Protect and Defend

Welcome to my blog, Protect and Defend. You don’t have to understand me. You only have to agree with me. I can live with losing the good fight, but I can not live with not fighting that good fight at all. - Publius

Saturday, June 03, 2006

Gay Marriage

Now, I know some of you are going to read that headline and your eyes will immediately dart to whatever comes after it. Good.

I have never been an adamant supporter on either side of this issue. Although I am against gay marriage, my reasoning is based on being told by my Church that gay marriage is wrong and therefore I went along with it.
But, as this is going to be a topic brought up in the Senate this month on a Gay Marriage Amendment, I wanted to know more about it. I think I lack some knowledge on the subject and decided it is time to know why I actually hold my viewpoint without any deep thought on the issue.
What is gay marriage? How is it different from a civil union? If a gay couple can have a civil union how is this different from a wedding? If I get married in a Catholic Church is my marriage recognized by Baptists? If a Christian church allows a gay marriage would another Christian church have to recognize it? If gay marriage is allowed by the government but religions don’t allow for gay marriage, where would gay marriages be held and by whom? Would a gay marriage in one state be recognized in another state that does not allow gay marriage? Does allowing gay marriage also allow polygamy? Or bigamy? Or allow marriage to anything? Why or why not? And is homosexual sex even legal?

I am hoping some of you on the left speak up because you will most likely have information on this that I have never heard or would have ever thought of. At the same time, perhaps those of you on the Right will also speak up on why it should not be allowed and for reasons that I have not thought of.

15 Comments:

Blogger betmo said...

marriage as it is now requires the couple to apply for a marriage license. i am sure the requirements vary from state to state. to be legally married- you have to have that piece of paper- your marriage license-to prove that you are indeed married. this entitles you to all of the legal benefits of marriage- having say over your spouse in the event of incapacitation or death; making end of life decisions; getting into hospital to see him/her; sharing health benefits when possible, etc. the legal marriage is recognized anywhere in the united states. the churches may or may not recognize legal state marriages based on their own dogmas. they don't have to- it is their perogative to allow you to marry in their church. if you can't get a priest or minister to marry you in the church- you can have a civil ceremony conducted by a justice of the peace or judge.

from what i understand- a civil union would be just that- get a license and have it signed by the appropriate persons. that would entitle the couple to all of the marriage benefits. no church has to recognize it- and unless it's federal law- it would be up to the states i would assume. i could be wrong on that point. religion wouldn't have any say in the matter. i can't see how polygamy or bigamy would play any role at all- any more so than it does now. homosexual sex as far as i know is still illegal in some states- but i couldn't tell you off the cuff which ones.

to be honest- i don't know why this is still such a big issue. i understand that most christian, jewish, islamic denominations feel it is wrong based on similiar beliefs- stemming from a common starting point. being gay doesn't hurt anyone other than the folks who are gay. gay folks are not pedophiles- that is an entirely different issue altogether. yes, it may be wrong in the eyes of the church- but it really isn't the church's business unless it directly effects or influences the church. catholics don't have to let gay folks in to worship or be a part of the church, for example. could just as easily be baptist, luthern, methodist, etc.

i am not sure that this was a coherent opinion but i hope that it helps.

Sat Jun 03, 07:16:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

But, all of the “end of life” decisions could be part of a living will. I don’t have a spouse and instead my will states that either of my parents will decide when to pull my plug. So why can’t you have a gay civil union and living will?
Or is there really a difference between a gay marriage and a gay civil union other than the religious ceremony?

The question with polygamy is that if marriage is no longer defined as a union between one male and one female, doesn’t that leave the door open for any number of other interpretations? I think of it as the domino effect, once you make one exception you cant stop there otherwise why is one fair and the other is not? In actuality, polygamy makes more sense than homosexual marriage. It only takes one man to repopulate the Earth but it takes a lot of women. I think I would be in favor of polygamy before I would be in favor of homosexual marriage.

And is homosexual sex illegal in some states or is any “non-procreational” sex illegal?

Sat Jun 03, 08:59:00 PM  
Blogger betmo said...

yeah- you can have a living will- that's one of the reasons i didn't mention life insurance, etc. no- the only difference i can see is religious. you can be married without the religious piece. you don't need to be married in a church to be married. as long as you have 2 witnesses and a legal justice of peace or judge to sign off. lots of folks go to city hall to get married- or get married at home or outside, etc. many religious leaders won't marry you unless you are a member of that particular church- so i couldn't have gotten married in a baptist church- say unless i was a member there.

as for the polygamy thing- if you look at marriage strictly as a procreational thing- yeah- i guess you're right. i am probably not the best choice to answer this question because i married for love. we are choosing not to have children and we choose not to buy into the religion thing. i have friends who have been a lesbian couple for over 20 years.

not to mention that there have been recent scientific studies that have come back that there seems to be something in the brains of lesbians and gay males that is different than those of straight men and women. preliminary so far- and research continues.

again, i don't see what the big deal is. perhaps you could clear that up for me. what is it about gay marriage that is so threatening to the church community? if it's about the sex- why is the church poking about in a private domain? i would hope that no one is thinking about what my husband and i do in our bedroom. i am assuming(and probably shouldn't) that the church's beef is because gay folks can't have babies. shouldn't we be over that in the 21st century? we have lots of people here on earth.

as far as i know- it is primarily sodomy and oral that is illegal- but as i said it varies from state to state what is considered 'deviant.' in some states, it was- and maybe still is- illegal to have sex in any position other than missionary. that includes masturbation too. many states repealed or don't enforce their laws but i know texas got into the news a few years ago for arresting a gay couple in their own home in bed. perhaps a gay/lesbian web site might provide better answers.

Sat Jun 03, 09:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Alec gibbsale@gmail.com said...

I will give you my own take. Just to let you know, I am gay, a law student, and an atheist, so as you can imagine I am not really in favor of the "Marriage Protection" amendment. So here goes:

1) Civil unions are not equivalent to marriage for three very important reasons. The first is that they do not bring with them the federal rights and benefits associated with marriage (among them, certain tax benefits, the right not to testify against one's spouse in federal court, etc.). The second is that they will not be recognized outside of the state that issued them, with some notable exceptions (i.e., CA recognizes VT civil unions under its domestic partnership plan). Third, because these arrangements are not marriages, they will not co-evolve with marriage. In a common law system, judges have a great deal of say on technical problems that arise with legislation. So, for example, you could easily have a decision that makes marriage superior in some respect to a civil union, or vice versa.

2) Polygamy. Well, funny, because polygamy is an ancient custom that predates modern Western civilization and is still present in virtually every culture. If you are religious, you should note that all of the monotheistic faiths rely on texts that implicitly promote the practice (i.e., King David). Polyamy has benefits and drawbacks that are completely separate from gay marriage. The first is that many arrangements are not consensual. A young girl may be coerced into entering into an arranged marriage because of local or religious custom. Second, because of population dynamics polygamy is a difficult practice to sustain if most men are to partake. In at least one fundamentalist Mormon community that practices polygamy out west, young males were expelled from the town because the older men feared competition for wives. Third, modern family law (apart from marriage restrictions) does not really distinguish men from women, but it most definitely assumes that there are only TWO partners to a marriage. In the event of a polygamous divorce, the division of assets would become a major problem.

3) Homosexuality is not illegal in any state, and all "sodomy laws" were eliminated with the decision in Lawrence v. Texas, in 2003. That being said, I think a walk through history when it comes to "sodomy laws" would be useful. Before the 1970s, these laws applied to acts, whether heterosexual or homosexual. In the 1970s, in response to the gay rights movement, Texas and a few other jurisdictions passed "homosexual conduct" laws, eliminating the restrictions on heterosexual couples and retaining them for homosexual couples. In 1986, the Supreme Court upheld Georgia's sodomy law, which applied to both heterosexual and homosexual couples, but left open the possibility that while the law was fine as far as homosexual acts went, it might be different if the acts were heterosexual. In 2003, the Court cleared this up and struck down every sodomy law that applied to consenting adults, clearing the way for...

4) The bigoted marriage amendments. First, if "judicial activism" is really the problem, there are other ways to address it besides coming up with state or federal amendments. First, you can limit the jurisdiction of the courts so that they are not permitted to hear constitutional challenges to the definition of marriage. Example: "It shall solely be within the power of the legislature to determine the definition, rights and obligation of marriage." Simple, and leaves open the possibility for changing the insitution in the future. Instead, the opposition went for constitutional amendments that presumably only affect marriage (some of them do, most of them do not). A typical amendment will read as follows: "Marriage shall be between a man and a woman, and no substantially similar union shall be recognized." The key to understanding why these amendments were written is the "substantially similar union" clause, because it is the hope of conservative activists that the amendments will eliminate gay marriage, civil unions and even the crumbs of domestic partnership benefits. For example, in Michigan the amendment read "or any similar union for any purpose," and during the election conservatives assured moderates that it would have no effect on domestic partnership benefits in place in certain cities and universities. Then, immediately after it passed, a dissenting conservative city council member contacted the conservative Attorney General and requested an opinion on the constitutionality of a domestic partnership package. Sure enough, the "conservative" AG (he was an adulterer, it turns out) determined that the domestic partnership ordinance was unconstitutional. Now, conservatives are well aware that while most voters are opposed to gay marriage, at least a plurality of them support civil unions and domestic partnership laws. The amendments are designed to kill two birds with one stone: by pitching the amendment as being one about gay marriage, the conservatives avoid any need to debate the merits of civil union legislation or domestic partnership benefits. The strategy is so Machiavellian that it is difficult to believe "self-avowed, practicing Christians" are behind it.

5) At least two amendments go much further. The first is Nebraska's amendment, the second is Virginia's amendment. Nebraska targets "contracts" between partners of the same sex, and Virginia targets "contracts" that purport to give the benefits, rights and obligations of marriage to those who enter into it. Translation: a gay couple cannot marry. They meet with a lawyer, who drafts up a series of contracts between the two, covering property transfer at death, medical and end-of-life decisions, etc. A few years later, one of the men dies. He owned a home that he shared with the other man, but the two were never accepted by his partner's family, who contests the will. The judge, interpreting the amendment to the state constitution, determines that the contract violated public policy and was therefore unenforceable. Then, the family (who never accepted their son) gets the home that they shared. This is the "just" society that the conservatives want to promote (and the example was based on an actual case, I might add).

5) Non-procreative sex. This is a Catholic hang-up. The Roman Catholic Church lost that battle ages ago. As far as married couples go, no law against non-procreative sex has been effective since the late 1960s, when the Court struck down a Connecticut law banning the sale of contraceptives. This was later extended to include unmarried couples and, finally, gay couples.

Anyway, hope that clarified things.

Sat Jun 03, 11:46:00 PM  
Blogger shawn (aka blogstud) said...

betmo and Alec said pretty much everything, but as the Massachusettes Supreme Court said when they allowed gay marriage, "separate is rarely, if ever, equal." So, not I do not think in the end civil unions and powers of attorney are going to cut it.

As for opening the door to other types of marriage, you may have a point, but then the only solution would have to be get rid of marriage altogether. Using the slippery slope argument it was the existence traditional marriage that caused homosexuals to want to be married as well.

There is no reason there should not be equal marriage rights. Even heterosexuals who do not make enough to pay taxes can get married to the opposite sex partner of their choice. I pay taxes. Why can't I?

Sat Jun 03, 11:57:00 PM  
Blogger betmo said...

thanks for the post publius- i have learned quite a bit.

Sun Jun 04, 10:44:00 AM  
Blogger Truth-Pain said...

This has been the best all-around arguments of the issue I've read so far. Great posting Publius. I tend to stay away from issues I no nothing of,... and this one is certainly one of them. The information is invaluable. Thank you all!

Sun Jun 04, 12:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Alec said...

One additional thing...concerning recognition of marriages performed in one state. There is a recognized "public policy" exception to full faith and credit. This would be, for example, why covenant marriages would not be recognized in CA, NY, etc. even though they are valid marriages in TX and LA. Also, Congress in 1996 passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states to determine whether or not they will recognize gay marriages. So far, no constitutionall challenge to DOMA has succeeded, and they are unlikely to succeed because Congress can usually define the parameters of full faith and credit.

So yet another reason the FMA is unnecessary.

Sun Jun 04, 06:58:00 PM  
Blogger quakerdave said...

"Marriage" is a civil, legal contractual arrangement. It should be up to the states to have these laws, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution should make all those marriages legal and binding in all 50 states.

This has nothing to do with "marrying" in anyone's church. My Friends meeting will endorse a gay or lesbian wedding ceremony. Someone else's Catholic or Baptist church will not. So what. That "wedding" is a commitment ceremony, and nothing else. If some "churches" want to discriminate, I suppose they can. Of course, I wonder how they can call themselves "churches" if they do, but that's me.

Sun Jun 04, 06:59:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

Ok, so I have read and learned a lot here. It seems the issue comes down to what is fair and what role religions should play within our society and government.

I believe our rights are based on law, tradition/custom, and religion. Does the law say we have the right to do something? Does tradition/custom afford us a right? And, is there a religious understanding that our right is based on?
For example, on the issue of slavery, the law gave people the right to own slaves and there was a religious acceptance of slavery as in the slave who worked in his master’s house, etc. In addition, there was also the tradition of slavery that went back to before Ancient Rome. But, as slavery fell out of custom throughout the modern world in the 1700s and 1800s, the U.S. dragged its feet to coming around. Once one side of the triangle falls, so too must the others. And even though it took a Civil War to answer the question, once it was no longer the custom to own slaves, slavery had to be ended.
As it stands, gay marriage is against the law, it goes against religious practices, and gay marriage is not the accepted norm for the world. On social issues, the U.S. rarely steps to the forefront and I don’t see it happening here either.

As for religion in society and government, I am against a secular country. I believe a secular society is merely a controlled anarchy waiting to explode.

On the fairness issue, I would say that if you take out any religious context, take out the tradition/custom of not allowing homosexual marriage, and take out that the overwhelming majority of people in this country are against homosexual marriage, that on the issue of fairness alone there is valid logic. But, our society as a whole is not fair. Is it fair that one person owns three mansions while another can’t feed his family? No, but to make it fair would change our society.

On the issue of polygamy and gay marriage, one would lead to the next. Using the argument that polygamy also leads to forcing underage girls to marry old men is the exception to the case because then you are talking about breaking two separate laws, one being polygamy and the other child molestation. Using the logic that one behavior will lead to another is the same as because I speed I am probably smoking crack too. So Shawn the “slippery slope” argument would be valid and thus you are correct, the choices would then be to get rid of marriage all together, allow an anything goes, or to not begin down that slippery slope.

Alec, you are the lawyer here, but I can’t believe that if I never get married and I leave my house to my friend and his family that somehow my parents can contest that. In addition, if it is two people who live together in a homosexual relationship and both have contributed to the home, what legal footing is there for the home to not go to the other person?

Is it “fair” that gay marriage is not allowed? Well, if you want to have a gay marriage it would not be or if you think people should be allowed to have a gay marriage it would not be. But, using the “fair” argument, if you are against homosexual activity because of your religious beliefs, then you would not think it is “fair” that your heterosexual marriage is equitable to a homosexual marriage.

If this country were less religious, I think this would not be an issue. Is there any religion that approves of homosexual activity?

Sun Jun 04, 09:55:00 PM  
Blogger betmo said...

religion in society is fine. it has no place in government. i don't think that you would want buddhists or hindus or muslims in control of america. why should any? i could be wrong about you not caring which religion influenced the government- you tell me.

Sun Jun 04, 10:55:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

To an extent, no I don’t care which religion is in office. I am Catholic, but I did not vote for Kerry who is Catholic and instead voted for the Protestant. In 2000, I voted for a Protestant, Bush, and not Gore but not because Lieberman was Jewish, I just voted for Bush instead.
As for Buddhist, Hindu, and Muslim, I am unaware of any country where the leader of that country is of one of those religions where I would actually want to live in that country.

Sun Jun 04, 11:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Alec said...

Alright, let me try to respond to each of the points you raise individually:

1. Religion and Secularism

It is difficult to argue these points if you are fundamentally opposed to secularism. I hate to be short, but if your problem is secularism, you need to support another kind of constitutional amendment or, barring that, move to a theocracy (although I have to admit that there are not many Christian ones left, the best you can probably do is Africa).
State support of religion is usually a bad thing. Without getting into the details, it is usually bad for all parties involved, and in the long run will lead to a decline in religious participation. The Anglican Church is alive and well in Africa, but has declined tremendously in its state of origin. The same can be said of the Scandinavian countries. Roman Catholic Church involvement in politics has created a backlash in Latin America and Continental Europe. The Western state with the highest level of religious participation is undoubtedly the United States, which is the oldest secular republic in the world. Now, secularism does not mean a total divorce between religious institutions and government, but it does mean that the kind of participation is limited. I.e., no Christian prayers in public schools (ironically, the challengers to those policies were Roman Catholics, because the prayers involved were decidedly Protestant).

BTW, if secularism is merely controlled anarchy, you are going to have to explain secular societies the least anarchic in practice. Japan, the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia and Western Europe are the most economically successful nations on the planet, and they are all secular. By way of contrast, the Islamic states of the Middle East, Northern Africa and Central Asia are some of the most economically backwards places on the planet. Western literacy rates, lifespans and educational levels are, well, the best in the world. The healthiest state with a predominantly Muslim population is Turkey, and they have been secular since the 1920s.

2. The Source of Rights
Rights are not derived from custom or religion, but those are institutions that support human rights and play a role in determining the parameters of human rights. In a diverse society that does not have an agreed framework for understanding where rights come from, the most that can be said is that rights are derived from legal principles and supported by a variety of institutions, including churches and other religious institutions, businesses, government institutions, NGOs, educational establishments, etc.

Nothing about our modern society can be attributed to traditional customs, if by those customs you mean Judeo-Christian mores or ethnic practices. Free markets? Adam Smith. Republican government? John Locke, Founding Fathers, among others. Science? The list is long, but it is inclusive of Newton, Darwin and Einstein, to name but a few.

Your own example of slavery is illustrative, but I will add another: marriage itself. Marriage is not principally the union of one man and one woman to secure societal benefits. At common law (which would be the Anglo-American approach, and hence that of the US) women were originally owned and essentially traded, in order to secure property arrangements beneficial to the families involved. The development of "romantic" marriages is a modern one. It is difficult to really address the issue without going into an esoteric discussion of property law, but the influence of commerce and the need to use land as collateral for interest-based loans (this is also a no no, traditionally, but we got over it) led to the elimination of property arrangements that forced land to stay within a single familial line.

3. "Fairness"

As to fairness...you are using a bad analogy. "Fairness" in the context of economic distribution must take into account efficiency and liberty factors that are simply not present in the gay marriage debate. The hypothetical mansion owner and the poor man are similarly situated to the extent that they can make use of existing law to their own benefit. The reordering of society that would be required to make them equal is a fundamental reordering that has 1) Been tried and failed in Eurasia and elsewhere and 2) requires the abandonment of our entire economic and legal system. Gay marriage does not do anything like that.

From a legal standpoint, by the way, the argument that religious opposition to homosexuality should be enshrined in our law is simply unconstitutional. There may be some other argument that is advanced and has a rational basis, but that one is not it. If it was sufficient, then a Roman Catholic couple could object to a union between a Protestant couple as being immoral because it was not performed within the RCC, or an Orthodox Jew could object to the union of a Christian and a Jew as violating his "religious opposition" to such unions. But we do not take that into account when it comes to interfaith marriages, and we should not take it into account when it comes to gay marriages.

4. Polygamy...again...

You have misread what I said about polygamy. I noted that coercive marriages were one problem with polygamy. A more fundamental problem is that polygamy involves a quantitative change in the structure of marriage. Not the union of two people, but the union of several. As my friend Kip once put it, the real problem arises in the context of family and property law, if you are looking at polygamy in the abstract. Gay marriage involves a qualitative change (i.e., removal of a gender restriction) not a quantitative change. Apples and oranges. A better analogy is interracial marriage, which also involved a qualitative change.

5. The Realities of Same-sex unions under current law

On the issue of leaving property to a same-sex partner...again, this is why knowledge of property rights and inheritance is important. Without an arrangement like marriage, you are a legal stranger to your partner. Wills can be contested, so even if I drew up a will with a partner, either one of our families could contest the will. This is because in the absence of a will there is something called intestate succession...first the spouse, then children, then parents, grandparents, cousins, etc. If the will is successfully challenged, a cousin I never met would have more rights to my property than he would (and in the context of a home, my share would simply be given to this relative through the sale of the house, leaving the hypothetical partner with whatever was left over, despite my intent). On the other hand, a marriage license or a civil union or domestic partnership law takes care of the problem at the low cost of, say, 30 bucks with filing fees. OR you can engage in a series of meetings with an attorney, draw up the documents, pay a couple thousand dollars and hope that it was successful. All because some strangers are opposed to what they think you do in the bedroom, which is perfectly legal and, with the exception of the gender, equivalent to what they do.

6. Religious Opinion of Homosexuality

As far as religions that approve of homosexuality, opposition is limited to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, with major differences between sects in the first two. India retains a sodomy law that is a British import from the colonial period, but Hinduism does not touch on the issue of homosexuality. Buddhism does not distinguish between homosexuality and heterosexuality, because both are sources of attachment that have the potential to disrupt your path to enlightenment. Paganism and its modern variants are also unopposed, although there is hardly a unified belief system there. For specific positions, visit www.religioustolerance.org, which is a pretty useful site.

Anyway, I have been distracted from reading about commercial law reform in the developing world for far too long. Hope my response clarifies some points.

Sun Jun 04, 11:27:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

Alec, the U.S. is not secular nor has it ever been. E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust, One Nation Under God, The Divine Eye of Providence, So Help Me God, any of these sound familiar? In fact the only completely secular counties are communist countries where God is forbidden, China, Russia, North Korea, etc, and look how well it is working out for them. And Turkey is not secular either, that is why they are not being allowed into the EU because they are too Muslim.
And if rights are not derived from custom and traditions, show me England’s Constitution, and if you can’t explain show me how none of the U.S. Constitution matches any of the customs and traditions of the English government including an upper and lower house.
Interfaith marriages are apples and oranges to gay marriage. The Catholic Church still recognizes the marriage of two people in a Jewish Synagogue, it does not pretend that the marriage did not exist or was somehow wrong.
Ok, if polygamy and gay marriage are different because of pure numbers, than using numbers as the only argument, a man could marry a horse or sheep, it is still one marrying one.
And finally, so Christians, Jews, and Muslims are against homosexuality, Hinduism doesn’t discuss the matter and yet the Hindu nation of India has an anti-sodomy law that they have not struck down, and Buddhism is an outlawed religion in China. So essentially that leaves us with Pagans and atheist? Where are the Pagan and atheist countries in the world?

Fri Jun 09, 11:04:00 PM  
Blogger Alec said...

1) Take Latin; "Out of Many, One" refers to the union of the original 13 states into a single nation.

2) One nation under God was added in the 1950s and is not part of the original pledge.

3) In God We Trust was added on the coins during the Civil War, and it became the motto in the 1950s, replacing "E Pluribus Unum."

4) Turkey is secular. The agitation over Turkey membership in the EU is not so much religious as it is economic and political. The SECULAR military is seen as having too much influence in political affairs, the economy is not on par with many European nations and there are significant human rights issues (including, ironically enough from your perspective, their treatment of gays) that give many pause to consider Turkey membership.

5) Gay marriage=bestiality is not an argument, it is an insult. One involves two consenting human adults, the other involves what amounts to potential animal abuse. We can easily distinguish between sex between consenting adults and sex between humans and animals, on the basis of consent alone.

6) If the Catholic church recognizes interfaith marriages, why insist the children be raised in the Catholic faith?

7) What about divorce? If divorce is such a sin and remarriage constitutes a sin, why is there no massive campaign to eliminate divorce?

8) The anti-sodomy law in India is a remnant of the colonial period, and so is not reflective of Hinduism. So you cannot be dismissive simply because the British imposed their will and their "morality" on the subcontinent.

9) China is not the only Buddhist country in the world, and Buddhism is not banned in China. Buddhism flourishes in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, etc. Homosexuality is also legal in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country on the planet, and in Turkey, which you use as evidence of a nation that is not secular.

10) You're a Roman Catholic, but you cannot be dismissive of division within Christianity over homosexuality. Churches are divided over this topic in North America and Europe.

11) You most certainly cannot speak for Judaism. While Orthodox Judaism appears to officially disapprove of homosexuality, the Jewish state is one of the few places in the Middle East that affirms gay relationships, and the Supreme Court is on its way to recognizing gay marriage there, in the heart of the "Holy Land."

I am not going to respond to any slippery slope arguments, so if you come out with a gay marriage=pedophilia/bestiality/prostitution/polygamy/incest/other argument, you can forget it. If you cannot argue against gay marriage because of demonstrable effects OF GAY MARRIAGE ITSELF, then you have no argument.

Sun Jun 11, 04:59:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home