan, alphabetizing your underwear drawer, or writing snarky comments on other people’s blog posts.
Huston, how outlandish. Pat Buchanan! Please.
Excuse me, people, this is a post about gay marriage. You’re not allowed to threadjack away from that topic. Threadjacks in the bloggernacle must be directed towards gay marriage, not away from it. Get with the program.
Or as Jimmy Fallon said, “Live Free or Bi”.
Now I am confused, am I supposed to care MORE or care LESS that Guy Murray and Pat Buchanan are in a genderless marriage??
and can I just say I LOVE using random capitalized words!!!! (and exclamation points too)
It’s a sign, Kaimi. The Bloggernacle has finally had its fill of gay marriage talk. Move along.
And I AGREE with TStevens about the FUN of random caps AND exclamation points. But I thought it was Steve Evans who married Pat Buchanan. I’m so confused.
So is Steve.
I know Pat Buchanan, Pat Buchanan is a good man, but he would never be in a POLYGAMOUS genderless marriage!
To get back on point (sorry Kaimi), I just read a book on Evolutionary Psychology (Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, by Alan S. Miller and Satoshi Kanazawa) and their contention is if SSA is genetic, more openess (i.e. allowing things like SSM) would eventually lead to the extinction of SSA. Not defending the arguement, but it does pose an interesting consequence for our SSM choice.
Threadjacks in the bloggernacle must be directed towards gay marriage, not away from it
That is an interesting observation …
I love that argument: Free the gays to marry and they will die out. Miller and Kanazawa may be going out on a limb there, but I haven’t read the book. Details, TStevens?
You guys do realize that “Live Free or Die” is New Hampshire’s state motto, right Guy Murray? You sound like you’ve never been east of the Mississippi
Again I am not defending it, just relating what they said (btw the book overall is fascinating and delves into a lot of different topics – see http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.xml for an article discussing some of their findings/opinions).
Anyways, if SSA is genetic it would be passed through parent to child. When SSA is suppressed you would get an increase of SSA people entering into heterosexual relationships (like the old church counsel – marry a good woman and it will “cure” you). Hence more children born carrying the genetic trait for SSA. When not suppressed then the amount of individuals who would feel compelled to enter into these relationships of convienence would drastically reduce, thus so would the passage of that trait. Ultimately that would lead to the extinction of that trait.
They are slightly more elegant in their presentation, but unfortunatey I have already returned the book to the library. You must remember that evolutionary psychology only deals with the natural man; every decision we make is rooted in increasing our ability to reproduce. So every question or behaviour is looked at through that lens.
Also, the SSA is only one page out of 250, it by no means the focus of their book.
Any thoughts on the Federal Olson/Boies Prop 8 challenge?
Are you saying that a law should be passed to allow someone to criticize same-sex marriage? Because we have that already–it’s called the First Amendment. Alternatively, are you saying that a law should be passed protecting people who criticize same-sex marriage from being mocked? Because that’s not gonna happen, for the same reason.
If, however, what you are saying is that legalizing gay marriage normalizes homosexual behavior and therefore makes criticism of homosexual behavior sound intolerant and out of the mainstream, I would not put too many eggs in that basket. The idea that your motive for denying people recognition of your relationships is just that it might make your religious beliefs less popular will not get a whole lot of traction, I think.
What’s the Mississippi?
Hi Nate #25
I don’t think that’s what I said, no.
Again, no–I don’t think that is what I said.
Less popular? You mean like this?
Threadjack? Is that like when some jerk in priesthood hijacks your well-crafted lesson? Anyway, whatever one thinks of gay marriage, maybe it is time to move on. I would like to know if we have any evidence yet that gay marriage actually harms anyone. I’m sort of agnostic on the whole issue, but I think we are at the point now where opinions count less and less and only hard data will serve any purpose.
I remember when SSA meant “Social Security Administration”.
Less popular? You mean like this?
Comment by Kaimi Wenger on August 19, 2008:
That’s a horrible story in Ogden. I see that it didn’t appear to be a savage beating committed out of love either…presumably those come with lesser sentences than the hateful beatings?
They fail to mention the religion of the victim. Could this be a gay/Mormon joint attack?
Ahhh, the sweetness of Mormon life … reminder courtesy of JM.
#15, Remember that a vote for Pat Buchanan is a vote for Steve.
IMO, there should not be “hate crimes”. It’s a crime regardless of whom the victim happens to be. Unless you’re into that whole 1984 thought police type thing.
“good week for the gay rights movement”
What does this mean? What happened to just rights (i.e. human rights)?
I’m not sure what your argument is, then. I’m trying not to put words in your mouth, but restating your argument in my terms is the only way I know how to figure out what you mean. So, I’m going to say what I think you mean, and you tell me where I am misinterpreting you.
We should not support gay marriage because it would lead to greater social acceptance of homosexuality, which in turn would tend to marginalize those that disagree with gay marriage and homosexuality in general.
If this is not your argument, I apologize. I will refrain from attacking this position until you say whether it is what you are defending, as attacking a strawman isn’t very sportsmanlike.
“which in turn would tend to marginalize those that disagree with gay marriage and homosexuality in general.”
I am not Guy, but I cannot imagine that his position is so superficial as this.
@35: I would’ve gone with: “It’s been a good week for marriage.” :-)
I know I’m late to the game, but I’m surprised Kaimi, didn’t also mention that on Wednesday Dick Cheney publicly stated his support for state-backed gay marriage more than once. He seemed quite proud of his gay daughter’s choices.
Unlike Obama’s proclamation or legislation in Nevada and New Hampshire, this doesn’t change the policies of any governmental body. However, this seems to reveal cracks in the Republican Party between the conservative Christian agenda and growing libertarian attitudes.